HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 Alternatives Analysis for CV Link Connectors Project
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2021
PREPARED BY: Randy Bowman, Deputy Director of Public Works
REQUEST: Request for Direction on Alternatives Analysis for the CV Link Connectors
Improvements (Project No. 708-20).
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, direct staff to proceed with preliminary engineering of the
CV Link Connectors Improvements.
Strategic Plan
The CV Link Connectors Improvements fulfill priorities identified in the City’s Strategic Plan,
including the following:
• Tourism and Marketing – Priority 1: “Improve access to Palm Desert and its attractions
to enhance the ease of lifestyle.”
• Transportation – Priority 1: “Create walkable neighborhoods and areas within Palm
Desert that would include residential, retail, services and employment centers, and
parks, recreation and open space to reduce the use of low occupancy vehicles.”
• Transportation – Priority 3: “De-emphasize single/low-occupancy vehicles and
optimize modes of travel (bus, carpool, golf-cart, bicycle and pedestrian).”
• Land Use - Priority 4: “Create a mixed-use city core integrating shopping, dining,
lodging, and housing.”
Background
The City desires to provide better bicycle and golf cart connectivity between the CV Link and
San Pablo Avenue corridors and the City Center, which includes the El Paseo shopping
district, the retail and residential neighborhood between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive,
and the Civic Center municipal campus at Fred Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue. Through
its 2016 General Plan update, the City envisions a network of pedestrian, bike and golf cart
connectivity connecting these signature areas of the community. Recognizing this need, the
City Council approved an initial amount of funding for the project in the City’s Fiscal Year
2019/2020 Capital Improvements Budget.
The General Plan defines the following six types of bicycle and golf cart facilities:
• CV Link - A regional off-street facility for NEV’s, bicyclists, and pedestrians
• Class I - Off-street facilities, which can be shared between golf carts, bicyclists, and
pedestrians
June 24, 2021 - Staff Report
CV Link Connectors Alternatives Analysis
Page 2 of 5
• Class II - On-street facilities, which can be used by either bicycles only or as joint use
facilities used by golf carts and bicycles. These facilities are designated either by
striping or through physical separations in the roadway
• Class III - On-street facilities designated through signage that do not provide a
separate space
• Class S - Shared sidewalks that provide facilities for both pedestrians and bicyclists
• CV Link Connectors - facilities would provide additional connections to the CV Link
Facility through signage, crossing treatments, or separate facilities that provide
connections from the city to the CV Link
On May 28, 2020, the City Council awarded Contract No. C37870A in the amount of
$720,431.00 to KOA Corporation of Monterey Park, California, for Professional Engineering,
Landscape Architecture and Design Services for the CV Link Connectors Improvements (aka
CV Link Painters Path Spur Improvement, Project No. 708-20).
Stakeholder and Public Input
The consultant commenced the project on July 22, 2020, with data collection and alternatives
analysis. The project team identified and engaged key stakeholders including City Council
ATP Sub-Committee, Desert Recreation District, Coachella Valley Association of
Governments, Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce, Riverside County Sheriff
Department, Sunline Transit Agency, Desert Bicycle Club, Friends of CV Link, and Riverside
County Public Health Department.
Input was sought from additional stakeholders including Westfield Mall, Desert Crossing,
Town Center Plaza, Coachella Valley Water District, College of the Desert, Desert Sands
Unified School District, Palm Desert Library and bicycle-serving businesses. The project
team notified the community of the project and encouraged community feedback in the
October 2020 edition of the Brightside. The team also set up a project website to gather input
from the public.
Outreach meetings were held as follows:
October 7, 2020 Stakeholder meetings #1 and #2
April 21, 2021 Stakeholder meeting #3
November 16, 2020 City Council ATP Subcommittee Briefing
January 27, 2021 Meeting with CVWD
January 28, 2021 Meeting with Westfield Mall
March 24, 2021 City Council ATP Subcommittee Briefing
April 7, 2021 City Council ATP Subcommittee Briefing
April 20, 2021 Meeting with Sunline
April 22, 2021 Meeting with Westfield Mall
May 20, 2021 Meeting with Westfield Mall
Discussion
June 24, 2021 - Staff Report
CV Link Connectors Alternatives Analysis
Page 3 of 5
Using the General Plan proposed bicycle & golf cart network and facility types as a starting
point, the project team focused their alternatives analysis on a proposed network of bike and
golf cart facilities connecting El Paseo, core city neighborhoods, the City campus and
educational institutions to the CV Link and San Pablo Avenue corridor. The analysis
examined alternative linkages to existing and proposed bike and golf cart facilities considering
the following factors:
• Condition and availability of existing infrastructure, right-of-way and public easements
• Safety history of roadways and intersections along potential alignments
• Service to users of the bikeway facility
• Benefit to adjacent businesses
• Construction feasibility
• Impacts to roadway capacity and intersection level of service
• Multi-way stop and traffic signal warrants
• Potential environmental impacts (CEQA)
• Bikeway bridge feasibility/suitability over the Palm Valley Channel
• Construction priorities and phasing
• Access control
• Conceptual costs
• Suitability for grant funding
Concluding their analysis and with input from stakeholders, the Consultant has proposed a
network of bicycle and golf cart facilities as depicted on the Vicinity Map attached to the staff
report. The proposed network includes Class I, Class II and Class III facility types from the
General Plan, and a fourth facility type, Class IV. Sometimes referred to as protected bike
lanes or cycle tracks, this facility type is physically separated from the motor vehicle travel
lanes with curbs, landscaping, parking lanes, bollards, or other vertical elements.
In addition to the proposed network and facility types, the Consultant has also proposed
priorities for implementing the network. The proposed priorities are informed by factors such
as physical characteristics and safety history of proposed routes within the network; the
degree of access a route provides to destinations; neighborhood connectivity a proposed
route provides; connectivity to the CV Link; and whether a route requires coordination with a
property owner or other agency. The following table summarizes the proposed network
routes, facility types, and priority for implementation as illustrated on the Vicinity Map:
Proposed
Priority Segment From To
Facility
Type
1 Painters Path (behind Target) Trailhead Channel Bridge Class IV
1 Painters Path Street Channel Bridge El Paseo Class IV
1 El Paseo/Town Center Way Painters Path Fred Waring Dr Class IV
1 Hahn Road/ mall road Town Center Way Monterey / San
Gorgonio Way
Class I
1 El Paseo Painters Path SR-74 Class IV
1 San Gorgonio Way Monterey Ave San Pablo Ave Class III
2 San Gorgonio Way San Pablo Ave San Pascual Ave Class III
June 24, 2021 - Staff Report
CV Link Connectors Alternatives Analysis
Page 4 of 5
Proposed
Priority Segment From To
Facility
Type
2 San Pascual Ave San Gorgonio Ave Rutledge Way Class III
2 Rutledge Way San Pascual Ave Magnesia Falls Dr Class III
2 DeAnza Way San Pascual Ave Deep Canyon Road Class III
2 Deep Canyon Road Magnesia Falls Dr DeAnza Way Class II
2 San Pablo Highway 111 El Paseo Class II
2 El Paseo Ocotillo Dr San Luis Rey Ave Class III
2 San Luis Rey Avenue De Anza Way El Paseo Class III
2 Civic Center Park San Pascual Ave San Pablo Ave Class I
2 Civic Center Park San Pascual Ave Magnesia Falls Dr Class I
3 Pitahaya St/Shadow Mountain Dr. Edgehill Dr SR 74 Class III
3 Ocotillo Dr El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III
3 Shadow Mountain Rd Ocotillo Dr Portola Ave Class III
3 Candlewood St. Portola Ave Deep Canyon Road Class III
3 Deep Canyon DeAnza Way Abronia Trail Class II
3 Abronia Trail Deep Canyon Rd Candlewood Street Class III
3 Edgehill Drive Painters Path Cahuilla Hills Park
Path
Class III
3 San Pablo El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III
3 Palm Valley Channel Painters Path Park View Dr Class I
3 San Luis Rey Avenue El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III
Recommendation
The consultant has prepared a report from the alternatives analysis, which was presented to
the stakeholders for input. The report contains the following:
• A summary of data collection, alternatives analysis, and stakeholder/public outreach
• A network of bicycle/golf cart connections aligned with existing public and private
roadways and a possible connection along the Palm Valley Channel
• The network consists of differing types of bicycle/golf cart facility type, based on the
context of the roadway and informed through the factors vetted with stakeholders
• Recommended priorities for implementing the network segments
Staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to proceed with preliminary
engineering of the proposed improvements according to the recommended priorities. The
project team will continue to engage the stakeholders and the public during preliminary
engineering. The City Council ATP Subcommittee also recommended the project team
conduct temporary demonstrations of project elements for input from the community, similar
to the City’s early community outreach for the San Pablo improvements.
Following preliminary engineering, the staff will return to the City Council with more detailed
information including project alignments and estimates of cost for further direction to proceed
to final engineering and construction
June 24, 2021 - Staff Report
CV Link Connectors Alternatives Analysis
Page� 5 of 5
Fiscal Analvsis
The CV Link Connectors project is included in the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Financial Plan;
therefore, there is no additional impact to the budget.
Project
CV Link
Connectors
LEGAL REVIEW
N/A
Funding
Source Year
New FY20/21
Construction FY21/22
Tax
DEPT. REVIEW
.�lndy firestine
Robert W. Hargreaves Andy Firestine
City Attorney Assistant City Manager
Budget for Total
Description this Project Project Co�t
Design $720,431
Construction $1,500,000 $2,220,431
FINANCIAL ASSISTANT CITY
RE�,'f�L"J MANAGER
�can.�' i�?. i�?oo2�
.�Indy firestine
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
L. Todd Hileman, City Manager: L. Todd H%�ev►�.aw
Attachments: Vicinity Map
CV Link Connector Feasibility Report
CtTY COUNCILvA�TION
API'ROVF.n DF,Nii�:D
RCCEIVED OTNER
Mi;ETING DATE ��' ���'�
AYF,S: '
NOES: �1}1P . ,
Af3S�NT: :'�1�����'l�i�CQ
Ai3�TAliV: /�IG%)P
V[;RIFIED I3Y• rr���
Original on File with City Clerk's Office
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
[This page has intentionally been left blank.]
Vicinity Map
CV Link Connectors
[This page has intentionally been left blank.]
CV/Link Connector Feasibility Draft Report
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of Palm Desert
Prepared By:
March, 2021
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
PROJECT PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................... 2
PLANNING CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 3
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................... 3
DESTINATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................................... 5
VEHICLE TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................................... 6
TRANSIT .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 10
ADVISORY COMMITTEE .................................................................................................................................... 10
PUBLIC INPUT ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 PROJECT GOALS AND STANDARDS .................................................................................... 11
PROJECT GOALS .................................................................................................................................................. 11
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................... 12
NETWORK DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................... 15
5.0 NETWORK EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 16
INITIAL NETWORK .............................................................................................................................................. 16
EVALUATION FACTORS .................................................................................................................................... 16
SEGMENT REVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 17
COORDINATION .................................................................................................................................................. 18
DESIGN CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................................................ 19
ROUTE PRIORITIZATION ................................................................................................................................... 22
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 25
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1: STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
FIGURE 2-1: COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2-2: DESTINATIONS IN THE CITY CENTER .................................................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 2-3: EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK ................................................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 2-4: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2020) .......................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 2-5: TRAVEL SPEEDS ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
FIGURE 2-6: HIGH FREQUENCY COLLISION LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2-7: TRANSIT NETWORK IN PALM DESERT ................................................................................................................ 9
FIGURE 3-1: PROJECT WEBSITE PAGE ....................................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 4-1: LSV/BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES .............................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 4-2: TYPE OF LOW SPEED VEHICLES/GOLF CARTS ............................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 4-3: LSV CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 5-1: INITIAL NETWORK CONSIDERED ....................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 5-2: CONSTRAINED SEGMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 17
FIGURE 5-3: LSV LANES AT INTERSECTION OF PAINTERS PATH AND EL PASEO ..................................................... 19
FIGURE 5-4: LSV LANES AT INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND EL PASEO ........................................................ 20
FIGURE 5-5: LSV LANES AT INTERSECTION OF HAHN RD AND TOWN CENTER WAY ........................................... 21
FIGURE 5-6: LSV LANES ALONG HAHN RD AT MALL .......................................................................................................... 27
List of Tables
TABLE 5-1: EVALUATION SCORING ........................................................................................................................................... 23
TABLE 5-2: ROUTE/SEGMENT EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 5-3: ADDITIONAL SEGMENT EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 25
TABLE 5-4: PHASE 1 PROJECT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................................... 25
TABLE 5-5: PHASE 2 PROJECT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................................... 26
TABLE 5-6: PHASE 3 PROJECT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................................... 26
Appendices
APPENDIX A: EXISTING SEGMENT DATA ................................................................................................................................ 28
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
1
Section 1 – Introduction
This report has been prepared to determine the feasibility of a creating a network to serve the growing
demand for travel by low speed electric vehicles and bicycle in the city center area of Palm Desert. This
report builds upon the direction provided in the City of Palm Desert’s 2016 General Plan that envisions an
active transportation network of pedestrian, bicycle and low speed electric vehicles (LSVs) to connect
critical parts of the community. This report describes developing, analyzing and designing safe, well-
connected active transportation corridors that connect to major destinations located in the City Center.
These destinations include the College of the Desert, El Paseo shopping district, residential
neighborhoods, the Civic Center municipal campus, and San Pablo Avenue.
The CV Link Connector Feasibility Report builds upon regional CV/Link construction led by the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) which provides a dual pathway along a route that generally
parallels Highway 111 to provide access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed electric vehicles
(including golf carts). Within Palm Desert, the CV/Link extends along Magnesia Falls Drive, Monterey
Avenue, Park View Drive and ends at the Bump and Grind Trail on Painters Path and is currently under
construction. This project will study a network of routes (i.e. CV/Link Connectors) that provide connections
to the regional CV/Link. This will include CV/Link connectors along Painters Path from the Bump and
Grand Trail to the Bridge at Palm Valley Channel and proceed east to connect with other CV Link
connectors recommended in this feasibility study report.
Study Area
The project is located in the City of Palm Desert, California. The boundary of the study area is between
Painters Path to Deep Canyon Road, and Magnesia Falls to El Paseo. The study area is shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Study Area
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
2
Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to identify the feasibility of alternative bicycle/golf cart/LSV corridors that
will connect to the CV/Link and provide multiple connections in order to create a full local interconnected
network in the City Center of Palm Desert.
Planning Context
The study takes into consideration the City’s previous planning efforts related to these corridors and its
vicinity. The following reports provide useful planning context for this study’s efforts.
General Plan Circulation Element, 2011
In 2016, the City adopted the General Plan, known as the Active Streets Master Plan that provides the
foundation for land use and transportation decisions. The “Plan” provided a progressive framework for
the re-imagining the City Center. The Mobility Element of the General Plan described the goals and
policies for the transportation system. It called for the development of an interconnected mobility
network offering transportation options including golf carts and bicycles.
CV/Link
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) efforts to adopt a new concept of active and
alternative transportation began as far back as 2007. Their purpose was to combine pedestrians,
bicyclists, and low-speed electric vehicles (including golf carts) on a 40 mile dual pathway (CV/Link)
connecting the cities throughout the Coachella Valley Region. The planning for the CV/Link and the
concept of the CV/Link was included in the Coachella Valley Non-Motorized Transportation Plan in 2010.
A project master plan was completed in 2015, and construction of portions of the pathway began in
2017.
The segment of the CV/Link that goes through the City of Palm Desert is to be completed in 2021. The
Palm Desert CV/Link consists of nearly 1.5 miles of on-street bikeway improvements along Painters Path,
Park View Drive, Monterey Avenue, Magnesia Falls Drive, and a connection from Magnesia Falls Drive to
Hovley Lane East in Palm Desert.
San Pablo Streetscape
The City of Palm Desert’s efforts to accommodate LSVs includes the construction of San Pablo
Streetscape Corridor Improvement Phase 1 (Highway 111 to Fred Waring Drive) and is to be followed by
the construction of San Pablo Streetscape Phase 2 (Fred Waring Drive to Magnesia Falls) which is
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2021.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
3
Section 2 – Existing Conditions
This section of the report provides information about population characteristics and the operational
characteristics of the transportation system in the City Center.
Community Characteristics
Palm Desert is a mid-sized city located in the Coachella Valley. The population of Palm Desert in 2019
was 59,977. Known as a retirement destination, Palm Desert has a median household income that is lower
than the state average. Palm Desert has high percentage of population that is 65 and older. Two-thirds
of the City’s population is white, with 23.5% Hispanic or Latino.
Figure 2.1 Community Characteristics
Source: American Community Survey 2019 5-year estimates
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
4
Destinations
Identifying activity centers and key destinations is vital in developing an active transportation network
that suits the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. These destinations include major
employers, government sites, retail centers, hospitals, major attractions, colleges, schools and parks. City
Center was identified as a priority pedestrian area and as high need and demand for active transportation
infrastructure in the General Plan and is composed of residential, public and commercial activity. Figure
2.2 shows these destinations in the City Center.
Figure 2.2 Destinations in the City Center
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
5
Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle infrastructure in the Central City includes bicycle lanes on a number of streets, the
CV/Link under construction and the San Pablo Avenue bicycles and LSV lanes. Class III bicycle routes are
also designated on a number of City streets. These Class III routes are located on lower speed streets and
are designated by signs and sharrow street markings indicating that motorists should share the road. The
city’s bike lanes and low speed vehicle lanes and Class III routes are shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Existing Bicycle Network
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
6
Vehicle Traffic
Traffic Counts
Daily traffic counts taken in early 2020 are shown in Figure 2.3. The highest traffic volumes are on Route
111, Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Boulevard.
Figure 2.4 Daily Traffic Volumes (2020)
Source: Engineering & Traffic Study, 2020
Travel Speeds
Posted speeds and recorded observed travel speeds for the initial network segments were obtained from
a travel speed survey completed in early 2020. The observed speeds reported are 85th percentile speed,
which is the recorded speed where 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling at or at a lower speed. The
85th percentile speeds were compared with the posted speed as shown in Figure 2.5.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
7
Figure 2.5 Travel Speeds
Collisions
The locations of the pedestrian and bicycle collisions that occurred from January 2015 through December
2019 were obtained from the Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan and are shown in Figure 2.6.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
8
Figure 2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Locations (2015-19)
Source: Palm Desert Local Roadway Safety Plan (2021)
Transit
Transit service is provided to Palm Desert by the Sunline Transit Agency. Transit routes operate on
segments of Cook Street, Monterey Avenue, Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. A major route transfrer
point is located on Town Center Parkway just north of Highway 111. The transit network is shown in
Figure 2.7.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
9
Figure 2.7 Transit Network in Palm Desert
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
10
Section 3 – Outreach and Engagement
The CV/Link Connector project team developed an outreach approach that aimed to gather community
input on more specific improvements and recommendations within City Center and along its corridors.
Advisory Committee
The CV/Link Connector was guided by an Advisory Committee that consisted of City staff, represented by
Public Works, Planning, Community Development, Public Safety, and Tourism and Marketing
Departments, Friends of the CV/Link, and other organizations. Established to provide specific input on
Central City improvements, concerns, and needs, the Committee has collaborated with the project team to
provide an overview, discussing outreach strategies, and reviewing potential corridors.
Public Input
Public outreach has been obtained using virtual methods by developing an online communication tools to
allow the Palm Desert community to participate in the outreach process. Information presented to the
Advisory Committee was made available using an e-learning platform website that allowed online users to
view information on the project, evaluate a potential LSV network, review preliminary concepts, and learn
more about pedestrian, bikeway, and place making treatments. An online interactive map allowing
participants to identify key issues and constraints was developed. To gather community input on corridor
concepts and improvements, a survey that mirrored the outreach event feedback activity was created and
was embedded within the website. The website was promoted through a series of social media
campaigns, postcard flyers, and email listservs. Survey input collected from the project web site is
provided in a separate Appendix document.
Figure 3.1 Project Web Site Page
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
11
Section 4 – Project Goals and Standards
Project Goals
The City Center has opportunities for active transportation enhancements that will support a growing
local economy and vibrant environment. By developing an interconnected mobility network offering
transportation options including golf carts, LSVs and bicycles, Palm Desert can increase connectivity to the
activities located in the city center from nearby neighborhoods, and to the CV/Link that connects with
other communities.
The local network of low-speed roadways that provide street will connect major residential
neighborhoods, public transportation facilities and activity centers such as schools and colleges, business
centers, shopping facilities, medical services, and recreational centers.
Project Goals include:
• Mobility - Increase the mobility connecting to and within the city center/downtown area for golf
cart / low speed vehicles.
• Safety – Identify LSV/bikeway routes that provide for safe use in particular on streets used by
other vehicles.
• Access - Identify a network of corridors to provide access to central Palm Desert destinations.
These destinations include the El Paseo District, other commercial areas, parks, city services and
colleges/schools.
• Neighborhoods – Connect central area neighborhoods to area destinations.
• CV/Link Connectivity – Provide efficient connection to the CV/Link
The project seeks to develop a network that explores improvements within right-of-way, but also
examines innovative alignments on non-public right-of-way.
Selected priority corridors/routes are to be designed and constructed in the future as funding becomes
available.
Standards and Criteria
Bike and Low Speed Vehicle Facilities
The project seeks to accommodate golf carts and LSVs. Similar to bicycles, LSVs can be
accommodated on and off roadways in a number of ways. Key facility types as well as the
CV/Link and CV/Link Connectors are shown in Figure 4.1.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
12
Figure 4.1 LSV/Bicycle Facility Types
Low Speed Vehicles Types
Low-speed electric vehicles (LSVs) are becoming more common on public roadways. Although
small electric vehicles have been prevalent for many years on golf courses and as mobility aids,
their manufacture for use on public roadways as a short-range alternative to fossil-fueled autos
has been increasing in recent years.
A LSV is defined as any four-wheeled motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less
than 3,000 pounds, whose top speed is not greater than 25 miles per hour on a paved level
surface. Golf carts are not legally defined as LSVs as a golf cart is a vehicle with a maximum
speed of less than 20 mph. LSV are legally permitted to operate on public roads posted at no
more than 35 mph. Examples of vehicles that would use the LSV Network are shown in Figure
4.2.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
13
Figure 4.2 Type of Low Speed Vehicles/Golf Carts
Source: AARP Policy Institute. Photos courtesy of Institut du transport avancé du Québec.
Facility Types
This plan includes design standards for four classes of LSV facilities: separate off-road paths, designated
on-road facilities, and shared on-road facilities. (See Figure 4.3). Standards were largely based on design
standards adopted WRCOG Four-City LSV Transportation Plan (2011) and follow the Caltrans bicycle
classification system. The preferred on-street design includes a separate seven-foot-wide lane for LSVs
and bicycles, especially on streets with buses and heavy vehicle use.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
14
Figure 4.3 LSV Classification System
Class 1 Separate Path
Completely separated pathway adjacent to
roadway. Desired for use along major arterial
routes where speeds can be equal or above 45
mph.
Class II Designated Lane
Typically used on minor arterial or collector routes
where travel speeds are between 30 mph and 45
mph. Buffered lanes are desirable for the higher
portion of this speed range.
Class III Shared Travel Lanes
LSV would use regular travel lanes on low speed
and low volume streets. Shared lanes would not be
used on streets with speeds over 35 mph or
volumes over 3,000 ADT.
Class IV – protected bike lanes, also known as cycle
tracks. They are physically separated from the
motor vehicle travel lanes with either concrete
curbs, landscaping, parking lanes, bollards, or other
vertical elements.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
15
Network Design Guidelines
A review was conducted related to guidelines for implementing LSV networks. The following provides
these guidelines:
1) Allow LSVs and golf carts to mix with traffic only on low-speed streets. Communities should limit
LSV use in mixed-vehicle traffic to roads with posted speeds no greater than 25 mph.
2) Provide marked travel lanes for LSVs and golf carts on 30- to 35-mph roads. Establish seven-foot
marked travel lanes for use by lower speed vehicles (LSVs, golf carts, and bicycles), especially on
roads with speed limits of 30 to 35 mph.
3) Provide separate pathways for LSVs and golf carts as an alternative to routing them onto higher-
speed (above 35 mph) roads, and to improve their overall viability.
4) Use traffic-calming strategies and other design treatments to enforce speed limits and improve
safety for all travelers. Drivers have a tendency to go as fast as the roadway design permits,
regardless of posted speeds. Design elements such as narrower travel lanes, medians, sidewalks,
landscaping, and access controls provide visual and physical cues that encourage (or, in some
cases, force) drivers to travel at the appropriate speed.
Source: Policy and Design Considerations for Accommodating Low Speed Vehicles and Golf Carts in
Community Transportation Networks, AARP Public Policy Institute
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
16
Section 5 – Network Evaluation
The following describes the methodologies used to evaluate potential LSV/Bicycle routes and segments in
the Palm Desert city center. This evaluation was used to refine the LSV/Bicycle network and to determine
priorities for design and construction.
Initial Network
The initial study network was identified by reviewing the proposed bicycle from the City of Palm Desert
General Plan. Additional alternative alignments were added based on field review, the review of existing
transportation conditions by coordinating with the bicycle groups and obtaining public input. Detailed
information for each corridor segment is found in Appendix A. The resulting network represents the
potential corridors and off-street routes to be evaluated and prioritized. The initial network is shown in
Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Initial Network Considered
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
17
Segment Review
A detailed inventory of the identified route segments was completed. The inventory measured:
Posted speed
85 percentile speed
Traffic volume
Number of lanes
Presence of bike lanes
Presence of on-street parking
Type of access along street – commercial driveway, residential, etc.
Width of roadway and lane width
Available space for LSV lanes
Using the design criteria, the inventory provided the information to evaluate which segments had the
characteristics to provide either Class II LSV lanes or Class III LSV shared facilities. Those segments that
could not support either Class II or Class III were determined to be constrained requiring additional
analysis to provide either new Class I or Class IV facilities. The segment inventory is shown in Appendix A.
The constrained segments are shown in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Constrained Segments
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
18
Coordination
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
The potential network included segments along the Palm Valley Channel which is owned and maintained
by the CVWD. Discussions were held with CVWD staff regarding opportunities to utilize CVWD right-of-
way for use by a Class I path both north and south of Painters Path. South of Painters Path, the CVWD
indicated that they would discourage use of the east side of the channel that backs up to residences. They
indicated that hikers and bikers are currently using an informal path located on the west side of the
channel to connect to Cahuilla Hills Park. The CVWD indicated a willingness to discuss use of CVWD
right-of-way for a hiking trail on the west side of the channel and to consider the use of their right of way
for a future bikeway between Painters Path and Parkview Drive.
Westfield Palm Desert Mall
The potential network includes a connection from Painters Path to an area at the intersection of Monterey
Avenue and San Gorgonio Way where the LSV/Bikeway network would continue as a Class II route. This
connection will require providing network connection adjacent to or with in the Westfield Palm Desert
Mall property. Potential route connections in the Westfield Mall vicinity were presented for comment and
discussion. The Mall staff indicated a support for a potential connection along Hahn Road or potentially
along the south side of the Mall property. They will also consider use of their right-of-way for a future
bikeway between Painters Path and Park View Drive.
Sunline Transit Agency
The Sunline Transit Agency currently provides bus transfer facilities on the east side of Town Center Way
south of Hahn Road. Sunline Transit is in the preliminary stage of investigating the possible development
of an off-street transit hub on or near the Westfield Mall site. Sunline Transit supported the connection of
LSV/bicycle facilities with the existing and also the potential future transit facility in this location.
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
19
Design Concepts
A number of the constrained segments were identified as having sufficient vehicle capacity to consider
examining LSV lane concepts that would be existing traffic lanes or had space available adjacent to street.
The following design concepts illustrate potential approaches to how LSV/bicycle lanes could be provided
in a number of these constrained locations.
Intersection of Painters Path and El Paseo
Figure 5.3 addresses the intersection of Painters Path and El Paseo. A separated Class IV LSV/Bicycle path
is provided on the north side of Painters Path and along the west side of El Paseo. As a Class IV facility,
the LSV/Bicycle lanes are separated by a barrier.
Figure 5.3 LSV Lanes at Intersection of Painters Path and El Paseo
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
20
Intersection of Highway 111 and El Paseo
Figure 5.4 provides a concept to address the crossing of Highway 111 at El Paseo. A separated Class IV
LSV/Bicycle path is provided on the west side of El Paseo, with a marked crossing of Highway 111. The
Class IV cycle track would continue on the west side of Town Center Way.
Figure 5.4 LSV Lanes at Intersection of Highway 111 and El Paseo
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
21
Intersection of Town Center Way and Hahn Road
Figure 5.5 illustrates the connection of the two-way cycle track lanes to cross Town Center Way and
continue on the north side of Hahn Road.
Figure 5.5 LSV Lanes at Intersection of Town Center Way and Hahn Road
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
22
Along Hahn Road
Figure 5.6 illustrates one possible connection through the Westfield Mall by providing a two-way cycle
track lanes on the north side of Hahn Road at the north edge of the Westfield Mall. The concept would
utilize space available just north of the existing street.
Figure 5.6 LSV Lanes along Hahn Road
Route Prioritization
Evaluation Factors
The evaluation of the initial network took into consideration the impact on roadway capacity, access to
businesses, retail and residential areas, ease/smooth connectivity between the critical elements within the
study area, connectivity to San Pablo Avenue, CV/Link and most importantly, the safety of pedestrians,
cyclists, and golf cart users. An evaluation process was developed to reflect these considerations and was
then used to prioritize potential LSV/Bicycle routes and segments. Performance measures are defined for
each of the project goals and are used to score each route and segment. The performance measures
included the following:
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
23
Mobility – this factor considered two items: the physical characteristics of the route/segment and
safety degree in which the route/segment would be located along locations where pedestrian or bicycle
collisions had occurred in the past. An extensive review for each route segment of the physical feasibility
and consistency with design standards. The 2021 Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan was used to identify
locations with safety considerations. The mobility scores reflect the concept development previously
discussed. If the Class IV facilities identified for these segments are not developed, the mobility scores
would be affected.
Access – this factor is based on the level of direct access to destinations. The destinations evaluated
included: the El Paseo District, other commercial, parks, city services, colleges/schools.
Neighborhood Connectivity - this factor considered two items: equity measured by the degree in which
the project serves low income households and neighborhood connectivity measured by the directness
of connections from residential areas (neighborhoods) to destinations.
CV/Link Connectivity - this factor is based on a general measure of the connection and direction of the
route to the CV/Link and potential extension at Painters Path.
Agency/Private Coordination – this factor measures potential coordination with other agencies if routes
would use or impact their right-of-way. The scores reflect the coordination completed to date.
Route Evaluation
Table 5.1 Evaluation Scoring
The screening evaluation of projects and programs is
intended to be easy to understand, both quantitative and
qualitative in nature, and logical and consistent. The
evaluation methodology is based upon a detailed segment
assessment in which scores were assigned. From this scoring,
the results were represented using the evaluation
methodology shown in Table 5.1.
The evaluation system described above was used to evaluate the individual routes. The evaluation was
completed by completing evaluation scores for route segments, providing evaluation scores for segments,
and then by using the segment averages to provide a simplified visual representation. For comparison
purposes, a point scale was added where High Benefit - 5 points, Medium Benefit – 2 points, Neutral – 0
points, Negative (can be mitigated) - (-2) points, Negative (constrained) – (-5) points. The LSV/Bicycle
route evaluation is shown in Table 5.2. Additional LSV/Bicycle connecting segments are evaluated in Table
5.3.
High Benefit Fully meets
criteria 5 points
Medium Benefit Partially meets
criteria 2 points
Neutral Neutral 0 points
Negative n Potential
Constraint -2 points
Negative N Highly
constrained -5 points
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
24
Table 5.2 Route/Segment Evaluation
Corridor Project Description Mobility Access
Neighborhood
Connectivity
CV Link
Connectivity
Agency
Coordination Score
A/H San Gorgonio/DeAnza/San Pascual
Painters Path Roadway LSV Lanes 15
Town Center LSV Lanes n 13
Hahn Road Trail/Lanes n 13
San Gorgonio Class III Shared Route 11
DeAnza Class III Shared Route 11
San Pascual 14
B El Paseo
Painters Path Roadway LSV Lanes 13
El Paseo LSV Lanes from Painter's Path to SR-74 15
El Paseo Shared Lanes from SR-74 to San Pablo n 7
El Paseo Shared Lanes from San Pablo to Portola n 7
C Shadow Mountain/Deep Canyon
Ocotillo El Paseo to Shadow Mt shared route 7
Shadow Mountain from Ocotillo to Portola shared
routed 9
Candlewood Portola to Deep Canyon shared lanes 9
Deep Canyon Candlewood to Ramona Ave LSV Lanes 8
Deep Canyon Ramona Ave to Magnesia Falls LSV
lanes 11
D Portola Avenue
Magnesia Falls to Fred Waring N 1
Fred Waring to El Paseo N 1
El Paseo to Fairway N 1
E Fred Waring Drive
Painters Path to Portola LSV Lanes N -3
Portola to Deep Canyon LSV Lanes N -3
F Monterey Avenue
Park View Dr to San Gorgonio Way LSV Lanes N 5
San Gorgonio Way to El Paseo LSV Lanes N 4
G Ocotillo/Grapevine/Fairway
Ocotillo Dr. from El Paseo to Grapevine shared lanes 7
Grapevine from Ocotillo to Portola shared lanes 7
Portola from Grapevine to Fairway LSV lane N 0
Fairway from Portola to Deep Canyon shared lanes 7
I Palm Valley Channel/Edgewater/Pitahaya
Palm Valley Channel to Park View Dr n 10
Edgehill Drive from Painter's Path to Cahuilla Hills
Park and on Pitahaya St.9
Pitahaya 7
Sahdow Mountain 7
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
25
Table 5.3 Additional Segment Evaluation
Recommendations
Based on the evaluation scores recommendations have been made for the project phases. The project
phases include a list of projects with Phase 1 indicating the projects to be completed first, Phase 2
indicating the projects to be completed next, and Phase 3 indicating the projects to complete the
network. The project phases are shown in Figure 5.7 and described below.
Phase 1
These projects listed in Table 5.4 are the initial priority and would be designed and constructed first. The
projects would provide an extension from the existing terminus of the CV/Link at the Painters Path
Trailhead and provide connections to destinations in the central city. These projects address critical links
in the network to enable extension from the CV/Link terminus providing connections into the street
system and providing the base network enabling expansion in future phases. This project phase
addresses the challenging locations at Painters Path and El Paso, the segment along Town Center Drive,
extension through the Westfield Mall and extension along El Paseo to SR-74.
Table 5.4 Phase 1 Project Priorities
Segment From To Facility Type
Painters Path (behind Target) Trailhead Channel Bridge Class IV Path
Painters Path Street Channel Bridge El Paseo Class IV Path
El Paseo/Town Center Way Painters Path Fred Waring Dr Class IV Path
Hahn Road/ mall road
Town Center
Way
Monterey / San
Gorgonio Way Class I Path
El Paseo Painters Path SR-74 Class IV Lanes
San Gorgonio Way Monterey Ave San Pablo Ave Class III Shared Route
Corridor Project Description Mobility Access
Neighborhood
Connectivity
CV Link
Connectivity
Agency
Coordination Score
Other Segments
San Pablo from Highway 111 to El Paseo n 8
San Luis Rey Ave from El Paseo to DeAnza Way
shared lanes 7
Civic Center Park from San Pasqual to Portola path
through park n 10
Palm Valley Channel to Cahuilla Hills Park 6
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
26
Phase 2
The second group of priority projects are listed in Table 5.5 and would provide for extended coverage to
destinations located north of Highway 111. The routes along San Gorgonio Way, San Pascual Ave.,
Rutledge Way and De Anza Way would be provided as shared routes. Additional traffic calming measures
would be implemented in order to help encourage vehicle travel speeds of 30 MPH or less. The existing
bicycle lanes on Deep Canyon would be re-striped for use by LSVs. This phase also includes extending the
San Pablo Avenue streetscape project from Highway 111 to El Paseo to provide connectivity into this area.
This phase also provides a project to provide Class I trail extension across Civic Center Park.
Table 5.5 Phase 2 Project Priorities
Segment From To Facility Type
San Gorgonio Way San Pablo Ave San Pascual Ave Class III Shared Route
San Pascual Ave
San Gorgonio
Ave Rutledge Way Class III Shared Route
Rutledge Way San Pascual Ave Magnesia Falls Dr Class III Shared Route
DeAnza Way San Pascual Ave Deep Canyon Road Class III Shared Route
Deep Canyon Road Magnesia Falls Dr DeAnza Way Class II Lanes
San Pablo Highway 111 El Paseo Class II Lanes
El Paseo Ocotillo Dr San Luis Rey Ave Class III Shared Route
San Luis Rey Avenue De Anza Way El Paseo Class III Shared Route
Civic Center Park San Pascual Ave San Pablo Ave Class I Path
Civic Center Park San Pascual Ave Magnesia Falls Dr Class I Path
Phase 3
The recommended projects for Phase 3 implementation listed in Table 5.6 include shared route facilities
along Shadow Mountain Road and Candlewood which would provide for an extension of the LSV/bicycle
route along El Paseo. This route will provide connectivity to the neighborhoods located south of Highway
111 and also provide access to El Paseo shopping and entertainment from the south. In addition, a
number of additional segment connections are recommended including extending the lane facilities on
Deep Canyon from De Anza Way to Candlewood Drive and provide a connection to Cahuilla Hills Park.
Table 5.6 Phase 3 Project Priorities
Segment From To Facility Type
Pitahaya St/Shadow Mountain Dr. Edgehill Dr SR 74 Class III Shared Route
Ocotillo Dr El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III Shared Route
Shadow Mountain Rd Ocotillo Dr Portola Ave Class III Shared Route
Candlewood St. Portola Ave Deep Canyon Road Class III Shared Route
Deep Canyon DeAnza Way Abronia Trail Class II Lanes
Abronia Trail Deep Canyon Rd Candlewood Street Class III Shared Route
Edgehill Drive Painters Path Cahuilla Hills Park Path Class III Shared Route
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
27
San Pablo El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III Shared Route
Palm Valley Channel Painters Path Park View Dr Class I Trail
San Luis Rey Avenue El Paseo Shadow Mountain Rd Class III Shared Route
Other Phases
Other segments may be considered to be completed. As other transportation and development projects
occur, the proposed route network and priorities may need to be updated.
Remaining Constrained Segments
Segments of the initial network on Fred Waring Drive, Monterey Avenue, Portola Avenue and El Paseo
(east of Portola Avenue) were shown to be constrained where width was not available for providing
LSV/Bicycle lanes, and where volumes and travel speeds were too high to allow for shared use. Based on
project scorning and right-of-way constraints, those constrained street segments were dropped from
further consideration.
Figure 5.6 LSV/Bicycle Network Project Phases
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
28
Appendix A
Corridor A/H
Corridor B
Corridor C
Corridor D
Corridor E
Street Segement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume Lanes Bike Parking Width Access
Monterey El Paseo - Rt 111 45 28 21780 6 N 0 80 Limited 14.0 18.0 Lane
Monterey Rt 111-San Gorgonio 45 42 27027 8 N 0 90 Com Drives 11.3 2.0 Constrain
San Gorgonio Monterey-San Pablo 30 35 1789 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
De Anza San Pablo - San Pascual 30 29 920 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
San Pascual DeAnza-Fred Waring 30 29 500 2 N 8 40 Res Frontage 16.0 10.0 Lane
San Pascual Fred Waring - Rutledge 30 29 500 2 N 8 36 Res Frontage 14.0 6.0 Shared
Rutledge San Pascual - Mag Falls 30 29 500 2 N 8 40 Res Frontage 16.0 10.0 Lane
Space for
Lane
Sharrred
/ Lane
Lane
Width
Painters Path Trail Head-Bridge 25 29 1660 2 N 0 35 none 13.0 4.0 Shared
Painters Path Bridge - El Paseo 30 35 1390 3 Y 16 60 limited com 14.7 11.0 Lane
El Paseo Painters Path - SR 74 35 38 9160 5 N 0 80 streets 16.0 25.0 Lane
El Paseo SR 74-Ocotillo 25 25 9361 5 N 16 80 limited com 12.8 9.0 Shared
El Paseo Ocotillo - San Pablo 25 25 9361 5 N 16 80 driveways 12.8 9.0 Shared
Ocotillo El Paseo- Tumbleweed 35 34 3511 2 N 8 36 Res Frontage 14.0 6.0 Shared
Tumbleweed Ocotillo - Shadow Mt 30 35 3511 2 N 8 32 Res Frontage 12.0 2.0 Shared
Shadow Mt Tumbleweed - San Pablo 30 36 3511 2 N 16 40 Res Frontage 12.0 2.0 Shared
San Pablo Shadow Mt - El Paseo 25 25 n/a 3 N 0 36 com drive 12.0 3.0 Shared
San Pablo El Paseo - Rt 111 25 25 n/a 5 N 0 55 com drive 11.0 0.0 Shared
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume Lane Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred /
LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
Painters Path Trail-Bridge 25 29 1660 2 N 0 35 None 13.0 4.0 Shared
Painters Path Bridge- El Paseo 30 35 1390 3 Y 16 60 Limited Drives 14.7 11.0 Lane
Town Center Paint Path - Rt 111 35 35 10000 7 N 0 83 Limited Drives 11.9 6.0 Shared
Town Center Rt 111- Hahn 35 39 9814 4 N 0 48 Limited Drives 12.0 4.0 Shared
Hahn Town Center - Monterey 25 25 1500 3 N 0 33 Parking Lot 11.0 0.0 Shared
San Gorgonio Mont-San Pablo 30 35 1789 2 N 16 38 Limited Residential 11.0 0.0 Shared
De Anza San Pablo- San Pascual 30 29 920 2 N 16 38 Limited Residential 11.0 0.0 Shared
De Anza San Pascual - Portolo 30 31 572 2 N 16 40 Limited Residential 12.0 2.0 Shared
De Anza Portola - Deep Canyon 30 31 572 2 N 16 36 Res Frontage 10.0 -2.0 Shared
Deep Canyon Ramona- Fred Waring 45 45 9155 5 Y 0 72 Side Street 14.4 17.0 Lane
Deep Canyon Fred Waring - Magnesia Falls 45 45 4180 3 Y 16 64 Side Street 16.0 15.0 Lane
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume
Lane
Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred /
LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
Town Center Paint Path - Rt 111 35 10000 7 N 0 90 Limited 13.0 14.0 Lane
RT 101 Town Center - Monterey 45 43 32114 8 N 0 130 Limited 16.3 42.0 Lane
Monterey Rt 111- San Gorgonio 45 43 27027 8 N 0 90 Limited 11.3 2.0 Constrain
Monterey San Gorgonio - Fred Waring 45 42 27027 8 N 0 90 Limited 11.3 2.0 Constrain
Monterey Fred Waring-Park View 45 42 25000 8 N 0 90 Limited 11.3 2.0 Constrain
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume
Lane
Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred
/ LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
El Paseo San Pascual - Portola 25 25 9361 4 N 16 78 Com drive 15.5 18.0 Lane
Portola El Paseo - Rt 111 35 38 15000 5 N 0 54 Com drive 10.8 -1.0 Constrain
Portola Rt 111 - De Anza 40 43 19332 4 N 0 58 Limited 14.5 14.0 Lane
Portola De Anza - Fred Waring 40 43 19332 5 N 0 54 Limited 10.8 -1.0 Constrain
Portola Fred Waring - Rutledge 40 43 19332 5 N 0 54 Limited 10.8 -1.0 Constrain
Portola Rutledge - Magnesia Falls 40 43 19332 5 N 0 54 Limited 10.8 -1.0 Constrain
Lanes BikeStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume
Lane
Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred
/ LaneParkingWidthAccess
City of Palm Desert CV/Link Connector Feasibility Report
29
Corridor F
Corridor G
Corridor I / Additional Segments
Fred Waring Painters Path-Town Center 45 46 29325 5 N 0 54 Limited 10.8 -1.0 Constrain
Fred Waring Town Center - Monterey 45 46 29325 6 N 0 70 Limited 11.7 4.0 Constrain
Fred Waring Monterey - San Pablo 45 46 29325 6 N 0 66 Limited 11.0 0.0 Constrain
Fred Waring San Pablo - Portola 45 46 29325 6 N 0 72 Limited 12.0 6.0 Constrain
Fred Waring Portola - Deep Canyon 45 46 29325 6 N 0 78 Limited 13.0 12.0 Lane
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume
Lane
Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred
/ LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
Shadow Mountain San Pablo - Portola 30 32 1000 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
Candlewood Portola - Deep Canyon 30 32 1000 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
Deep Canyon Candlwood - Rt 111 35 35 2118 2 Y 16 38 Limited 11.0 0.0 Shared
Deep Canyon Rt 111 - Ramona 45 45 9155 4 Y 0 60 Limited 15.0 16.0 Lane
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume Lane Width
Space for
Lane
Sharrred /
LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
Hwy 74 Grapevine-El Paseo 45 49 23336 5 Y 0 70 Side Street 14.0 15.0 Lane
Grapeviene Hwy 74- Portola 35 32 1491 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
Portola Grapvine-Fairway 35 33 13016 4 WS 8 60 Limited 13.0 8.0 Shared
Portola Fairway-Shaddow Mountain 35 33 13016 4 WS 8 60 Limited 13.0 8.0 Shared
Portola Shaddow Mt- El Paseo 35 33 13016 5 N 0 60 Com Drive 12.0 5.0 Shared
Fairway Portola-Deep Canyon 30 33 3710 2 N 16 40 Res Frontage 12.0 2.0 Shared
Deep Canyon Fairway-Candlewood 35 36 2118 2 N 16 38 Res Frontage 11.0 0.0 Shared
Abronia Trail Deep Canyon -Candlewood 30 30 500 2 N 16 40 Res Frontage 12.0 2.0 Shared
Abronia Trail Candlewood-Fairway 30 30 500 2 N 16 40 Res Frontage 12.0 2.0 Shared
El Paseo Portola-Hwy 111 25 32 9361 4 N 16 64 Side Street 12.0 4.0 Shared
Cabrilo Ave Hwy 111-De Anza Wy 30 30 1000 2 N 16 36 Res Frontage 10.0 -2.0 Shared
San Luis Rey El Paseo - Hwy 111 30 30 2000 3 N 0 40 Com Access 13.3 7.0 Shared
San Luis Rey Hwy 111 - De Anza 30 30 500 2 N 16 42 Res Frontage 13.0 4.0 Shared
Edgehill Drive Painters Path to Cahuilla Hills 30 30 500 2 N 16 42 Res Frontage 13.0 4.0 Shared
Pitahaya Edgehill to Shadow Mountain 30 30 500 2 N 16 36 Res Frontage 10.0 -2.0 Shared
LanesStreetSegement
Posted
Speed
85th %
Speed Volume
Sharrred /
LaneBikeParkingWidthAccess
Lane
Width
Space for
Lane