The URL can be used to link to this page

(2.2) 2035 LQ General Plan - Chapter II (11.19.13) - CIRCULATION CIRCULATION II-‐33 CIRCULATION PURPOSE The Circulation Element has been designed to assure the provision of a multi-‐modal transportation system that responds to the full range of transportation needs. The Element takes into account existing and long term regional traffic and transportation infrastructure needs. Its purpose is to correlate with community and regional land use plans to assure a transportation network that moves motorized and non-‐ motorized vehicles, and pedestrians, safely and efficiently through the City and region. Therefore, the Circulation Element must assure that the City’s transportation system ties into the network beyond the city limits. The Circulation Element incorporates regional plans and facilities, and helps assure cost-‐effective and comprehensive transportation management. Thoughtful land planning and a logical and well-‐ conceived hierarchy of local and regional streets will allow the City to balance transportation infrastructure and quality of life. In addition to its close relationship to the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element is also directly tied to the Housing, Air Quality, Noise, Public Infrastructure, and Economic Development Elements, among others. The Livable Community, Flooding and Hydrology, and Parks, Recreation and Trails Elements are also related to, affect and are affected by the Circulation Element. Finally, the General Plan is mandated to address all systems that move people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. To the extent these systems overlap, they are discussed in this Element. The Circulation Element is compliant with California Government Code Section 65302(b), which directs jurisdictions to prepare General Plans that identify existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other local public CIRCULATION II-‐34 utilities and facilities. Recently adopted 65302(b)(2)(A) of the Government Code provides direction on how the Circulation Element shall address the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. As set forth in Government Code Sections 65103(f) and 65080, the City is required to coordinate its Circulation Element provisions with the applicable regional transportation plan. In the General Plan study area these regional agencies include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the SunLine Transit Agency. In addition, federal and state transportation planning must be coordinated with local planning pursuant to Section 134, Title 23 of the U.S. Code and California Government Code Section 65080(a), respectively. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the reduction of pollutants that contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, including vehicular emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified passenger vehicles as the number one emitter of GHG emissions in California and asserts that improved land use and transportation policy are essential to the State meeting AB 32 goals. Air quality and GHG emissions are associated with growing traffic volumes and infrastructure demand. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) builds on the existing regional transportation planning process to connect the reduction of GHG emissions from cars and light trucks to regional land use and infrastructure planning. SB375 requires that all communities establish policies that will reduce the need for traditional automobile travel, and encourage the use of transit and other forms of alternative transportation. Land use patterns and the existing transportation infrastructure play a direct role in the rate and growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). They influence the distance that people travel and the mode of travel they choose. Studies show that even with aggressive state and federal vehicle efficiency standards and the use of alternative fuels, meeting the State’s GHG reduction goals will require a reduction in how much the average Californian drives as well as a change in the type of vehicles we drive. Reducing miles traveled is challenged by H w y 1 1 1 CIRCULATION II-‐35 conventional land use planning. For instance, between 1970 and 2000, California's population grew by about 70 percent, while vehicle miles traveled during that same period grew by 162 percent. State mandates combined with sound community planning can do much to address the transportation-‐related emission of pollutants and GHGs. These include complementary land use planning discussed elsewhere in the Circulation Element and throughout the General Plan. Other steps that can be taken include optimizing the availability and use of non-‐motorized modes of transportation, ultimately encouraging walking and cycling. As the vehicle fleet transitions to alternative fuels and electric vehicles we will also see a reduction in transportation-‐ related emissions. BACKGROUND The movement of people and goods through the City and Coachella Valley can be profoundly affected by whether and how well our communities thrive economically. The La Quinta Circulation Element is a direct outgrowth of existing development, local and regional land use and transportation planning, and data collection and analysis. The Element relies on the modeling of existing and future traffic conditions in the City and the surrounding Coachella Valley region. Constraints and Opportunities The City’s transportation-‐ related constraints and opportunities are roughly equally balanced. The City is the last and most southerly “cove community” in the Coachella Valley, and has evolved along and out from the coves and foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. As a result, a large portion of the City’s population lives in a geographic cul-‐de-‐sac, where there are limited outlets to the more broadly distributed roadway network on the valley floor to the north and east. Yet the City’s original Village continues to serve as a community and area-‐wide draw to resident, visitor and business traffic. Over the past two decades, the City has nearly built out on the northern portions of the corporate limits. Development in the City has continued farther southeast along the mountain foothills and out onto La Quinta Cove Looking South CIRCULATION II-‐36 the adjoining desert floor. Planning efforts southeast of the City, including a portion of its Sphere of Influence, have ranged from continued agricultural uses to planned mixed-‐use communities, with neighborhood and community commercial services planned along Avenue 62 and near Highway 86. Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) The City, CVAG and SCAG have been coordinating the maintenance and updating of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP’s goal is to achieve an integrated and balanced regional transportation system, including mass transit, highways, railroads, bicycle, walking, goods movement, maritime transport, and aviation. The RTP is meant to be action-‐oriented and pragmatic, and to consider both short-‐term and long-‐term issues. The RTP establishes the region’s priorities for funding transportation infrastructure projects and other transportation programs. The RTP Guidelines recommend multimodal transportation network policies and the identification of the financial resources necessary to accommodate such policies. Local and regional transportation planning must also consider opportunities to accelerate programming for projects that retrofit or rehabilitate existing roads to provide safe and convenient travel by all users. Regional planning requires working with CVAG, Riverside County and Valley cities to ensure that the Circulation Element and local street and road standards are coordinated and support the needs of all transportation system users. Land Use Patterns and Transportation Planning The Land Use Element’s existing and future land use patterns shape the demand for transportation services and facilities. Land use efficiencies have a direct effect on how, when and where traffic is generated. Land use efficiencies are affected by densities, diversity and proximity of mixed land uses. The General Plan update reflects development trends in both City and regional land use moving toward a more closely integrated grouping of land uses. This can reduce the need for travel outside the neighborhood by, for example, providing shopping within walking or biking distance of homes. CIRCULATION II-‐37 As the City plans its transportation system through the year 2035, it is assumed that the City will continue to serve as the premier destination golf resort community in the valley. While permanent residents will continue to comprise the majority of community traffic, seasonal traffic volumes can increase by up 30% between late fall and early spring. The transportation issues faced by the City and the Coachella Valley include low occupancy per vehicle, a substantial physical separation between employment and housing in the region, and the established roadway network. As a result, the buildout of the La Quinta planning area and the Coachella Valley could result in even more intractable traffic and transportation challenges. Optimizing Land Use and Transportation Planning According to the FHWA National Household Travel Surveys, on average, 25% of vehicle trips are between home and work, while most of the other 75% are short trips -‐-‐ running errands, picking up the kids and other local trips. With this understanding, the Land Use Element can better reflect the need for proximity of homes to schools, shops and business centers. This proximity of complementary land uses allows more people to walk, bike or use a golf cart or NEV, and reduces demand for roadway capacity. The mandates associated with SB375 require increased vehicle occupancy, mixed-‐use and transit oriented development, and use of mass transit systems. La Quinta may have a natural advantage in facilitating the use of alternative modes of travel, especially golf carts/NEVs. In addition, the high number of service jobs in the community and region should encourage the location of bus stops within a ten-‐minute walk, or easy bicycling distance between residential neighborhoods and employment centers. The City’s neighborhoods can be protected from the impacts from noise, and vehicle emissions can be minimized by shortening or eliminating vehicle trips. Transit-‐Oriented Land Planning Historically, most urban development was centered around mass-‐ transit, starting with ports and harbors, and in the 19th century, Civic Center Bus Stop CIRCULATION II-‐38 railroads. Train stations generated a need for commercial activities such as buses, taxis and car rentals services, hotels, restaurants, shopping, newsstands and convenience services. Today, many transit-‐ oriented developments also incorporate employment centers, such as professional office, entertainment retail and high-‐density housing. Public transit is not currently well utilized in La Quinta or the region. Transit-‐oriented land planning may have limited application in the City in the immediate future, but it is evolving, and future efforts should be made to maximize the accessibility and efficiency of the transit system. Features that make transit systems efficient include short direct routes and minimum time between the point of origin and destination. Frequent buses on a route reduce headway (waits between buses) and thoughtful interconnectivity with other routes increases the efficiency of transfers. The Highway 111 corridor and the “Village” area of the City offer some potential for transit-‐based land use planning. To be effective, higher density residential development should be planned in the vicinity of bus routes. Such housing must also be affordable and appealing to those in the service and retail industries that are more likely to take advantage of transit services. Transit-‐oriented residential development should also be located close to schools and commercial services. Bus stops should be located within a ten-‐minute walk of housing and major employment areas. Major stops should include facilities that allow for park-‐and-‐ride, and the parking of bicycles and golf carts or NEVs. Critical levels of ridership are needed to justify investment in transit-‐ oriented facilities and services. Dispersed, low-‐density development results in fewer riders per route mile, and longer trips from trip origin to destination. Creation of critical ridership is essential to justify the investment needed to provide adequate levels of infrastructure and service. The City and SunLine Transit Agency must strike a balance of riders and destinations, and assure logical and efficient connections through simple and direct routes. Future development in the southeast portion of the planning area will provide important opportunities for the type of integrated mixed-‐use neighborhoods that can take advantage of transit. Neighborhood Transportation Planning The City roadway system, ranging from local streets to major arterials, should be distributed and scaled to address existing and projected demand. At the same time, the street system should be designed to assure that local traffic stays local, and regional travel is efficiently channeled to collectors and arterials. The design of the roadway CIRCULATION II-‐39 network should facilitate arterial use while protecting local neighborhoods from cut-‐through and other non-‐local traffic. This segregation of local and through traffic occurs throughout the City and it’s many gated communities. The use of traffic calming designs, such as narrower road widths, medians, and circuitous routes convenient only to local traffic, will also serve to preserve neighborhoods from undue traffic impacts. Traffic Calming Simply stated, traffic calming is the implementation of design features that slow down traffic and improve safety. Traffic calming is also used to adjust the flow of traffic to levels compatible with surrounding land uses, such as residential neighborhoods, parks, schools and pedestrian-‐ oriented shopping areas. Calming is typically accomplished by imposing constraints on movement and by providing less generous roadway paved sections. Such design features as curvilinear streets, narrow travel lanes and landscaped median islands act to slow down traffic and require greater awareness of the driver. The more generous landscaping resulting from narrower paved streets also improves neighborhood aesthetics. Conflicts can arise between traffic calming efforts and the need to provide adequate access for police, fire and other emergency vehicles. One fundamental requirement is a minimum 20-‐foot clear lane for emergency vehicles along streets or alleys, regardless of whether on-‐ street parking is permitted. Accommodating both traffic calming and adequate emergency vehicle access can be achieved through thoughtful design of the roadway network to shorten segments of narrower streets, the provision of alleys for alternative access, parking restrictions and through other means. Rights-‐of-‐way and pavement widths may be reduced with the provision of other design features that assure adequate emergency vehicle access. Traffic calming devices typically come in two varieties: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal designs include chicanes (weaving patterns), mini-‐ traffic circles, median slow points or chokers, and intersection pop-‐ outs. Vertical devices include road bumps or speed tables, speed bumps and raised crosswalks. The City has developed a Traffic Calming Program1 that describes the conditions, options and practices of traffic calming. In addition to summarizing the regulatory process associated with traffic calming, 1 "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program", prepared by the Department of Public Works. 2008. CIRCULATION II-‐40 the program also provides guidance on technical and management approaches appropriate to a wide range of circumstances. Issues associated with parking, emergency access, utilities and other roadway users are also addressed in the City's traffic calming program. Accommodating Utility Services In addition to moving people and goods, the transportation network also serves as a route for other public infrastructure, including drainage, water and sewer lines, electricity, telephone and cable. These will generally be comparable in scale to the capacity of the roadway, but their installation and maintenance can sometimes conflict with roadway operations, including unsatisfactory closure and re-‐paving of utility trenches, and the manner and efficacy of traffic control. Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS) is the qualitative characterization of the capacity and operation of a segment of roadway or an intersection. For roadway segment travel, LOS is a measure of the flow of traffic, while for intersections the LOS is based on the number of seconds the vehicle is delayed in passing through the intersection. LOS includes a range of alphabetical connotations “A” through “F”, with LOS A representing the best/free-‐flow conditions and LOS F indicating the worst/system failure. Roadway segment and intersection levels of service are represented as volume to capacity ratios, or vehicle demand divided by roadway capacity. Therefore, as the ratio approaches 1.00, or maximum capacity, the roadway approaches LOS F. Additional travel and turning lanes increase capacity, as do the inclusion of raised medians and restricted access on a roadway. Restricted access and raised medians increase roadway capacity by reducing the number of vehicle conflict points and improving traffic flows. Restricted access avoids loss of capacity caused by interruptions and disruptions to traffic flow resulting from vehicles coming onto or leaving the roadway. The various LOS classifications for roadway segments are set forth in the table below. Caution should be used in applying the letter (A through F) delineators to levels of service, which for roadway segments are qualitative rather than quantitative assessments of performance characteristics. While a helpful qualifier of roadway performance, the volume to capacity ratio provides a better quantitative assessment of roadway operating conditions. CIRCULATION II-‐41 Table II-‐6 Level Of Service Description Mid-‐Link and Uninterrupted Flow Level of Quality of Traffic Flow Volume/Capacity Service Ratio A Free flowing, low volumes, high speed; speed not restricted by other vehicles in the traffic stream. 0.00 -‐ 0.60 B Operating speeds and maneuverability in the range of stable flow, but presence by other traffic begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. 0.61 -‐ 0.70 C Operating speeds and maneuverability significantly controlled by other traffic Quality of operations still within the range of stable flow. 0.71 -‐ 0.80 D Tolerable operating speeds, high traffic density but stable flows; often used as design standard in urban areas. At this level, speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. Drivers experience general discomfort and inconvenience. 0.81 -‐ 0.90 E At or near maximum traffic volume a roadway can Accommodate during peak traffic periods. Low speed but uniform traffic density. “Maximum Capacity”. Highly susceptible to breakdowns in flow. 0.91 -‐ 1.00 F System failure; long queues of traffic; unstable flows; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. Not Meaningful Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board -‐ Special Report 209, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 1997. CIRCULATION II-‐42 Flexible Application of LOS Level of Service should not be viewed as the sole determinant of acceptability. There is and will continue to be a need to provide flexibility in determining an acceptable level of service for a given roadway or intersection. Although accepting a lower level of service (LOS E or even F) at certain intersections and segments during peak season may result in periodic congestion, once familiar with network constraints, travelers will seek alternative paths and traffic will be distributed to those parts of the network with surplus capacity. Part of this consideration includes the application of the Complete Streets design philosophy, which is especially relevant to La Quinta. While taking every measure to accommodate vehicular traffic may help move cars and trucks more efficiently through the community, this effort can result in streets that will not safely accommodate pedestrian, cyclists or NEVs. Therefore, the need to move vehicles must be balanced with the need to provide opportunities for other modes of travel. Intersection Analysis Method Intersections represent the most constrained portion of the roadway network. In the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, intersection levels of service were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 operations method. The Highway Capacity Manual expresses the Level of Service at an intersection in terms of delay or waiting time to get through the various intersection approaches. For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle is used to determine the LOS. Intersection LOS is defined quantitatively in the following table. A more detailed discussion of LOS values can be found in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis in the Program EIR Technical Appendices. CIRCULATION II-‐43 Table II-‐7 Intersection Levels of Service 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. >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. CIRCULATION II-‐44 Roadway Capacity Capacity is generally defined as the number of vehicles that may pass over a section of roadway in a given time period under prevailing conditions. Capacities of roadways are most restricted by intersection design and operation, which are discussed further below. Typically, the PM peak hour is the heaviest traffic flow of the day. However, it should be noted that in the planning area the peak daily traffic volumes are spread across a greater time period, rather than the typical AM and PM peak periods. The following table describes the various capacity values assigned for differing roadway sizes and levels of service. Table II-‐8 City Roadway Classifications Level of Service Volumes/Capacity Values (Average Daily Trips – ADT) Facility Type Lane Confi-‐ guration LOS A (60%) LOS B (70%) LOS C (80%) LOS D (90%) LOS E (100%) LOS F Local 2U <5,490 5,490 -‐ 6,390 6,390 -‐ 7,290 7,290 -‐ 8,190 8,190 -‐ 9,000 >9,000 Collector 2U <8,540 8,540 -‐ 9,940 9,940 -‐ 11,340 11,340 -‐ 12,740 12,740 -‐ 14,000 >14,000 Modified Secondary 2D <11,590 11,590 -‐ 13,490 13,490 -‐ 15,390 15,390 -‐ 17,290 17,290 -‐ 19,000 >19,000 Secondary 4U <17,080 17,080 -‐ 19,880 19,880 -‐ 22,680 22,680 -‐ 25,480 25,480 -‐ 28,000 >28,000 Primary 4D <25,560 25,560 -‐ 29,800 29,800 -‐ 34,080 34,080 -‐ 38,340 38,340 -‐ 42,600 >42,600 Major 6D <36,600 36,600 -‐ 42,700 42,700 -‐ 48,800 48,000 -‐ 54,900 54,900 -‐ 61,000 >61,000 Augmented Major 8D <45,600 45,600 -‐ 53,200 53,200 -‐ 60,800 60,800 -‐ 68,400 68,400 -‐ 76,000 >76,000 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-‐13 (June 14, 2012). Will be applied to both tables. Acceptable Levels-‐of-‐Service (LOS) As directed by this General Plan, City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-‐13, mandates that the City strive to maintain the minimum level of service for its intersections at not worse than LOS D. At intersections along roadways contained in the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) System of Highways 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. CIRCULATION II-‐45 Therefore, LOS E operations are considered acceptable at intersections along Highway 111. The County of Riverside Measure A funding guidelines do not specify a minimum level of service. The Circulation Element establishes and directs actions to maintain acceptable levels of service on all community roadways. The City traffic engineers and transportation planners strive to provide optimum roadway operating conditions while controlling the costs of building and maintaining infrastructure to assure those conditions. As traffic volumes on local and Valley roadways have increased, even LOS D has become a standard that is progressively more difficult and costly to achieve. Even with planned roadway improvements set forth in the Circulation Element and the General Plan EIR and associated traffic study, buildout of the City General Plan may not result in all intersections operating at LOS D. Exceedances of the City's LOS D goal are only acceptable where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented. As discussed below, special improvements and management programs and strategies, including the implementation of Complete Streets, will be necessary to assure that future operation of City roads and intersections does not exceed LOS D. Average Daily Traffic Volumes or Vehicles Per Day The total number of vehicles that travel a defined segment of roadway over a twenty-‐four hour period are quantified as Average Daily Trips (ADT) or Vehicles Per Day (VPD). ADT is a useful “benchmark” number for determining various appropriate roadway configurations and design aspects. The peak hour information, which is the highest volume of traffic to pass over a segment of roadway during an hour period, is also a useful means of determining a roadway's capacity and, indirectly, intersection levels of service. Tables and exhibits below provide the average daily volumes for the current (2010) period for the General Plan designated roadways. CIRCULATION II-‐46 Exhibit II-‐2 General Plan Roadway Classifications CIRCULATION II-‐47 Exhibit II-‐3 General Plan Street Cross Sections CIRCULATION II-‐48 The La Quinta Traffic Model City traffic is a consequence of every household, every business, every public and quasi-‐public institution, every service and all the activities associated with each. The traffic model uses standard references, a variety of socio-‐economic data set forth in the RivTAM model and the various land use assignments made to lands within the City and its SOI. Modern roadway networks are designed and analyzed using sophisticated computer models that provide a very mechanical view of what in truth is a very diverse, complex and highly variable system. Data is infrequently and narrowly collected along major roadway segments and at important intersections. These data are supplemented by data collected for the General Plan update. Therefore, traffic modeling is a useful tool for predicting future traffic volumes, but there is substantial potential to affect future trip reduction and enhanced mobility beyond the predictions of the traffic model. The La Quinta traffic model provides a forecast that incorporates Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, a variety of socio-‐ economic data for the La Quinta planning area and the region, enhanced roadway network editing and travel demand modeling capabilities based on land use and other data. In addition to traffic forecasting, the La Quinta traffic model can be applied to other land use plans, including specific plans and development plan analyses. Specifically, the La Quinta traffic model consists of a traditional four step modeling process including (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, (3) mode split (choice), and (4) traffic assignment. To work from a more refined level, the traffic modeling process begins with defining the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) and the roadway network, establishing efficient/logical traffic routes, collecting land use and socio-‐economic data on each TAZ, calculating trip generation in each TAZ, distributing traffic and its assignment to individual road segments. The regional traffic model divides the General Plan planning area into 150 TAZs following CVATS zone boundaries, General Plan land use boundaries, street centerlines and other GIS data, thereby greatly increasing the detail of the analysis. CIRCULATION II-‐49 The model then loads the traffic onto the roadway network, and approximates how actual traffic enters and utilizes the local roadway system. The model also considers a variety of roadway characteristics, including the type of roadway, free-‐flow speeds, and hourly travel per lane. The model distributes the projected volume of traffic that will occur due to the buildout of the General Plan land use plan and factors growth in other areas of the Valley. From this information the design requirements to maintain acceptable traffic flows are determined. Two model scenarios were included in the La Quinta Model, namely the base year 2009 and the forecast year 2035. The structure of the La Quinta Model is a highly detailed, fine-‐grained level of analysis that has been developed in a manner consistent with the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM), which is also the basis for regional transportation planning coordinated by CVAG. A detailed description of the La Quinta Model is provided in the General Plan EIR. Trip Generation Trip generation provides the raw material for traffic modeling. Vehicle trips generated within each TAZ of the modeling area are based on land use data as designated by existing land uses and the General Plan Land Use Element. The total number of vehicle trips produced in or attracted to a geographic area is directly related to the land use and demographic variables found in each TAZ. The model estimates the number of peak season vehicle trips that will be produced on an average weekday for each zone. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Trip distribution and assignment involves providing a general directional distribution of trips and then assigning the trips to specific streets. Typically, this distribution of trips is based on the formula that the distribution of trips is proportional to the “attractiveness” of the land use and the distance (or travel time) from the point of trip production. The end result forecasts of daily traffic volumes yield the aggregate assignment of trips to roadways between and connecting TAZs throughout the City. Transportation System Management An essential part of the Circulation Element and its supporting technical studies is Transportation System Management (TSM). According to the Federal Highway Administration, 5 percent of congestion is due to poorly timed traffic signals. Optimizing signals involves only moderate capital costs but takes dedication of staff time to analyze traffic patterns and develop an optimal timing scheme. The CIRCULATION II-‐50 primary goal of TSM is to improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system by better use of these facilities and by shifting user demand. The Transportation Systems Management process identifies improvements that enhance the operational capacity of the existing system. Better managing and operating of existing transportation facilities will realize improved traffic flow, improved air quality, and more efficient movement of vehicles and goods. TSM strategies are low-‐cost but effective. They include intersection and signal improvements, vehicle detector upgrades, optimized signal timing, systems monitoring and responsive management, facilitating turning and slip lanes, restriping for alternative modes and traffic calming, and effective signage and lighting. TSM includes the ability to monitor, in real time, the traffic and travel conditions on major roadways and to share that information with drivers and system managers to improve the operation of the roadway system. TSM strategies, either individually or as a package of supportive programs, attempt to reduce existing traffic congestion, and increase the person-‐carrying capacity of the transportation system. Other benefits of TSM include improved air quality, conservation of energy resources, reduction of new transportation and parking facility needs, and prolonged life of existing transportation infrastructure. TSM components enhance system accessibility and safety. As a general rule, the development and implementation of TSM strategies cost less than traditional capital projects. To achieve the highest degree of TSM success possible, the City’s planning and implementation of TSM should be coordinated with adjoining cities, the County, CVAG and SCAG. SunLine Transit Agency, developers, and employers should also be consulted on an on-‐going basis. TSM should correlate land use and circulation elements to assure that planned street and highway capacities will adequately accommodate traffic generated by planned land uses. TSM programs that promote flexible hours at places of employment may improve the levels of service of area streets and highways by reducing peak hour flows. The City’s Livable Community, Air Quality and Natural Resources Elements Roadway Volume/Capacity Relationship 2000 1600 1200 800 400 60 45 30 50% 40% Multi- mph mph mph Green Green Phase 2 2 4 Ho u r l y V o l u m e s P e r L a n e CIRCULATION II-‐51 include clean air and energy conservation policies, which may be implemented through TSM programs to reduce and shorten motor vehicle trips, broaden use of alternative travel modes, and thereby reduce air pollution, GHG emissions and energy use. California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) Assembly Bill 1358 was signed into law in 2008 and cites as its purpose: “In order to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking, walking and use of public transit.” Resulting Government Code Section 65302(b)(All-‐2)(A) and (B) requires jurisdictions to substantially revise their Circulation Element so as to assure a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the General Plan, all of which apply to the La Quinta planning area. Ensuring that roads and other facilities provide safe mobility for all travelers, not just motor vehicles, is at the heart of complete streets. The act also states that the Circulation Element addresses a: “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”. Designing Complete Streets Typical elements that make up a complete street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes (or wide, paved shoulders), 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. A complete street in a rural area may provide wider shoulders or a separate multiuse path instead of sidewalks, while a complete street in a more urban/suburban area such CIRCULATION II-‐52 as the Highway 111 corridor may be customized to accommodate more destination-‐oriented needs and expectations of urban travelers. Therefore, rural areas of the City and Sphere may require wide shoulders to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, or equestrian travel. Within the City’s suburban or urban context, street design should accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel with the inclusion of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, along with controlled street crossings. Where there are greater distances between destinations, benches, covered resting areas, and other facilities should be provided that allow for people to successfully walk or ride a bicycle to frequently visited destinations. Adapting Existing Roads for Complete Streets The current transportation network has its origins in the last century. Over time, the roadway network has evolved in a manner largely incremental with urban development. Agricultural facilities (especially canals), inconsistent right-‐of-‐way acquisition and varying roadway standards have resulted in areas with sometimes substantial variability in existing and potential future roadway improvements. Therefore, the melding of existing improvements, constraints and opportunities, and the directives of the Circulation Element require that the City have some flexibility in solving special conditions on a case-‐by-‐case basis. It is also important that the City further consider appropriate policies, standards, implementation measures and plans specifically for those areas. The Circulation Element allows for the modifying of roadway and other transportation plans, as needed, and in most cases without the need for a General Plan Amendment. This allows the City the flexibility of adaptive management, to blend and harmonize various nuances in design and to assure a responsive and well-‐balanced multimodal transportation network. When considering the needs of all users, needs of the community, traffic demand, impacts on alternate routes, impacts on safety, funding feasibility, and maintenance feasibility, relevant laws and regulations should be reviewed and mandates addressed. Funding Complete Streets Federal transportation program and funding focus is now on economic competitiveness, livability, state of repair, and environmental benefits. The federal government, including the FHWA and EPA, is expected to continue to be a source of funding for a Complete Streets program. Other sources are expected to include individual new projects’ street improvements in the future, state funds, local Measure A funds, Developer Impact Fees, bonding and others. CIRCULATION II-‐53 Roundabouts and Other Innovative Designs Roundabouts have been in use for a long time and have evolved into smoother flowing, high capacity roadway systems. Highways and rail lines have been consolidated, multi-‐modal paths have been developed along stormwater channels and areas of public open space, and networks of community bike paths have been woven together to provide area-‐ wide access. Diversifying the La Quinta transportation network and opportunities will enhance mobility and quality of life for residents and visitors. Roundabouts Roundabouts (or rotaries, as they are sometimes called) historically were to be found largely in Europe, especially France and England. In the past two decades roundabouts have made significant in-‐roads into roadway networks in the United States. The City is host to roundabouts at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 and elsewhere, and while this local experiment in innovative intersection design has received mixed reviews, the roundabout has real advantages that may be applicable to other City intersections. Roundabout design is driven by the particulars of driving rules in the US, including driving on the right side of the street. Therefore, vehicles traveling on the modern roundabout in this country do so in a counterclockwise direction and usually around a raised center island. Traffic entering the roundabout yields to traffic already circulating within it and may be directed to an inside or outside lane depending on how far around one needs to travel before exiting the roundabout. While roundabout speeds are relatively low (15 to 20 mph), traffic never stops, so there is a lot of capacity in this type of intersection design if properly utilized. Another advantage of roundabouts is the general avoidance of having to stop traffic for other vehicular traffic. According to the Federal Highway Administration, roundabouts are generally safer than signalized intersections for several reasons. Traffic in modern roundabouts travel at lower speeds when entering and exiting. They have fewer conflicting points than do conventional intersections, and right-‐angle and head-‐on crashes are eliminated. A CIRCULATION II-‐54 four-‐leg (one feeder lane in each direction) roundabout has about 75% fewer conflict points compared to STOP-‐controlled intersections. Roundabouts can also be used as a traffic-‐calming device in areas with low vehicle volumes and higher numbers of pedestrians and bikers, where they may in some cases also have four-‐way stop controls. Generally, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is increased in a roundabout; for instance, pedestrians only need to look in one direction at a time at each approach. While the cost of constructing a roundabout will typically exceed that for a signalized intersection, the annual savings in electricity and operations and maintenance results in a payback within five to seven years. Additional long-‐term savings is realized as long as the roundabout is in service. Roundabouts also contribute to a decrease in pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gases, as a result of little or now stop and go traffic, efficient operating speeds and shortened travel time. Roundabouts can directly contribute to GHG reductions through improved operational efficiencies. Multi-‐Use Paths Multi-‐Use paths are a system of routes that can provide a convenient connection between neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, dog parks and other activity centers. These trails are designed to support a good mix of cyclists, walkers, joggers and skaters. Portions of these trails may also serve equestrian users. Multi-‐use pathways provide opportunities for economic benefit and growth by providing pedestrian and bicycle access to restaurants and other businesses, without the need for additional parking and traffic congestion. In addition, these paths increase property values and tourism and recreation-‐related spending on items such as bicycles, in-‐ line skates and lodging. Property values are also positively affected in communities with a well-‐developed multi-‐use path network enhances health and recreation benefits -‐-‐ according to a 2000 National Association of Home Builders survey of what active adults and older seniors want in their communities, walking and jogging paths ranked #1. The City has had ambitious plans for a network of multi-‐use paths that would connect residences, commercial services and open space areas. The plans for multi-‐use paths have been more finely tailored to enhance alternative access to the City’s activity centers. CIRCULATION II-‐55 All-‐Weather Access Major drainages that affect roadway access both within the City and the planning area include the Whitewater River and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The Whitewater River is the principal drainage affecting all-‐ weather access in the City. Current all-‐weather crossings exist on Washington Street, Eisenhower Drive, Adams Street and Jefferson Street. Dune Palms Drive is currently a low-‐flow crossing. Future all-‐ weather crossings are also planned for the southern extensions of Jefferson Street and Madison Street. All-‐weather access and roadway capacity are also affected by stormwater runoff, which is frequently conveyed by local streets into dedicated surface and sub-‐surface stormwater facilities. Areas of inadequate drainage can result in on-‐road ponding, unsafe conditions, and reduced accessibility and capacity. Roadway Capacity Preservation The construction and maintenance of roads is one of the most expensive public responsibilities. Rights-‐of-‐way for roads also create a substantial demand on limited land and can have adverse, as well as , impacts on adjoining property. Therefore, roadway design, operation and maintenance must be as cost-‐effective as possible. Along major arterial roadways, such as Highway 111, Washington Street, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue, Jefferson Street, Madison Street, Monroe Street and other major roadways, access from adjoining properties should be controlled and limited. In more densely developed areas, limited access and median islands will also improve roadway operation for vehicles and pedestrians. Securing Right of Way The City has generally been able to secure right-‐of-‐way adequate to provide full-‐width segment roadway improvements, and has also been able to secure additional right-‐of-‐way along major arterials designated as Image Corridors, described below. The need for expanded intersection improvements throughout the City in the future, may in some instances require additional right-‐of-‐way be secured to provide for additional through and turning lanes. The greatest demand for additional right-‐of-‐way may be at future critical intersections, where CIRCULATION II-‐56 dual left turn lanes and dedicated right turn lanes would be needed. Please see the General Plan Program EIR for critical intersection design standards and technical information. Pedestrian and Other Non-‐Motorized Users Pedestrian and other non-‐motor circulation is encouraged in the City wherever possible. The provision of sidewalks, bike lanes and off-‐street paths is especially important along major roadways in the community. While sidewalks have been constructed in various parts of the City, in some areas their design and construction has been inconsistent, disjointed and unconnected. In future development, pedestrian safety and accommodation should be given emphasis equal to that currently given to automobile access. Parking and Access Facilities In addition to issues associated with roadway capacity along segments and at intersections, the City’s roadway network can also be affected by the design and location of access drives and on-‐site parking facilities. The newer commercial developments in the City provide safe and efficient access and adequate parking to serve their customers. Some older non-‐residential developments, particularly in the Village area, are limited in their ability to provide sufficient off-‐street parking. Conversely, large commercial developments on Highway 111 have in some cases been designed to accommodate parking needs during the peak season, and have resulted in large expanses of parking which go largely unutilized during the rest of the year. It is essential that new development, as well as projects undergoing redevelopment, be required to provide on-‐site parking adequate to meet the parking demand generated, without providing excessive parking and associated expanses of asphalt. Parking lot ingress and egress must also be thoughtfully controlled and consolidation encouraged to minimize disruption to traffic flow and facilitate the preservation of capacity, while assuring safety. Enhanced access for pedestrians and bicyclists should also be addressed within and along streets and sidewalks surrounding developments. Every opportunity should be taken to encourage integrated, shared and reciprocal parking design and management as a means of better matching parking availability with varying parking demand distributed during the day. CIRCULATION II-‐57 City Image Corridors The scenic resources that can be viewed from the City’s public rights-‐ of-‐way provide some of the most beautiful views in the Coachella Valley and add significantly to the quality of life the community has to offer. The La Quinta viewsheds are part of what gives the City its sense of place, which is both close and intimate, and grand and panoramic. It is also important to note that the City’s scenic resources are varied and diverse, ranging from the intimate coves nestled in the foothills, to the expansive views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. These resources also include the varied streetscapes and the rural areas of the City and its Sphere. Protection of these resources is important to preserving the City’s unique quality of life. Threats to the City’s scenic image corridors include inappropriate and unattractive land uses, unattractive or inadequate landscaping, inadequately buffered parking, excessive or inappropriate signage, high walls and berms that block views, and overhead power lines that degrade views. The protection and enhancement of views along City image corridors is also furthered by securing parkway easements along major roadways. Enhanced parkways better assure viewshed protection and provide expanded access for alternative modes of travel. Parkway easements along image corridors help assure that the traveling public (and adjoining property owners) share in a quality landscaped parkway experience. Recognizing that these Image Corridors create the sense of place in La Quinta, their protection must always be in the forefront of community and transportation design. The City has and shall continue to work to protect and preserve these important community assets that are a major draw to visitors and new residents to the City. Important image corridors, as well as locations where community gateway treatments enhance the local and city-‐wide sense of place, are mapped on Exhibit II-‐4. CIRCULATION II-‐58 Exhibit II-‐4 Image Corridors CIRCULATION II-‐59 Special Planning Areas On an on-‐going basis, the City continues to assess the transportation needs of certain areas of the community, including the Highway 111 corridor and the Village area. Also important are lands in the southeast quadrant of the planning area, where thoughtful and multi-‐ jurisdictional planning is essential to its efficient development. An area-‐ wide goal for this and other relatively undeveloped portions of the planning area should be to optimize land use, assure an adequate, responsive and forward-‐looking transportation system, and optimize the use of multi-‐modal and mass transit facilities. Transportation concepts for these areas are further discussed below. Highway 111 Corridor Historically, Highway 111 dates back to the Native American Cocomaricopa Trail and later the Bradshaw Trail, has long been an important intra-‐regional transportation link. The highway is listed as a Congestion Management Program roadway, as established by the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Today, the segment of the Highway 111 corridor in La Quinta is a typical extended retail corridor providing community and neighborhood commercial services, auto sales, and large and small commercial centers anchored by big box retailers. Along the corridor, residential development is generally located north of the Whitewater River and south of Avenue 47 and Auto Center Drive on the west, and south of the stormwater evacuation channel on the east. Most of the housing north and south of Highway 111 is single family. The La Quinta High School’s location in this area also provides another destination and source of traffic. Long-‐term movement along Highway 111 and the adjoining arterial roadways of Washington Street, Adams Street, Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street is constrained by limitations of right-‐of-‐way and surrounding uses. Therefore, every effort must be made to gain as much efficiency as possible along Highway 111 to assure that this vital link continues to operate at acceptable levels of service. Long-‐term accessibility to local businesses is essential if they are to thrive. Transportation Centers Further consideration should be given to improvements on Highway 111 and adjoining corridors that shift travel from private cars and trucks to alternative modes, including public transit, golf carts, ride-‐sharing, car-‐ sharing, bicycling, bicycle-‐sharing, and walking. The City should consider the establishment of transportation centers that are multi-‐ modal and allow transportation modes to intersect. They should be conveniently sited, and in consideration of the surrounding high CIRCULATION II-‐60 capacity roadways, major pedestrian generators and intersecting transit routes the following prospective locations are recommended for consideration: Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive/Via Sevilla Miles Avenue /Adams Street Adams Street/Hwy 111/Avenue 47 Avenue 47/Caleo Bay Drive Washington Street/Calle Tampico Eisenhower Drive/Avenida Montezuma The City shall also continue to explore expanding SunLine bus routes and services, including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Highway 111 and Harrison Avenue. Sunline services are further discussed below under the heading Sunline and Public Transportation. Additional accessibility will also be created by expanding the City golf cart/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) and bicycle routes to connect residential and activity centers. Village at La Quinta The Village area of La Quinta is one of the oldest parts of the community, with homes dating back to the 1920s. Recent development has invigorated the “village” feel and strengthened the character of the neighborhood. The village environment is also supported by the civic center facilities (City Hall, Senior Center, Library) on the east, and parklands (La Quinta Community Park) on the west. The area is primarily served by Calle Tampico, Avenue 52, Washington Street, and Eisenhower Drive. The Village is located at the lower portion of the La Quinta Cove, and the area must accommodate a high volume and wide array of traffic. The area is also a venue for special events, including the La Quinta Arts Festival. These events can rapidly consume parking and congest the streets with tourists unfamiliar with the area. A variety of strategic plans should be developed to enhance Village access via bike and golf cart/NEV, as well as by pedestrians living in the area. The Village area is especially well suited to serve those wanting pedestrian and multi-‐ modal access, having a wide mix of residential opportunities, hotels, restaurants, galleries and CIRCULATION II-‐61 other commercial services for the neighborhood and visitors. City parks and open space are also a major attraction in the village area. Its proximity to major resorts, including the La Quinta Hotel and Silver Rock Resort, adds to the synergistic mix of land uses in this area, as does its accessibility by walking, bicycling, and golf cart/NEV. Land uses and planning that emphasize the pedestrian scale of the Village area are further discussed in the Land Use Element. Truck Routes The City of La Quinta and its Sphere host numerous major roadways that provide intercity connectivity, as well as access to major developments in the community. The City has identified comprehensive truck routes that facilitate deliveries of goods, as well as construction materials and other heavy loads. Primary truck traffic occurs on Highway 111 and Washington Street, but there are numerous other roadways where truck access is also important. City truck routes, including those with weight restrictions, are shown on Exhibit II-‐5. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The General Plan recognizes the need to optimize pedestrian, bicycle, golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and other transportation vehicles throughout the planning area. Although no explicit provision has been made for equestrian riders, the standards to be applied to the development of multi-‐use paths, as discussed below, will accommodate equestrian use. As discussed throughout the General Plan, land use planning is geared to achieve a synergy that optimizes golf cart/NEV and other non-‐ vehicular access to commercial services, schools, daycare, employment centers, and parks, community recreation facilities and open space areas. Bike paths and multi-‐use path systems are also an increasingly important community asset to homebuyers, including families and retirees. Attractive multi-‐use paths are also an important part of the streetscape and its function as a key aesthetic feature of the community, providing opportunities for biking, roller-‐blading and other recreational activities. CIRCULATION II-‐62 Exhibit II-‐5 Designated Truck and Weight Restricted Routes CIRCULATION II-‐63 Bike Lanes and Facilities Bicycle-‐ways, bike lanes and other bike routes not only provide a quick and convenient alternate form of transportation, they also reduce air and noise pollution attributed to motor vehicle use and encourage healthy living. An extensive and safe bikeway system should be considered an integral part of any community circulation system, and especially so for a resort residential community where such activities are an integral part of the resort and vacation experience. Incentives for bicycle use, such as a reduction in required parking spaces in exchange for the placement of bicycle racks, are becoming more common, as traffic and pollution levels continue to increase, and shall be an integral part of the General Plan and development-‐specific approvals. Currently, the City has a growing system of sidewalks, bicycle lanes and multi-‐use paths. Carefully thought out and planned expansion of these alternative transportation corridors serving pedestrians and bicyclers will enhance and give greater opportunity to the use of various alternative modes of transportation. Bike routes should be clearly marked and striped and should be designed as one-‐way bike routes to flow in the same direction as the adjacent automobile traffic. Also please see the Parks, Recreation and Trails Element. CIRCULATION II-‐64 Exhibit II-‐6 Bike Paths Master Plan CIRCULATION II-‐65 Golf Cart/NEV Route System As part of the overall evaluation and planning of the City circulation system, the General Plan identifies pathways along existing and future roadways connecting residential, recreational, commercial and other community amenities. As with on-‐street bike paths, golf cart/NEV path safety is of the utmost importance. Expanded golf cart and NEV usage can provide an enjoyable, convenient, economical and safe alternative to conventional automobile use. Golf carts and NEVs that share the road with automobiles have little effect on traffic speeds and may, in fact, serve to calm traffic. Bicyclists sharing the on-‐pavement path with golf carts and NEVs need to be made aware of their presence to optimize their compatibility. Golf cart registration is not required if operated on a roadway within one mile of a golf course, and designated for such use by ordinance or resolution. 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. State law requires that golf carts for street use other than as described above be licensed. They are limited to routes posted at 35 mph or slower, although golf carts may be permitted on higher speed roadways with approval of appropriate engineering analysis. NEVs operate at top speeds of 20 to 25 MPH, are classified as motor vehicles and require registration, insurance, and a valid California driver license to operate. NEVs can travel on streets posted more than 35 miles per hour if an NEV lane is provided. Assuming a posted maximum speed limit of 45 MPH and a design speed of 55 MPH, golf carts and NEVs could be operated on most City streets with NEV lanes. Approved golf cart and NEV routes are shown on the Golf Cart and NEV Routes exhibit. The City sets minimum design criteria, signage, and golf cart and operator requirements. (See Exhibit II-‐7 & Exhibit II-‐8: Golf Cart and NEV Routes). Electric Vehicle Charging Stations The first “opportunity charging stations” were simple 110v plugs in a basic configuration. These stations, along with designated parking spaces, were often placed in out-‐of-‐the-‐way places away from store entrances. As the use of golf carts and NEVs has grown and retailers CIRCULATION II-‐66 have learned to understand the benefits of catering to this commuter, parking space location and charging station design have evolved. Today, spaces are more prominently located and the charging stations have been adapted to accommodate golf carts, NEV, and full-‐size electric and plug-‐in hybrids, they also reflect greater design aesthetic. These low cost charging stations should be included in conditions of approval for new development and redevelopment where use of NEVs and other electric vehicles is expected. CIRCULATION II-‐67 Exhibit II-‐7 Golf Cart/NEV/Multi-‐Use Paths (A) CIRCULATION II-‐68 Exhibit II-‐8 Golf Cart/NEV/Multi-‐Use Paths (B) CIRCULATION II-‐69 Types of Trails There are generally two types of trails that are applicable to a General Plan trail system: urban trails and open space trails. Urban trails, principally sidewalks and multi-‐use paths along roadways, are expected to serve as the most widely distributed system of alternative transportation routes through the community, linking residential neighborhoods with central areas of the community. While open space trails will function as an access to natural and scenic resource areas, it is expected that they will generally be used for jogging, hiking, horseback riding and bike riding. Both types of paths will utilize appropriate signage for directional guidance, and consist of suitable designs and materials. Consideration must also be given for the provision of shade, especially during the summer months. Together, urban and open space trails and paths create a multi-‐use path system that can accommodate all types of users, and provide access to a variety of areas. Multi-‐Use Path Design It is the intent of the Circulation Element that multi-‐use paths provide pedestrian, bicycle and NEV travel ways that are separated from automobile traffic. Path crossings must be safe for all users, and should also provide convenient connections to the City’s street network. In general, path crossings should be treated just like other intersection types, oriented at 90 degree angles whenever possible, ensuring safety for all trail and road users. In addition to typical intersection lighting, signage, and traffic control features, trail crossings should include design features that warn both path and roadway users of the crossing. Restricting parking near path crossings, as at typical intersections, enhances sight distance. The speed that various types of cyclists can be expected to maintain under various conditions can also influence the design of facilities such as shared use paths. Compatibility of other users with cyclists is also an important consideration. Some of the elements that enhance off-‐street path design include the following: Sidewalk and Multi-‐Use Path CIRCULATION II-‐70 frequent access points from the local road network. If access points are spaced too far apart, users may have to travel out of their way to enter or exit the path, which can discourage use wayfinding signs that direct users to and from the path and major roadway crossings appropriate pavement load thresholds to allow heavy maintenance equipment to use the path without causing damage intersection designs that alert motorists to the presence of cyclists, and that alert cyclists to the presence of motor vehicles security measures separate pedestrian paths to reduce conflicts with bicycles landscape designs to accommodate bicycles and discourage loitering SunLine Transit Agency and Public Transportation The provider of public transit service within La Quinta and the Coachella Valley is the SunLine Transit Agency, which was created in 1977 and has since evolved to provide a wide range of public transit services. The periodically updated Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), last conducted in 2005/06, thoroughly examines and analyzes existing transit service and offered recommendations for future service improvements in the City and valley. In addition to SunLine’s fleet of new buses powered by compressed natural gas and other clean-‐burning fuels, SunLine is also integrating other innovative technologies and fuels into the local public transit system. In 2002 SunLine introduced a bus powered entirely by zero-‐ emission fuel cell technology. Local Bus Service The City and Sphere of Influence are directly served by two bus routes, Line 111 and Line 70. Line 111, runs along Highway 111 from Indio to Palm Springs and is a main trunk line in the SunLine system. Line 70 extends from the south end of the La Quinta Cove, north to and east along CIRCULATION II-‐71 Avenue 47, then north along Adams Street where it turns west to Washington Street and north to Country Club Drive. Supplemental SunLine Services The SunDial is a valley-‐wide, ADA-‐compliant service providing curb-‐to-‐ curb next day service that is wheelchair accessible. Sunline is putting into service a new "Riverside Commuter Express Route 210" service that will run between Palm Desert and Riverside. This service will be an expansion of the existing RTA CommuterLink Route 210 service between Banning and Riverside, with local stops to include Thousand Palms/I-‐10 area, Cabazon and other communities to the west. SunLine Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route SunLine has been developing the bus rapid transit or BRT concept for application in the Coachella Valley. The purpose of the BRT is to provide express service between major destinations, with a limited number of strategically selected stops along the route to limit travel time. The BRT route may also provide opportunities for the development of transit-‐oriented mixed-‐use development, especially along Highway 111 where the use of a BRT system might be best utilized by local residents and employees. Areas of adequately intense development will constitute a potential market for this type of mass transit system. The City shall continue to coordinate with SunLine to assure optimum bus and other mass transit services. Other Bus Services Amtrak California's Thruway Bus Service Route 19b recently established a stop in La Quinta on Hwy 111, connecting to train stations in San Bernardino and Bakersfield. The bus stop is located at 78998 Highway 111 in La Quinta [in front of Target (East Bound) and Eisenhower Urgent Care (West Bound).] Route 19B also stops at the Palm Springs Airport and originates from the Indio bus terminal. CIRCULATION II-‐72 Air Transportation La Quinta and the Coachella Valley region are served by three airports, each of which is briefly described below: Palm Springs International Airport Palm Springs International Airport is located west of Gene Autry Trail and north of Ramon Road in the City of Palm Springs, and is the primary air transportation link for the Coachella Valley. The airport is classified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a long-‐haul commercial service airport. It is capable of supporting non-‐ stop commercial service to destinations over 1,500 miles away, and is classified as a small hub air passenger airport based upon the percentage of national airline enplanements it supports. Airport enplanements are projected to reach approximately 809,256 by the year 2015 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is located immediately east of the City’s Sphere of influence, on the east side of Harrison Street, between Avenue 56 (Airport Boulevard) and Avenue 62. Annual aircraft operations at Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport were estimated at 65,000 in 2002, none of which were of a commercial nature. The airport's master plan projects this activity to reach some 110,000 operations by 2022 and to continue to grow along with the urbanization of the Coachella Valley. While commercial passenger services are anticipated there is no projected date when these might be offered. Bermuda Dunes Airport Bermuda Dunes Airport is a General Aviation Airport located on 100± acres adjacent and parallel to the Union Pacific Railroad/ Interstate-‐10 corridor, approximately three miles north of the City limits. The airport is bounded on the north by Country Club Drive, on the south by Avenue 42, on the west by Adams Street and on the east by Jefferson Street. A total of approximately 25,332 operations occur at this airport, of which about 6.6% are business jets. The expansion of facilities at this airport is essentially precluded by surrounding development. Annual maximum capacity is estimated at 75,000 operations per year. Railway Facilities Rail lines of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) are located north and east of the La Quinta planning area. Rail freight service is provided to the Coachella Valley by the Union Pacific Railroad (former SPRR), with freight transfer facilities located in Indio and Coachella. There is also Amtrak service to Indio and Palm Springs. These rail facilities carry CIRCULATION II-‐73 approximately 40 trains per day, almost all of which are freight. The County and local jurisdictions are exploring possible future access to Union Pacific Rail lines for future passenger and freight service access. LA QUINTA TODAY: CURRENT CONDITIONS For many decades and especially over the last 30-‐years, the La Quinta roadway network has been driven by geography, land use decisions and the makeup of the City and Coachella Valley economies. Overall land use densities in the Coachella Valley are not very high, and therefore our communities are more spread out. We are also highly dependent upon the automobile and with low rates of occupancy. Regional Roadways Regional roadways are those that provide intra-‐valley and super regional connections. These include State Highways 111 and 86, and U.S. Interstate-‐10. State Highway 111 begins at its juncture with Interstate-‐10 three miles west of Palm Springs and extends southeast to Brawley in the Imperial Valley. Highway 86 connects the planning area and other parts of the Coachella Valley with Imperial County and Mexico. Interstate-‐10 connects the Los Angeles region with Arizona and other cities and states to the east. Together, these important roadways provide regional, interstate and international connections for the City and the Coachella Valley. Each of these regional facilities is briefly discussed below. Highway 111 Highway 111 has become an intra-‐regional connector serving local cities. Some through-‐traffic appears to have moved north to I-‐10, in response to congestion along Highway 111. In the City, this roadway has already been improved to its ultimate six-‐lanes divided design standard. Highway 111 serves a wide mix of commercial land uses. Current traffic volumes range from 29,726 to more than 38,000 vehicles per day (VPD). SunLine bus service is available along its length and this roadway serves as a designated truck route. Highway 86S Expressway Highway 86S is a semi-‐limited access expressway and an intra-‐regional arterial highway providing access to Avenue 62 in the southeastern portion of the City. Highway 86S is a northwest-‐southeast trending expressway designated as a “Freeway” in the County of Riverside General Plan, with a variable right-‐of-‐way. In the vicinity of the planning area, Highway 86S has been improved as a four-‐lane high volume roadway with a wide median island. Current (2007) traffic volumes CIRCULATION II-‐74 range from 14,000 to more than 27,500 vehicles per day (VPD). Due to high future volumes, the current at-‐grade intersection of SR-‐86 and Avenue 62 has been planned for expansion to provide a grade-‐ separated facility utilizing a partial cloverleaf design. U.S. Interstate-‐10 Interstate-‐10 is currently built as a six to eight-‐lane divided freeway accessed from both loop and diamond interchanges spaced a minimum of one mile apart. I-‐10 provides essential inter-‐city and inter-‐regional access and is also a critical part of the local road network moving people and goods into and out of the Valley. Current (2007) traffic volumes average 81,000 vehicles per day (VPD) in the vicinity of Washington Street. Direct City access to I-‐10 is currently provided through interchanges with Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Local Major Roadways The City has developed and maintains an extensive arterial roadway network, which, in addition to the regional facilities serving the community, also serves both local and inter-‐city traffic. The City road network has been built essentially along a north-‐south grid, with interconnections with major arterials passing through adjacent jurisdictions. Washington Street Washington Street, oriented in a north-‐south direction, consists of three lanes in each direction, and is classified as a Major Arterial. Current traffic volumes range from approximately 23,000 to more than 40,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Washington Street provides access to Highway 111 and to I-‐10 north of the City limits. Intersections with Washington Street are currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) C or better, with the exception of its intersection with Highway 111 (LOS D in 2010). Roadway segments operate at LOS C or better. Washington Street provides all-‐weather crossings at the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River) and the La Quinta Stormwater Evacuation Channel. Bicycles are accommodated and SunLine bus service is also available along the majority of its length. Eisenhower Drive 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. Eisenhower Drive provides an all-‐ weather at the La Quinta Stormwater Evacuation Channel. Current traffic volumes range from 10,000 to 12,000 VPD. Intersections with CIRCULATION II-‐75 Eisenhower Drive are operating at LOS C or better and roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles and golf carts are accommodated on portions of Eisenhower. Avenida Bermudas Avenida Bermudas is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of two lanes in each direction, extending from Calle Tampico on the north to the top of the Cove on the south. This roadway is classified as a Secondary Arterial with traffic volumes ranging from 3,400 to 9,200 VPD. Avenida Bermudas provides a variable paved section ranging from four lanes in the Village area to two lanes near the top of the cove. The intersections of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico is operating at LOS C or better and roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles and buses are accommodated. Calle Tampico Calle Tampico, oriented in an east-‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction west of Washington Street and one lane in each direction east of Washington Street, and is classified as a Primary Arterial west of Washington Street. East of Washington Street, Calle Tampico is classified as a Collector Street. Current traffic volumes range from 5,300 VPD west of Avenida Bermudas and about 10,000 VPD west of Washington Street. Its intersections all currently operate at LOS C and roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles, golf carts and buses are accommodated. Adams Street Adams Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of two lanes in each direction except north of Fred Waring Drive where it is currently one lane in each direction. It is classified as a Secondary Arterial and has been built as a Primary Arterial between Highway 111 and Avenue 48, with traffic volumes ranging from 12,000 to 14,000 VPD. Its intersections all currently operate at LOS C and roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles and buses are accommodated. A bridge to Carry Adams Street over the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River) is about to begin construction (2012). Dune Palms Road Dune Palms Road is oriented in a north-‐south direction and 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. Current traffic volumes range from 10,000 to 12,000 VPD. Intersections CIRCULATION II-‐76 with Dune Palms Road are operating at LOS C and roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. There is an at-‐grade crossing of the Whitewater River with long-‐term plans for at least a low-‐flow crossing at this location. Jefferson Street Jefferson Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of three lanes in each direction. It 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, southern parts of the City, and to I-‐10 north of the City limits. Current traffic volumes range from 12,000 to 27,000 VPD. Intersections with Jefferson Street are operating at LOS C or better; the roundabout at Avenue 52 is operating at LOS A. Roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. There are two all-‐weather crossings of major drainages in the planning area, including one just south of Highway 111 over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and one over the Whitewater River north of Highway 111. An additional all-‐weather crossing of the Dike 2 stormwater protection levee is planned south of Avenue 58. Madison Street Madison Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of one lane in each direction between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 and four lanes in each direction between Avenue 52 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. Current traffic volumes range from 3,300 to 9,200 VPD. Most intersections with Madison Street are operating at LOS A or B, with its intersection with Avenue 50 operating at LOS C in the AM and D in the PM peak hours. Roadway segments operate at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. An all-‐weather crossing of the Dike 4 stormwater protection levee is planned north of Avenue 62. Monroe Street Monroe Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of one lane in each direction. It is classified as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 52 and Avenue 60 and as a Secondary Arterial between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. Monroe Street provides access to State Highway 111 and to I-‐10 north of the City limits. Current traffic volumes range from 2,500 to 3,100 VPD. Intersections with Monroe Street are operating at LOS B or better, with roadway segments operating at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. CIRCULATION II-‐77 Jackson Street Jackson Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of one lane in each direction. It is classified as a Primary Arterial. Jackson Street is located in the City’s Sphere of Influence and provides access to State Highway 111 and to I-‐10 north of the City limits. Current traffic volumes range from 1,700 to 3,300 VPD. In the planning area, intersections with Jackson Street operate at LOS B or better, with roadway segments operating at a LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. Van Buren Street Van Buren Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of one lane in each direction. It 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 Sphere of Influence. In the planning area, intersections with Van Buren Street operate at LOS B or better, with roadway segments operating at a LOS A. No alternative modes of travel are accommodated. Harrison Street Harrison Street is oriented in a north-‐south direction and consists of one lane in each direction. It is classified as a Major Arterial. Harrison Street is located in the City’s Sphere of Influence. In the planning area, intersections with Jackson Street operate at LOS B or better, with roadway segments operating at a LOS A. No alternative modes of travel are accommodated. Fred Waring Drive Fred Waring Drive (Avenue 44) is oriented in an east-‐west direction and consists of three lanes in each direction between Washington Street and Adams St and between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson Street. Between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, Fred Waring Drive consists of two lanes in both directions. Fred Waring Drive is classified as a Primary Arterial. Current traffic volumes range at approximately 24,500 VPD. Intersections with Fred Waring Drive are operating at LOS C, with roadway segments operating at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated on this roadway. Miles Avenue Miles Avenue is oriented in an east-‐west direction and consists of two lanes in each direction. It is classified as a Primary Arterial. Current traffic volumes between Washington Street and Adams Street are approximately 24,500 VPD. Intersections with Miles Avenue are currently operating at LOS C, with roadway segments operating at LOS A. Bicycles and a bus route are accommodated. CIRCULATION II-‐78 Avenue 48 Avenue 48, oriented in an east-‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified as a Primary Arterial. Current traffic volumes between Washington Street and Madison Street range from 9,600 VPD east of Jefferson Street, to about 18,400 VPH east of Dune Palms Road. Intersections with Avenue 48 are currently operating at LOS C, with roadway segments operating at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. Avenue 50 Avenue 50, oriented in an east-‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified as a Primary Arterial. Current traffic volumes between Washington Street and Madison Street average 9,800 VPD. Intersections with Avenue 48 are currently operating at LOS C, with the exception of the Avenue 50 intersection with Washington Street, which is operating at LOS D. Roadway segments are operating at LOS A. Bicycles are accommodated. Avenue 52 Avenue 52 is oriented in an east-‐west direction and 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 Sphere of Influence. Current traffic volumes range from 7,200 VPD west of Monroe Street to about 16,100 VPD west of Washington Street. Intersections with Avenue 52 are currently operating at LOS C or better, with the exception of the Avenue 52 intersection with Avenida Bermudas, which is operating at LOS D. Roadway segments are operating at LOS A. Bicycles, golf carts and buses are accommodated. Avenue 54 Avenue 54 is an east-‐west street consisting of two lanes in each direction between Jefferson Street to east of Monroe Street. East of Monroe Street, Avenue 54 is a variable roadway with two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane. East of Monroe Street, Jefferson Street provides one lane in each direction. Avenue 54 is classified as a Primary Arterial between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street and is classified as a Secondary roadway between Monroe Street and Van Buren Street. Current traffic volumes are 7,200 VPD between Jefferson and Madison Streets. Intersections with Avenue 52 are currently operating at LOS C or better, with the exception of the Avenue 52 intersection with CIRCULATION II-‐79 Avenida Bermudas, which is operating at LOS D. Roadway segments are operating at LOS A. Bicycles, golf carts and buses are accommodated. Avenue 56 (Airport Boulevard) Airport Boulevard or Avenue 56 is an east-‐west street extending east of Madison Street, and consisting of two lanes in each direction between Jefferson Street Monroe Street. East of Monroe Street, Avenue 56 is a two-‐lane roadway. Avenue 56 is classified as a Primary Arterial. Current traffic volumes are 1,900 VPD east of Madison Street. Intersections are currently operating at LOS C or better, with the exception of the Avenue 52 intersection with Avenida Bermudas, which is operating at LOS D. Roadway segments are operating at LOS A. Bicycles, golf carts and buses are accommodated on the fully improved segment of this roadway. Avenue 60 Avenue 60 is an east-‐west street extending from the US Bureau of Reclamation Dike 4, eastward to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Local two lane segments also occur between the stormwater channel and the Highway 111/86S Expressway corridor, east of which it continues as a local street serving primarily agriculture. Avenue 60 is designated as a Secondary roadway from Madison Street on the west to Monroe Street, east of which it is classified as a Primary Arterial. Avenue 60 is currently improved as a two-‐lane roadway, except between Madison Street and Monroe Street where it provides one eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, median islands and turn lanes. Current traffic volumes are 3,000 VPD east of Madison Street and 1,500 east of Monroe Street. Avenue 62 Much of the southern boundary of the General Plan planning area is east-‐west running Avenue 62, which is partially improved from USBR Dike No. 4 eastward to the east end of the valley, crossing the stormwater channel, as well as Highway 111 and the 86S Expressway. Avenue 62 is classified as a Modified Secondary west of Monroe Street (extended), and is classified a Secondary east of Monroe Street. Between Madison Street and Monroe, Avenue 62 is planned to have a 74 foot right of way. Current traffic volumes are 1,000 VPD west of Monroe Street and ranging from 500 to 800 VPD east of Monroe Street. CIRCULATION II-‐80 Existing Traffic Conditions The existing traffic conditions in the City provide a baseline for the analysis of the impacts associated with the implementation and buildout of the Land Use Map. The analysis of existing and future conditions examines in detail thirty-‐seven (37) intersections and sixty-‐ four (64) roadway segments both in the corporate limits and the Sphere of Influence. The period of January through March is considered the peak season in terms of traffic volumes in the City of La Quinta. Existing and future traffic conditions have been analyzed on the basis of this peak season. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions A level of service analysis was conducted in 2011 to evaluate existing intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours based on data collected on intersection volumes at these locations. Table II-‐9 describes current operating conditions. Based upon the analysis conducted, all but four of the 37 study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better. The intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 operates at LOS D but very near LOS C during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, this intersection operates at a slightly worse delay but remains at LOS D. The intersections of Washington Street/Avenue 50 and Avenida Bermudas/Avenue 52 both operate at LOS D and very near LOS C, during the AM peak hour. The intersection of Madison Street/Avenue 50 operates at LOS D during only the PM peak hour. In summary, all study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). CIRCULATION II-‐81 Table II-‐9 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Peak Hour/Peak Season Level of Service 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 D 37.7 0.851 C 29.4 0.644 8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal C 24.7 0.442 C 25.4 0.406 9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal C 23.2 0.496 C 25.5 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 32.2 0.622 C 30.2 0.503 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 Signal C 30.8 0.561 C 31.4 0.590 CIRCULATION II-‐82 Table II-‐9 (cont’d) Existing Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Peak Hour/Peak Season Level of Service Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (Sec) V/C LOS Delay (Sec) V/C 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 32.9 0.574 C 34.4 0.568 26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Round-‐ about 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 CIRCULATION II-‐83 Existing Roadway Segment Operating Conditions Key roadway segments have also been analysed as part of the General Plan update. The existing roadway segment average daily volume-‐to-‐ capacity ratio and level of service analysis results are presented in Table II-‐10, below. Table II-‐10 Existing Average Daily Traffic Peak Hour/Peak Season Roadway Segment Level of Service Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway Designation Exist. # of Lanes Existing Capacity Existing V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Washington St Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr 37,426 Major 6 59,300 0.66 – B Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 40,633 Major 6 59,300 0.71 – C Miles Ave to Hwy 111 32,915 Major 6 59,300 0.58 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 36,710 Major 6 59,300 0.64 – B Ave 48 to Eisenhower Dr 33,465 Major 6 59,300 0.59 – A Eisenhower Dr to 600’ north of Ave 50 27,129 Major 6 59,300 0.48 – A 600’ north of Ave 50 to Ave 50 27,129 Major 5 47,500* 0.57 – A Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 23,434 Major 6 59,300 0.41 – A Eisenhower Dr Washington St to Ave 50 12,0131 Primary 4 41,400 0.32 – A Avenue 50 to Calle Tampico 9,9751 Primary 4 41,400 0.26 – A Avenida Bermudas Calle Tampico to Ave 52 3,3881 Secondary 4 28,000 0.12 – A Ave 52 to Calle Durango 9,2751 Secondary 4 28,000 0.33 – A Adams St Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 13,724 Secondary 4 41,400 0.36 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 12,035 Secondary 4 41,400 0.32 – A Dune Palms Rd Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 9,282 Secondary 2 19,000 0.49 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 8,373 Secondary 4 41,400 0.22 – A CIRCULATION II-‐84 Table II-‐10 (cont’d) Existing Average Daily Traffic Peak Hour/Peak Season Roadway Segment Level of Service Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway Designation Exist. # of Lanes Existing Capacity Existing V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Jefferson St Country Club Rd to Fred Waring Dr 20,913 Major 6 59,300 0.35 – A Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 23,764 Major 6 59,300 0.40 – A Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 27,112 Major 6 59,300 0.46 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 26,889 Major 6 59,300 0.45 – A Ave 48 to Ave 50 27,133 Major 6 59,300 0.46 – A Ave 50 to Ave 52 16,169 Major 6 59,300 0.27 – A Ave 52 to Ave 54 12,399 Major 6 59,300 0.21 – A Madison St Ave 50 to Ave 52 5,664 Primary 2 14,000 0.40 – A Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 9,219 Primary 4 41,400 0.22 – A Airport Blvd to Ave 58 6,348 Primary 4 41,400 0.15 – A Ave 58 to Ave 60 3,341 Secondary 4 41,400 0.08 – A Monroe St Ave 52 to Ave 54 3,147 Primary 2 14,000 0.22 – A Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 2,532 Primary 2 14,000 0.18 – A Jackson St Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 3,338 Primary 2 14,000 0.24 – A Airport Blvd to Ave 58 2,326 Primary 2 14,000 0.17 – A Ave 58 to Ave 60 1,734 Primary 2 14,000 0.12 – A Ave 60 to Ave 62 1,569 Primary 2 14,000 0.11 – A Van Buren St Ave 52 to Ave 54 4,663 Primary 2 14,000 0.33 – A Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 3,346 Primary 2 14,000 0.24 – A Airport Blvd to Ave 58 1,472 Primary 2 14,000 0.11 – A Ave 58 to Ave 60 1,176 Primary 2 14,000 0.08 – A Ave 60 to Ave 62 1,017 Secondary 2 14,000 0.07 – A Harrison St Airport Blvd to Ave 58 6,690 Major 2 14,000 0.48 – A Fred Waring Dr (Ave 44) Washington St to Adams St 24,492 Primary 6 59,300 0.41 – A CIRCULATION II-‐85 Table II-‐10 (cont’d) Existing Average Daily Traffic Peak Hour/Peak Season Roadway Segment Level of Service Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway Designation Exist. # of Lanes Existing Capacity Existing V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Miles Ave Washington St to Adams St 9,828 Primary 4 41,400 0.24 – A Hwy 111 Washington St to Adams St 29,726 Major 6 59,300 0.50 – A Adams St to Dune Palms Rd 31,348 Major 6 59,300 0.53 – A Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 38,037 Major 6 59,300 0.64 – B Ave 48 Washington St to Adams St 12,903 Primary 4 41,400 0.31 – A Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 18,364 Primary 4 41,400 0.44 – A Ave 50 Washington St to Jefferson St 9,663 Primary 4 41,400 0.23 – A Jefferson St to Madison St 9,990 Primary 4 41,400 0.24 – A Calle Tampico Eisenhower Dr to Avenida Bermudas 5,3501 Primary 41,400 0.13 – A Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 10,0631 Primary 41,400 0.24 – A Ave 52 Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 16,133 Primary 4 41,400 0.39 – A Washington St to Jefferson St 13,529 Primary 4 41,400 0.33 – A Jefferson St to Madison St 10,306 Primary 2 19,000 0.54 – A Madison St to Monroe St 7,238 Primary 2 19,000 0.38 – A Ave 54 Jefferson St to Madison St 8,386 Primary 4 41,400 0.20 – A Airport Blvd Madison St to Monroe St 1,893 Primary 4 41,400 0.05 – A CIRCULATION II-‐86 Table II-‐10 (cont’d) Existing Average Daily Traffic Peak Hour/Peak Season Roadway Segment Level of Service Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway Designation Exist. # of Lanes Existing Capacity Existing V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Ave 58 Madison St to Monroe St 2,188 Secondary 4 41,400 0.05 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 1,554 Secondary 2 14,000 0.11 – A Ave 60 Madison St to Monroe St 3,067 Secondary 2 19,000 0.16 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 855 Primary 2 14,000 0.06 – A Ave 62 Madison St to Monroe St 1,0251 Modified Collector 2 14,000 0.07 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 804 Secondary 2 14,000 0.06 – A Jackson St to Van Buren St 557 Secondary 2 14,000 0.04 – A Van Buren St to Harrison St 866 Secondary 2 14,000 0.06 – A All but four of the roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at LOS A. Three segments (Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr., Hwy 111 to Ave 48, and Dune Palms Rd. to Jefferson St.) are operating at LOS B. One segment (Fred Waring Dr. to Miles Ave.) is operating at LOS C. All analyzed roadway segments are operating well within the acceptable levels of service. CIRCULATION II-‐87 Exhibit II-‐9 Existing (2010) Average Daily Traffic Volumes CIRCULATION II-‐88 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT It has been assumed that buildout of the General Plan will occur in 2035. As a direct result of the analysis conducted on existing traffic and roadway conditions, including an assessment of potential for further widening City roadways, the roadway classification system has been slightly modified. This process has also taken into consideration special issues of concern and opportunities to enhance community circulation. General Plan Buildout Intersection Operating Conditions with 2002 General Plan Enhancements The level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of buildout of the Land Use Map on intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. The analysis assumed the previously adopted General Plan roadway network with a modification that returns Washington Street to a 6-‐lane facility between Highway 111 and Avenue 48 (and along a short segment of Highway 111). The 2002 General Plan called for eight travel lanes along this segment and on that portion of Highway 111 from Washington Street to the westerly city limits. Because of existing development, this widening is not currently possible. Year 2035 with General Plan Land Use Plan traffic volumes were calculated, distributed and assigned. The external trips generated within adjoining jurisdictions are assigned to the perimeter roadway network by the RivTAM model. These "external" trips can be substantial, comprising approximately 53 percent of Highway 111 traffic. The future lane configurations of the study intersections assumed buildout of a modified version of the City's 2002 General Plan roadway network, and intersection geometries are optimized to provide the greatest amount of capacity with the lowest investment of land and infrastructure. These additional improvements that go beyond those set forth in the 2002 General Plan are discussed in the section that follows. The General Plan EIR provides detailed information on the operation of intersections without improvements. The analysis of 2002 General Plan improvements indicates that 24 of the 37 intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse upon General Plan buildout. Of these, 22 are projected to operate at LOS F and 5 at LOS E. This scenario assumes that Washington Street remains at its current six through lanes. CIRCULATION II-‐89 Exhibit II-‐10 General Plan Buildout (2035) Average Daily Traffic Volumes CIRCULATION II-‐90 General Plan Buildout Intersection Operating Conditions With 2012 General Plan Enhancements As set forth in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, some additional physical widening is called for at certain planning area intersections. The full intersection improvements needed by 2035 to assure operations at LOS D or better are set forth below and are shown on Exhibit II-‐11. Enhancements include traditional roadway widening and the use of alternative intersection design. Additional, largely non-‐ physical improvements to be applied include the development and implementation of transportation systems management and transportation demand management (TSM and TDM). Additional widening at some intersections may not be possible and is not always viewed as a community improvement in any event. There are also existing physical constraints that preclude some of the improvements needed to assure acceptable levels of service. Consideration is also given to lesser improvements that would require an ongoing commitment to systems operations or they will fail to deliver minimum LOS D conditions. The following physical improvements are needed to assure acceptable levels of service at General Plan intersections. Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive – § Northbound approach: three left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, two right-‐turn lanes § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Washington Street/Miles Avenue – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase. CIRCULATION II-‐91 Washington Street/Channel Drive – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through/right-‐ turn lane § Westbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through lane, one right-‐turn lane. Washington Street/Highway 111 – § Northbound approach: three left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: three left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, two right-‐turn lanes with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase. Washington Street/Avenue 48 – § Northbound approach: two through lanes and one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes § Westbound approach: three left-‐turn lanes and one right-‐ turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase. Washington Street/Eisenhower Drive – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one shared left-‐ turn/through lane/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through lane/right-‐turn lane Washington Street/Avenue 50 – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐92 § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § 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 – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one shared left-‐ turn/through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Washington Street/Avenue 52 – § Northbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through/right-‐ turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one shared left-‐ turn/through lane, two right-‐turn lanes with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Eisenhower Drive/Calle Tampico – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through/right-‐ turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Avenue 52/Avenida Bermudas – § Northbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐93 § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Adams Street/Fred Waring Drive – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane Adams Street/Miles Avenue – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane Adams Street/Highway 111 – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lane, one right-‐turn lane Adams Street/Avenue 48 – § Northbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one left-‐ turn/through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐94 Dune Palms Road/Fred Waring Drive – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes Dune Palms Road/Miles Avenue – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Dune Palms Road/Westward Ho Drive – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Dune Palms Road/Highway 111 – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane Dune Palms Road/Avenue 48 – § Northbound approach: one shared left-‐turn/through/right-‐ turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐95 § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Jefferson Street/Fred Waring Drive – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane Jefferson Street/Highway 111 – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Southbound approach: three left-‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Jefferson Street/Avenue 48 – § Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Jefferson Street/Avenue 49 – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐96 Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 – § Three-‐lane roundabout or signalized intersection 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. Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 – § Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Southbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane § Eastbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one right-‐turn lane § Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, two right-‐turn lanes with a right-‐turn overlap phase § Alternatively, construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis) Madison Street/Avenue 50 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: o Northbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right-‐turn lane CIRCULATION II-‐97 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 with a right-‐turn overlap phase Madison Street/Avenue 52 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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, 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 54 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: o Northbound approach: two left-‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane o Southbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, one through lane, one combined 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, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Madison Street/Avenue 58 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 CIRCULATION II-‐98 o Westbound approach: one left-‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase Madison Street/Avenue 60 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 CIRCULATION II-‐99 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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, one through lane, one shared through/right-‐turn lane Monroe Street/Avenue 60 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 – § Construct a two-‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or construct a signalized intersection with the following improvements: 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 Exhibit II-‐11 illustrates the various intersection geometries that would result as a consequence of implementing the intersection improvement recommendations. Not all of these improvements appear to be feasible due to the lack of available right-‐of-‐way, shared CIRCULATION II-‐100 jurisdiction of certain intersections with other jurisdictions and other constraints. Table II-‐11 summarizes intersection operating conditions in 2035 with General Plan buildout and the implementation of the recommended intersection enhancements. The levels of service projected in Table II-‐11 reflect the needed improvements, which would improve 2035 operating conditions at these intersections to LOS D or better. Exhibit II-‐11 illustrates the various intersection geometries that would result as a consequence of implementing the intersection improvement recommendations. Not all of these improvements appear to be feasible due to the lack of available right of way, shared jurisdiction of certain intersections and other constraints. It should again be noted that first consideration is to be given to roundabouts at several intersections in the southeastern planning area, followed by conventional signalized intersections where roundabouts are determined to be infeasible. CIRCULATION II-‐101 Exhibit II-‐11 General Plan Buildout Intersection Configurations With Improvements Achieving LOS D or Better CIRCULATION II-‐102 PAGE NUMBER SPACER -‐ PULL FROM DOC CIRCULATION II-‐103 Table II-‐11 2035 Peak Season Intersection Operating Conditions General Plan Roadway Network With Enhancements 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 CIRCULATION II-‐104 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. The analysis indicated that General Plan buildout will 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. Special Intersection Management Provisions As noted in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and this Circulation Element, not all of the intersection improvements recommended in the TIA may be possible to implement. These constrained intersections have been identified above, and recommendations for further enhancing the operation of these intersections by other means is described below. The intersection improvements necessary to provide acceptable LOS upon buildout of the preferred General Plan were detailed above. Some of the potential improvements would affect and require the cooperation of neighboring cities. In some instances, needed improvements could affect existing buildings and other structures, and may not be feasible. In addition, some recommendations from the Washington Street/Highway 111 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Corridor Study (VRPA, September 2009) are also considered. Special considerations for constrained intersections are as follows: Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive – Two approaches to achieving acceptable intersection operations may be combinations of 1) street widening, and 2) TSM/TDM measures. The application of TSM/TDM will depend on the extent of widening that is determined to be feasible, as presented below: CIRCULATION II-‐105 a. Intersection widening 1. City of La Quinta jurisdiction widening could add a third northbound left-‐turn lane and a fourth northbound through lane. This would improve AM peak hour conditions to LOS E. The PM peak hour conditions would remain at LOS F but the average intersection delay would be reduced by 38 seconds per signal cycle. 2. 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 fourth westbound through lane, and a westbound right-‐turn overlap phase. With construction of these added to the widening proposed in the City of La Quinta, PM peak hour conditions would remain at LOS F but the average intersection delay would be reduced by an additional 20 seconds. 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 Indian Wells, which is consistent with improvements in the City of La Quinta identified above. The City of Palm Desert should be encouraged to continue to coordinate with the City of Indian Wells for construction of an eastbound free-‐right turn lane. 3. 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 improvement-‐impacting lanes, but not assuming improvements in the City of Palm Desert, PM peak hour conditions would remain at LOS F but the average intersection delay would be reduced by an additional 26 seconds. 4. If the recommended improvements in the Cities of La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells are all implemented, the PM peak hour conditions would be improved to LOS D operations. b. Implement TSM/TDM measures for trip rerouting, in addition to some of the above listed improvements that are determined feasible. CIRCULATION II-‐106 1. 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. An ITS Plan would enable dynamic route reassignment of traffic around congestion and direct traffic to available parking through the use of Dynamic Message Signs and adaptive traffic signal control. The Plan would deliver the best access to events for attendees, and around event traffic for residents that are not attending the events. c. Striving to achieve acceptable levels of service, the following efforts are recommended. 1. To achieve non-‐event LOS E operations, 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. 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), 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 4th northbound through lane, 4th southbound through lane, 4th eastbound through lane, and westbound right-‐turn overlap phase, recommended previously, would no longer be necessary. 2. In order to achieve non-‐event 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 4th northbound through lane and 4th southbound through lane, recommended previously, would continue to no longer be necessary. 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 PM peak hour. CIRCULATION II-‐107 Consider adding a dedicated northbound right-‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to a through only lane order to achieve LOS D operations. This could impact three to four residential property side yards and require relocation of power poles. Jefferson Street/Highway 111 – Coordinate with the City of Indio in optimizing future intersection improvements. To the greatest extent practicable, add a fourth northbound through lane. Add a fourth southbound through lane. Add a third southbound left-‐turn lane. While the prescribed third southbound left-‐turn lane may be feasible, the fourth north and southbound through lanes does not appear to be. Intersection operations will benefit from TSM programs and overall TDM efforts. Without additional through lanes or management efforts, intersection projected to operate at lower portion of LOS F in the PM peak hour in 2035. Madison Street/Avenue 50 – 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 dedicated southbound right-‐turn lane, converting the new number two through lanes to a through only lane. Add a westbound dedicated right-‐turn lane with a right-‐turn overlap phase, converting the new number two through lane to a through only lane. Management prescriptions include coordinating with the City of Indio to signalize intersection. It should be noted that the City of Indio plans to maintain the planned four lane roadway segment on Madison Street between Avenue 50 and 48. Therefore, further analysis and the application of TDM and TSM strategies are warranted. Additional Intersection-‐Specific Improvement Strategies In addition to the four constrained intersections identified and discussed above, which have the potential to operate at less than acceptable levels of service, other intersections discussed below also warrant special attention and management prescriptions. Washington Street/Miles Avenue – Add a dedicated westbound right-‐ turn lane, converting the number two through lane to a through lane only. Add a westbound right-‐turn overlap phase. Add a second southbound left-‐turn lane that may entail minor coordination with the City of Indian Wells in the northwest intersection quadrant to secure adequate rights-‐of-‐way. Without construction of the second southbound left-‐turn, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. CIRCULATION II-‐108 Washington Street/Avenue 50 – Add a dedicated northbound right-‐ turn lane, converting the number three through lane to a through only lane. Maintain a second westbound left-‐turn lane (CIP improvement) by converting the number 2 westbound through lane to a through/right-‐turn lane Add a second westbound right turn lane, and a westbound right-‐turn overlap phase (RTO implemented in 2011). Lengthen the existing eastbound single left-‐turn pocket from the existing 130-‐feet to the maximum effective length of 300-‐ feet, or alternatively add a second eastbound left-‐turn lane. Some ultimate skewing of the intersection may occur due to limited access to additional right-‐of-‐way in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. Monroe Street/Avenue 52 -‐ Management prescriptions include coordinating with the City of Indio to assure adequate rights-‐of-‐way and signalize intersection. Monroe Street/Avenue 54 – Signalize intersection. Prescribed improvements include adding a third northbound through lane and a dedicated northbound right-‐turn lane. Management prescriptions include coordinating with the City of Indio to assure adequate rights-‐ of-‐way and signalize intersection. Monroe Street/Avenue 58 – Construct a two-‐lane roundabout with two feeder lanes, OR signalize intersection: Add a dedicated northbound right-‐turn lane converting the number two through lane to a through only lane. Add a second westbound left-‐turn lane. Management prescriptions include coordinating with Riverside County to assure adequate rights-‐of-‐way and signalize intersection. Monroe Street/Avenue 60 -‐-‐ Construct a two-‐lane roundabout; OR construct a traditional signalized intersection. Management prescriptions include coordinating with Riverside County to assure adequate rights-‐of-‐way and signalize intersection. Monroe Street/Avenue 62 Construct a two-‐lane roundabout; OR construct a traditional signalized intersection. Management prescriptions include coordinating with Riverside County to assure adequate rights-‐of-‐way and signalize intersection. CIRCULATION II-‐109 General Plan Buildout Roadway Segments Operating Conditions With General Plan Enhancements The General Plan traffic analysis also identified roadway segments that may not operate at acceptable levels of service upon buildout of the General Plan. The following table identifies all of the major roadway segments that were analyzed, and projected levels of service. The table also indicates what modes other than automobiles are to be supported. Table II-‐12 2035 Peak Season Roadway Segment Operating Conditions General Plan Roadway Network With Enhancements Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway Designation 2035 Number of Lanes 2035 Capacity 2035 V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Washington St Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr 58,241 Major 6 61,100 0.95 – E Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 64,210 Major 6 61,100 1.05 – F Miles Ave to Hwy 111 54,141 Major 6 61,100 0.89 – D Hwy 111 to Ave 48 57,955 Major 6 61,100 0.95 – E Ave 48 to Eisenhower Dr 58,267 Major 6 61,100 0.95 – E Eisenhower Dr to Ave 50 41,381 Major 6 61,100 0.68 – B Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 36,164 Major 6 61,100 0.59 – A Eisenhower Dr Washington St to Ave 50 21,435 Primary 4 42,600 0.50 – A Avenue 50 to Calle Tampico 15,291 Primary 4 42,600 0.36 – A Avenida Bermudas Calle Tampico to Ave 52 3,919 Secondary 4 28,000 0.14 – A Ave 52 to Calle Durango 10,836 Secondary 4 28,000 0.39 – A Adams St Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 21,347 Secondary 4 42,600 0.50 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 22,132 Secondary 4 42,600 0.52 – A Dune Palms Rd Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 16,547 Secondary 4 28,000 0.59 – A Hwy 111 to Ave 48 20,999 Secondary 4 28,000 0.75 – C CIRCULATION II-‐110 Table II-‐12 (cont’d) 2035 Peak Season Roadway Segment Operating Conditions General Plan Roadway Network With Enhancements Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway Designation 2035 Number of Lanes 2035 Capacity 2035 V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Jefferson St Country Club Rd to Fred Waring Dr 34,274 Major 6 61,100 0.56 – A Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 44,436 Major 6 61,100 0.73 – C Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 48,090 Major 6 61,100 0.79 – C Hwy 111 to Ave 48 46,656 Major 6 61,100 0.76 – C Ave 48 to Ave 50 53,649 Major 6 61,100 0.88 – D Ave 50 to Ave 52 35,143 Major 6 61,100 0.58 – A Ave 52 to Ave 54 31,532 Major 6 61,100 0.52 – A Madison St Ave 50 to Ave 52 34,204 Primary 4 42,600 0.80 – C Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 47,529 Primary 4 42,600 1.12 – F Airport Blvd to Ave 58 35,638 Primary 4 42,600 0.84 – D Ave 58 to Ave 60 26,920 Secondary 4 42,600 0.63 – B Monroe St Ave 52 to Ave 54 32,749 Primary 4 42,600 0.77 – C Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 34,453 Primary 4 42,600 0.81 – D Jackson St Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 28,524 Primary 4 42,600 0.67 – B Airport Blvd to Ave 58 28,380 Primary 4 42,600 0.67 – B Ave 58 to Ave 60 23,174 Primary 4 42,600 0.54 – A Ave 60 to Ave 62 16,826 Primary 4 42,600 0.39 – A Van Buren St Ave 52 to Ave 54 28,531 Primary 4 42,600 0.67 – B Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 22,172 Primary 4 42,600 0.52 – A Airport Blvd to Ave 58 21,641 Primary 4 42,600 0.51 – A Ave 58 to Ave 60 20,134 Primary 4 42,600 0.47 – A Ave 60 to Ave 62 11,627 Secondary 4 28,000 0.42 – A Harrison St Airport Blvd to Ave 58 79,828 Augmented Major 8 76,000 1.05 – F Fred Waring Dr (Ave 44) Washington St to Adams St 52,881 Primary 6 61,100 0.87 – D Miles Ave Washington St to Adams St 15,151 Primary 4 42,600 0.36 – A CIRCULATION II-‐111 Table II-‐12 (cont’d) 2035 Peak Season Roadway Segment Operating Conditions General Plan Roadway Network With Enhancements Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway Designati on 2035 Number of Lanes 2035 Capacity 2035 V/C Ratio -‐ LOS Hwy 111 Washington St to Adams St 53,511 Major 6 61,100 0.88 -‐ D Adams St to Dune Palms Rd 40,481 Major 6 61,100 0.66 – B Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 50,659 Major 6 61,100 0.83 – D Ave 48 Washington St to Adams St 16,902 Primary 4 42,600 0.40 – A Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 32,855 Primary 4 42,600 0.77 – C Ave 50 Washington St to Jefferson St 16,121 Primary 4 42,600 0.38 – A Jefferson St to Madison St 30,593 Primary 4 42,600 0.72 – C Calle Tampico Eisenhower Dr to Avenida Bermudas 5,350 Primary 4 42,600 0.13 – A Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 10,063 Primary 4 42,600 0.24 – A Ave 52 Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 16,133 Primary 4 42,600 0.38 – A Washington St to Jefferson St 31,770 Primary 4 42,600 0.75 – C Jefferson St to Madison St 28,944 Primary 4 42,600 0.68 – B Madison St to Monroe St 26,510 Primary 4 42,600 0.62 – B Ave 54 Jefferson St to Madison St 29,390 Primary 4 42,600 0.69 – C Airport Blvd Madison St to Monroe St 17,177 Primary 4 42,600 0.40 – A Ave 58 Madison St to Monroe St 10,199 Secondary 4 28,000 0.36 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 18,633 Secondary 2 28,000 0.67 – B Ave 60 Madison St to Monroe St 14,846 Secondary 4 28,000 0.53 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 9,960 Primary 4 42,600 0.23 – A Ave 62 Madison St to Monroe St 9,624 Modified Collector 4 28,000 0.34 – A Monroe St to Jackson St 19,822 Secondary 4 28,000 0.71 – C Jackson St to Van Buren St 7,022 Secondary 4 28,000 0.25 – A Van Buren St to Harrison St 3,631 Secondary 4 28,000 0.13 – A Notes: V/C = Volume-‐to=Capacity Ratio CIRCULATION II-‐112 Special Segment Management Provisions 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), 21 segments are forecast to operate at LOS E or worse based on their current roadway classifications. Ongoing and diligent focus on well-‐ coordinated operations of traffic signals will help maximize efficient circulation along these segments. Maximum roadway carrying capacities (or “service volumes”) can be increased with 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. The following recommendation should be implemented to increase roadway capacity without the addition of travel lanes along segments operating unacceptably: 1. Commit to ongoing funding and operations of intelligent transportation systems management, as described above, to: a. Deliver traffic signal coordination along corridors in “real time” to optimize the progression of vehicles at the most efficient travel speeds; b. Operate Transit Signal Priority at signals along major transit routes to optimize traffic flow; c. Operate Dynamic Message Signs to route traffic around congestion/to available parking during peak periods and planned events. 2. Continue with the City’s established minimum driveway spacing and access restrictions; 3. Construct median islands with minimum opening spacing; and/or; 4. Add bus turnouts at bus stops along major transit routes. Recommended Transportation System Enhancements The General Plan buildout analysis of the City’s transportation system has identified four (4) intersections and six (6) roadway segments where maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) in the long-‐term will require special effort. The buildout of the General Plan will require a variety of improvements to be implemented to assure that they operate at LOS D or better. Some of the identified improvements are in adjacent cities, and others may impact adjacent land uses. Recommended intersection improvements and management strategies are detailed below. Of the 63 midblock segments analyzed for average daily operations, three are forecast at LOS E and three are forecast at LOS F operations. Opportunities to improve efficiency of General Plan designated intersections and travel lanes are detailed in the section below. CIRCULATION II-‐113 Recommendations for Roadway Segment Enhancements Intersection capacity on arterial roadways is significantly influenced by intersection design and whether they are signalized. Intersections are the ultimate arbiters of roadway capacity, being generally the most constraining and defining portions of roadway network. Where the recommended intersection configurations and improvements can be provided, the midblock capacities will be increased and midblock LOS improved. A few roadway segments along Washington Street, Madison Street and Harrison Street are projected to operate at LOS E or F during AM or PM peak periods by 2035. These segments, and management strategies to reduce demand and improve their operating capacity, are discussed below. Washington Street Roadway Segment Deficiencies: Washington Street segments extending from Avenue 42 to Eisenhower Drive, are projected to operate at LOS E or F by 2035 without further demand or systems management efforts. The one exception is the segment between Miles Avenue and Highway 111, which is projected to operate at LOS D in 2035. Madison Street Roadway Segment Deficiency: The General Plan traffic analysis identified a segment deficiency on Madison Street between Airport Boulevard (Ave 56) and Avenue 54. While application of TDM and TSM strategies will effectively reduce peak hour traffic volumes along this segment, it may still operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) during peak hour upon General Plan buildout. Harrison Street Roadway Segment Deficiency: Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard (Ave 56) and Avenue 58 as a 8-‐lane Augmented Major is forecast to exceed theoretical maximum carrying capacity by approximately 3,800 vpd. Harrison Street is assumed to function as an Augmented Major Road (76,000 vehicles per day), and would likely operate as an Expressway due to limited accessibility. While application of TDM and TSM strategies will effectively reduce peak hour traffic volumes along this segment, it may still operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) during peak hour upon General Plan buildout. CIRCULATION II-‐114 Exhibit II-‐12 Roadway Network Special Focus Areas CIRCULATION II-‐115 Preserving Capacity and Enhancing Efficiency Existing infrastructure investments in the planning areas should be managed and maintain to support the full spectrum of travel modes. Efficiencies are also a function of design parameters that affect facilitated travel speeds, and ease of movement and negotiation of roadways and intersections. To the greatest extent practicable, these parameters should be applied to the benefit of all modes of travel and not just to trucks and autos. The following discusses what considerations should be made to assure preserved and optimized capacity. Generally, capacity will be optimized with 12-‐foot travel 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. The number of access points (i.e., intersections, driveways, and median island openings) also reduces capacity by approximately 0.25 mph for each access point per mile. Consideration of driveway consolidation and/or access restrictions along forecast deficient midblock segments is recommended. The Complete Streets approach should give first priority to improving transit service on the Washington Street and Highway 111 corridors, and should be considered for other high volume corridors, to provide a convenient and efficient transit service as a preferable alternative to automobile use. In this regard, the City needs to establish a closer coordination and working relationship with the Sunline Transit Agency in pursuing implementation of the following: Develop transit preferential management and facilities to establish consistency in type and design. Potential management and facilities include: § Traffic signal priority for buses; and § Enhanced bus stops and amenities, such as wider sidewalks, climate-‐responsive shelters, electronic vehicle arrival information. 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 golf cart/NEV access to preferred destinations and transit facilities. Encourage the maintenance and efficient operation of the fleet of transit vehicles. CIRCULATION II-‐116 Enhanced and coordinate signal operations are recommended to optimize traffic progression along all corridors, which can reduce traffic delays on major roadways by 5 to 10 percent. Also evaluate and, as appropriate, implement Adaptive Control Software-‐Lite (ACS-‐Lite) to continuously improve the efficiency of traffic signal timing by updating phase splits and offsets in response to current traffic conditions. These improvements in efficiency can reduce stops and delay of up to 29%, and to decrease travel time by up to 35%. Comprehensive Transportation System Planning The primary goal of a comprehensive transportation system is to lower the impacts of transportation on the environment, including the transportation system itself. These systems include efficient infrastructure, systems management, and greater use of alternative modes of transportation (walking, cycling, transit, NEVs). In addition to making a substantial contribution to improving air quality and reducing emissions of GHGs, a comprehensive transportation system can also result in broader environmental improvements and a better planned community. Transportation systems account for between 20 and 25 percent of the world’s energy consumption, but roughly 50 percent of all energy consumption and about 38 percent of all GHG emissions in California. The social costs of an inefficient transportation system also include time wasted in traffic and vulnerability to fuel price increases. Many of these negative impacts fall disproportionate on lower income social groups. Historically, the transportation system has largely been designed and built to maximize the movement of private vehicles. The La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element is crafted to better optimize the existing roadway network, provide alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent practicable, and provide future facilities that reduce vehicle miles traveled, while improving the quality of the environment and the community. Comprehensive transportation planning also includes the implementation of “Complete Streets” concepts and designs that 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. Complete Streets is discussed in detail earlier in this Element. CIRCULATION II-‐117 The State of California has enactment of AB 32 and SB 375, which set new standards for California' emissions of GHGs. SB 375 specifically gives our regional Metropolitan Planning Organization, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) the responsibility to work with CVAG, the City and other local jurisdictions to develop a regional strategy for reducing GHGs. Best practices in transportation as espoused by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), have been drawn upon in the following discussion. The role of transportation in these efforts is expected to include: Transportation Infrastructure Investment, particularly transit and other multimodal infrastructure investment that may impact GHG emissions; Transportation Planning and Demand Management, planning and programs that improve efficiency of automobile traffic and commercial vehicles; and Transportation System Management and operational policies and practices. Specific goals, policies and programs associated with comprehensive transportation systems and an effective response to AB 32 and SB 375 are set forth in this Element. Electrifying Transportation Electric vehicles (EVs) are already here. La Quinta and other Valley cities and residents have been steadily expanding their use of golf carts and NEVs for a wide range of trips. The continuing evolution of the transportation system to electric drive could dramatically change the economy, our demand for oil and the quality of the environment. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in 2005 transportation produced about 76 percent of all the greenhouse gasses generated in the Coachella Valley. This makes transportation the best area to focus efforts to address GHG emissions as mandated by State legislation. A full range of technologies are needed to effectively transition the transportation system away from petroleum and toward alternatives such as hybrid and pure electric vehicles. These have already made great strides, but harnessing them on a scale that will significantly lower greenhouse-‐gas emissions requires choosing the right policies and implementing needed infrastructure improvements. While the City cannot have a major impact on this transition, it can incrementally contribute to this transition and provide a model for other communities. CIRCULATION II-‐118 Enabling technologies are evolving that will modernize the electric power grid. This is important since patterns of electricity usage could change significantly if the recharging of electric vehicles grows at a rapid pace. At the same time, the batteries in electric or plug-‐in hybrid vehicles could be used as an extra short-‐term backup system, storing energy from the grid when there is an excess and delivering it back when needed, in order to flatten peaks in electricity use. This could eliminate the need for construction of some new power plants, but only if changes are made to the grid infrastructure to enable such uses. It should be noted that the US Department of Energy has estimated that the existing power grid could handle up to 180 million electric vehicles without needing significant modification. The sources of electric power are also a part of the equation but even with the current mix of generating capacity, electric vehicles emit about one half the GHGs as conventional vehicles. There has been a rapid evolution in electric drivetrain, hybrids, plug-‐in hybrids, and battery technologies, which is bringing electric vehicles into the mainstream. Many communities are now taking steps to provide the infrastructure that will make electric vehicles more viable. Engineers are working on battery technology that would give electric vehicles a range of up to 500 miles on a single charge. Also, work being done on hyper-‐capacitors, which would replace batteries in EVs and allow unlimited charging and discharging, extending the life of vehicles and allowing parked cars to act as a buffer for the power grid. For many years, the City of La Quinta has been making efforts to facilitate the use of plug-‐in electric vehicles, specifically golf carts. Many City residents have already embraced this alternative mode of transportation and this trend should be encouraged. To this end, the General Plan includes goals, policies and programs that encourage the expansion of the City’s transportation system to facilitate the use of electric vehicles. In addition to expanding routes of travel suitable for EVs, the City is exploring the establishment of EV recharge stations (parking spaces) in the village and other areas to help support this transition. Preferential parking should also be considered to further encourage this transition. Adaptive Management Strategies It is essential that the City apply a policy of adaptive management to various components of the City's transportation system. By having the flexibility to adapt construction and Level of Service (LOS) standards the City can recognize and creatively address constraints at CIRCULATION II-‐119 intersections and along roadways. Adaptability will also serve as a means of creating streets that balance all modes of travel pursuant to the "Complete Streets" philosophy espoused in this element. Future improvements to major streets and intersections will consider design solutions that support walking, bicycling, golf carts and NEVs, and provide comfortable public spaces while continuing to function as thoroughfares that support the movement of vehicles. Pedestrian and transit-‐oriented development is encouraged to locate along key commercial corridors. Level of Service Exemption In the long-‐term, LOS E and F conditions may be determined to be acceptable during peak travel periods of the day along key intersections and along certain roadway corridors, including Washington Street, Madison Street and Harrison Boulevard. Along these constrained portions of the roadway network, on-‐going planning and improvements, as well as the application of TDM and TSM measures, shall address and encourage increased Sunline bus service, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle and NEV systems, complementary mix of land uses, and higher-‐density development. When project-‐specific traffic analysis indicates that development will result in a LOS impact that would otherwise be considered significant at an intersection or along a roadway corridor, the project would not necessarily be required to widen roadways in order to support a finding of conformance with the General Plan. Rather, a conformance determination could be supported if the project provides improvements to the overall circulation system or meets other General Plan objectives. Such improvements may include enhancements to the pedestrian, bicycling, NEV or pubic transit capacity, and/or safety improvements to streets and intersections that support General Plan goals. Improvements that offset the project’s contribution to lower levels of service within the project vicinity or within the area could possibly be off-‐set by the provision of system improvements. This exemption does not affect the implementation of previously approved roadway and intersection improvements. CIRCULATION II-‐120 PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE The future is uncertain. The price of conventional fuels has increased substantially and is expected to continue increasing over the coming years. The environmental costs associated with a petroleum-‐based transportation system are finally being more fully identified and quantified. The cost of transportation infrastructure in terms of land, improvements and maintenance, congestion and social costs are becoming progressively more burdensome. Of course, the first step in solving a problem is in clearly defining it. The solution includes a greater diversification of the available modes of moving people and goods, and gaining greater efficiencies from our existing transportation infrastructure. Place-‐Based Transportation Planning The approach espoused for transportation planning in the City is one that more fully takes into account the complete street environment, one that considers people who are walking, enjoying public parks and plazas, riding bikes, taking public transit and those who are driving cars and NEVs. This approach requires a more expansive vision of the community, one that sees transportation as serving and helping to create places for residents, visitors and workers. Therefore, the Circulation Element places an emphasis on improving conditions to support all modes of transportation, while also maintaining system-‐wide efficiency. The transportation system becomes part of the social fabric, not just a mechanism for moving people and goods. It can enhance people connections, ease access to areas that are enlivened by residents and visitors, creating a vibrancy and sense of place that is integral to the quality of life enjoyed in the City. Future planning efforts should continue the City’s current trends toward rebalancing the circulation system, ensuring that multiple modes of travel are accommodated, respecting street context including land use and desired character, encouraging environmental responsibility, optimizing pedestrian and bicycle and NEV use, and the creation of places for people. CIRCULATION II-‐121 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS GOAL CIR-‐1 A transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City. v Policy CIR-‐1.1 Maintain and regularly update a complete General Plan master plan of roads, which includes provisions for as many modes of travel as possible, sets targets for ultimate rights-‐of-‐way and pavement width and provides a schedule for securing right-‐of-‐way and constructing improvements consistent with the projected needs and standards set forth in the City Circulation Element and Program EIR. Program CIR-‐1.1.a: Based on annual monitoring of the roadway network, maintain a transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that sets forth timelines for the construction of new roadway and other transportation infrastructure in the community. The program shall plan in five-‐year increments. Program CIR-‐1.1.b: Based on annual monitoring of the roadway network, establish and maintain a roadway pavement management program (PMP) that sets forth timelines and schedules for the maintenance of existing roads in the community. The program shall establish funding levels each fiscal year. Program CIR-‐1.1.c: The General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis and associated modeling shall be updated every two years or as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. v Policy CIR-‐1.2 The General Plan designated street classifications set forth in the Circulation Element and serving as the Master Plan of Roads shall be as follows: Highway 111 six lanes, divided, Class II bike/NEV lane, multi-‐use paths Major Arterial: six lanes, divided, Class II bike/NEV lane, multi-‐ use paths Primary Arterial: four lanes, divided, Class II bike/NEV lane, multi-‐use paths CIRCULATION II-‐122 Secondary Arterial: four lanes, undivided, Class II bike/NEV lane, multi-‐use paths Modified Secondary: two lane, divided, Class II bike/NEV lane, multi-‐use paths Collector: two lane, undivided, Class II bike/NEV v Policy CIR-‐1.3 The City Public Works Department standard plans setting forth roadways standards and specifications shall be updated and maintained, addressing rights-‐of-‐way, lane dimensions and multi-‐use path design. v Policy CIR-‐1.4 The General Plan recognizes the need for flexibility in applying and adapting roadway design standards and specifications, and authorizes the Public Works Director to make consistency findings to permit modifications that do not compromise the operational capacity of the subject roadway or intersection. v Policy CIR-‐1.5 Where the construction of multi-‐use paths is called for but is determined to be infeasible sidewalks shall be constructed along at least one side of these roadways. v Policy CIR-‐1.6 Maintain LOS-‐ D operating conditions for all corridors and intersections unless maintaining this LOS would, in the City’s judgment, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. v Policy CIR-‐1.7 Allow flexible Level of Service (LOS) standards in recognition of constraints on roadway expansions and as a means of creating streets that balance all modes of travel. v Policy CIR-‐1.8 LOS E and F conditions may be determined acceptable during peak travel periods and a level of service exemption or determination of General Plan consistency may be approved if other feasible roadway improvements can be constructed and/or management programs implemented that mitigate for the loss and achieve an acceptable level of service. Exemptions shall not affect the implementation of previously approved roadway and intersection improvements. CIRCULATION II-‐123 v Policy CIR-‐1.9 Coordinate and cooperate with Caltrans, CVAG, Riverside County and adjoining cities to assure adequate transportation infrastructure, systems management coordination, preservation of capacity and maximized efficiency along Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive, Harrison Street and other major roadways. Program 1.9.a: Maintain a liaison with adjoining cities, Caltrans, CVAG, Riverside County planning and engineering staffs to study and implement effective means of preserving and improving capacity along Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Highway 111, Harrison Street and other major roadways serving inter-‐city traffic. Strategies shall include but are not limited to synchronized signalization, consolidation of access drives and restriction of access, construction of additional travel and turning lanes, raised median islands, and other improvements to critical intersections. v Policy CIR-‐1.10 Establish and maintain minimum standards for roadway geometries, points of access and other improvements that facilitate movement of traffic onto and off of the roadway network. Program CIR-‐1.10.a: Review new and redeveloping projects along all major roadways with the intent of limiting access and aligning and/or consolidating access drives in a manner which minimizes conflicting turning movements and maximizes the use of existing and planned signalized intersections. Program CIR-‐1.10.b: On Major Arterials the minimum intersection spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 1,060 feet for commercial frontage. Intersection spacing may be reduced to 500 feet at the Whitewater Channel and La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The design speed shall be 55 miles per hour (mph). Left turn median cuts may be authorized if the proposed turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): § more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; CIRCULATION II-‐124 § more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; § more than 275 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. Program CIR-‐1.10.c: On Primary Arterials the minimum intersection spacing shall be 1,060 feet. The design speed shall be 45 mph. Left turn median cuts may be authorized if the proposed turn pocket does not interfere with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): § more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; § more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; § more than 275 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall require City Engineer review and approval. Program CIR-‐1.10.d: On Calle Tampico, between Eisenhower Drive and Washington, and on Eisenhower Drive, between Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, full turn intersections may be permitted at a minimum distance of 500 feet, if the intersection complies with an approved Corridor Signal Plan. Program CIR-‐1.10.e: On Secondary Arterials, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 600 feet. The design speed shall be 40 mph. Full access to adjoining property shall be avoided and shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): § more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; § more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; § more than 250 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. CIRCULATION II-‐125 Program CIR-‐1.10.f: On Collectors, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 300 feet. The design speed shall be 30 mph. Access driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns): § more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection; § more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection; § more than 250 feet between driveways. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. Program CIR-‐1.10.g: On Local streets, the minimum intersection spacing shall be 250 feet. The design speed shall be 25 mph. All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. Program CIR-‐1.10.h: Within subdivisions, private streets may be designed to provide a reduced minimum paved width of 28 feet with no on-‐street or restricted on-‐street parking, subject to City Engineer and Fire Department approval, and in consideration of other improvements that encourage pedestrian and bicycle use. Program CIR-‐1.10.i: Standards for all City streets, intersections and other appurtenances shall be maintained in the City Municipal Code. Program CIR-‐1.10.j: The City Engineer shall establish and maintain a traffic-‐calming program that details acceptable traffic calming devices or concepts in residential neighborhoods. The City may review and finalize the 2008 "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program" for this purpose. Program CIR-‐1.10.k: Confer and coordinate with CVAG in efforts to secure state and federal funding sources for preservation and expansion of capacity on State Highway 111 and other important City arterials. Program CIR-‐1.10.l: New streets, which are extensions of existing streets, shall carry the same name for their entire length. CIRCULATION II-‐126 v Policy CIR-‐1.11 Apply Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies to intersections and roadway segments as a cost-‐effective means of optimizing the City's transportation infrastructure. Program CIR-‐1.11.a: Prepare a preliminary TSM assessment of candidate intersections and roadways, and prioritize projects for application of TSM solutions. Program CIR-‐1.11.b: As part of the five-‐year Capital Improvement Program, incorporate TSM projects into other roadway improvement and enhancement projects. Program CIR-‐1.11.c: Prepare project-‐specific TSM strategies that take advantage of simply and low-‐cost solutions first, and optimize the hierarchy of TSM solutions. v Policy CIR-‐1.12 As a means of reducing vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City, the City shall pursue development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses. Program CIR-‐1.12.a: Locate land uses that provide jobs and housing near each other to allow the use of alternative modes of travel and produce shorter work commutes. Program CIR-‐1.12.b: Encourage, and where appropriate require, mixed-‐use and contiguous commercial development to provide optimum internal connections between uses. Program CIR-‐1.12.c: New development shall provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets, and assure that infrastructure and amenities accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use. Program CIR-‐1.12.d: Update and facilitate use of the City’s home occupation ordinance as a means of reducing the need for travel. Program CIR-‐1.12.e: Encourage major employers to evaluate tele-‐ commuting opportunities, either home-‐based or at local centers, as well as part-‐time options for employees. CIRCULATION II-‐127 v Policy CIR-‐1.13 Coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District and its consultants regarding its flood control facilities to assure the accommodation of all-‐weather crossings along critical roadways. Program CIR-‐1.13.a: Cooperate in the planning and development of all-‐weather crossings as part of the community's Master Drainage Plan implementation. v Policy CIR-‐1.14 Private streets shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public Works Bulletins and other applicable standards and guidelines. Program CIR-‐1.14.a: Private streets will be designed to meet the standards of the City’s public street system at the point where they connect with it, in order to safely integrate into public and private streets. v Policy CIR-‐1.15 Truck routes shall avoid or minimize potential impacts to residential neighborhoods and shall be designated and limited to those shown on Exhibit II-‐5. v Policy CIR-‐1.16 Continue to implement the Image Corridor treatments throughout the City (see Exhibit II-‐4) and identify new image corridors for streets brought into the City through annexation. Program 1.16.a: Standards for all Image Corridors shall be maintained in the City Municipal Code. Program 1.16.b: Where applicable, Image Corridor standards shall be superseded by the Village Design Standards in that land use designation. Program 1.16.c: Secure easements adjacent to public road right-‐ of-‐way along Image Corridors to enhance view protection and corridor accessibility. v Policy CIR-‐1.17 In order to preserve the aesthetic values on the City’s streets, optimum landscape setbacks shall be maintained along all designated General CIRCULATION II-‐128 Plan Image Corridors and shall be identified in the City's Municipal Code. v Policy CIR-‐1.18 Calle Cadiz, Calle Barcelona and Calle Amigo, in the Village area, shall be allowed to remain at a maximum 50-‐foot right-‐of-‐way. v Policy CIR-‐1.19 The City Engineer shall review individual development proposals located at critical intersections, and shall have the authority to request additional right of way if necessary. v Policy CIR-‐1.20 Building height limits along City Image Corridors shall be identified in the City's Municipal Code. v Policy CIR-‐1.21 Facilitate the design, installation and maintenance of a community locational/directional sign program to efficiently direct traffic to high use areas, including the civic center, parks, SilverRock golf course, Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, and other facilities and major attractions and destinations in and around the City. v Policy 1.22 Coordinate and cooperate with the Riverside County Airport Commission (for the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport) and the Palm Springs Regional Airport Authority to assure that these airports continue to meet the City’s existing and future transportation, commercial and emergency response needs. Program CIR-‐1.22.a: Consult and coordinate with the County in updating the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Master Plan and encourage the expansion of facilities to accommodate commercial aircraft serving the eastern portions of the Valley. GOAL CIR-‐2 A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit, alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks. v Policy CIR-‐2.1 Encourage and cooperate with SunLine Transit Agency on the expansion of routes, facilities, services and ridership especially in CIRCULATION II-‐129 congested areas and those with high levels of employment and commercial services, and encourage the use of most energy efficient and least polluting transportation technologies. Program CIR-‐2.1.a: Consult and coordinate with the SunLine Transit Agency on immediate and long-‐term transit issues, and assure pro active representation on the Agency Board and its decision making process. Program CIR-‐2.1.b: Initiate consultation and as necessary meet with SunLine staff to identify areas where additional routes and increased levels and types of transit service are warranted by existing and future development. Program CIR-‐2.1.c: When reviewing development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine and solicit comments and suggestions on how bus stops and other public transit facilities and design concepts, including enhanced handicapped access, should be integrated into project designs. Program CIR-‐2.1.d: When reviewing large-‐scale development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine to encourage the development of rideshare and other alternative, high occupancy transit programs for employers with sufficient numbers of employees. Program CIR-‐2.1.e: Encourage and proactively support the efforts of SunLine in organizing a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) among employers to provide an on-‐going information network, develop a rideshare plan, and determine opportunities for transit/shuttle operations. Program CIR-‐2.1.f: Encourage SunLine to continue its efforts to utilize the most energy efficient and least polluting transportation technologies, including fuel cells, hybrid and other advanced technologies. v Policy CIR-‐2.2 Encourage reduction of greenhouse gas (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 GHG emissions. CIRCULATION II-‐130 Program CIR-‐2.2.a: Create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, golf carts/NEVs, ride-‐sharing, car-‐sharing, bicycling, bicycle-‐sharing, and walking. To the extent practicable apply the following: a. Ensure transportation centers that are multi-‐modal, facilitate changes in travel modes, and are conveniently located. Convenient locations may be in the vicinities of: 1. Washington/Fred Waring/Via Sevilla 2. Miles/Adams 3. Adams/111/47th 4. 47th/Caleo Bay 5. Washington/Calle Tampico 6. Eisenhower/Avenida Montezuma b. Support SunLine bus routes and service, to include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Highway 111 and along Harrison Avenue. c. Expand golf cart/NEV routes, and bicycle routes to connect residential and activity centers with transportation centers. d. Support and encourage community car-‐sharing to provide “station cars” and/or golf carts/NEVs for short trips to/from transit centers. e. Include parking spaces for car-‐share vehicles at convenient locations accessible to public transit. f. Ensure transit stops are safe and sheltered, with adequate seating, lighting, trash receptacles, cleaning and maintenance. g. Implement 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. i. Implement bicycle-‐preferential measures such as deployment of video detection at traffic signals, and development of bicycle stations at transportation centers. 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 parking demand at all public and commercial facilities. CIRCULATION II-‐131 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. Program CIR-‐2.2.b: Modify the Zoning Ordinance to encourage integrated, shared and reciprocal parking design and management as a means of better matching parking availability with varying parking demand distributed during the day. Program CIR-‐2.2c: The City’s Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to specifically address vehicular and pedestrian interconnection between adjacent commercial properties in order to facilitate access between adjacent or nearby businesses and increase efficiency and safety. Zoning Ordinance amendments shall also address opportunities to provide direct pedestrian access between commercial and adjacent residential development. Program CIR-‐2.2.d: Promote ridesharing programs that shift demand to the greatest available source of unused travel capacity – empty seats in private vehicles. Require the designation of parking spaces for ride-‐sharing vehicles at employment and activity centers in conditions of approval. Program CIR-‐2.2.e: Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that encourages the use of alternative transportation, including requiring new commercial and retail developments to provide preferred parking for electric vehicles and vehicles using alternative fuels. Program CIR-‐2.2.f: Modify the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate parking space maximums. Program CIR-‐2.2.g: Modify the Zoning Ordinance to recognize and provide a parking credit program for developments that provide spaces and facilities for golf carts, NEVs and bicycles. Program CIR-‐2.2.h: During consideration of the Zoning Ordinance updates, explore opportunities for Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones within one-‐quarter mile radii of intersections where existing or future bus lines intersect, including at Highway 111/Adams and Highway 111/Harrison Street. CIRCULATION II-‐132 v Policy CIR-‐2.3 Develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes and multi-‐use paths to places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas with potential for increased pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart/NEV modes of travel. Program CIR-‐2.3.a: Maintain and periodically update the Circulation Element master plan of bikeways, golf cart routes and multi-‐use paths, and develop or require the development of secure bicycle and golf cart/NEV storage facilities, and other support facilities which increase bicycle and golf cart/NEV use. Program CIR-‐2.3.b: The construction of bikeways shall conform to the Caltrans manual “Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California.” Bikeways shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width. Alternative designs required by constraints may be acceptable, as approved by the Public Works Director. Program CIR-‐2.3.c: Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all arterial, secondary and collector streets, except where there is a multi-‐use path on one side. Program CIR-‐2.3.d: Golf carts shall be permitted on designated routes, as depicted in Exhibit II-‐7 and Exhibit II-‐8, and on all public local streets. Specific street crossings for golf carts from the cove onto collectors and arterials shall be designated by the City Engineer. v Policy CIR-‐2.4 The City shall set an example for the community in the implementation of ridesharing programs and those that encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by City employees. Program CIR-‐2.4.a: To the extent practical, prepare and implement a rideshare plan for City employees to serve as an example for area employers. This plan should include meaningful incentives for employees to walk, bike, or rideshare to complete their work commutes. CIRCULATION II-‐133 RELATED GOALS As described above, this Element relates to others in this General Plan. The following Goals, and their associated policies and programs, are closely related to those of this Element. GOAL LU-‐1: Land use compatibility throughout the City. GOAL SC-‐1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL AQ-‐1: A reduction in all air emissions generated within the City.