Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInvestment Strategy_v1To: Chris Gerry, City of Palm Desert From: Les Brown, Alta Planning + Design Date: April 3, 2025 Re: Palm Desert Vision Zero – Investment Strategy Palm Desert Vision Zero – Investment Strategy Introduction This Investment Strategy memo provides a comprehensive review of the recommendations in the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and Safe Routes for Older Adults (SRFOA) Plans, as well as in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Cost estimates are provided and summarized for each recommendation type, and each location for recommended improvements was prioritized to identify projects that the City of Palm Desert should focus on for grant funding opportunities. This memo also describes grant funding options and how the City can use the results in this memo to pursue this funding. Cost Estimates Overview Preliminary cost estimates align with the requirements for both the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the US Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Program. The cost estimates are provided in a summarized format for each recommendation type in the City of Palm Desert. Recommendations outside of city boundaries, including at Colonel Mitchell Paige Elementary and Gerald R. Ford Elementary, are not included in the cost estimate. Palm Desert should work with the cities of La Quinta and Indian Wells to implement these school improvements. If an estimate for a specific location is needed, City staff can review the unit costs provided to determine individual project estimates. Unit costs were identified based on 2024 construction costs of similar projects in California. Additional fees are included in the cost estimates to account for contingency, design, environmental processes, right-of-way and construction engineering. The cost estimates in this memo were completed based on the ATP application, which requires a higher level of detail than SS4A. City staff can modify the cost estimates for the SS4A application as needed. Planning level cost estimates were provided in the SRTS and SRFOA Plans. In this Investment Strategy memo, the planning level estimates have been further reviewed and updated based on expected fees identified during additional engineering review. However, final project costs are subject to change due to factors such as inflation, the means of installation, and final design details. In addition to the SRTS and SRFOA projects, the cost estimate list in this memo includes projects in the Palm Desert LRSP. Investment Strategy Cost Estimate Assumptions For cost estimate purposes, assumptions were made for certain project types. Some corridor level projects, such as sidewalks in the SRTS and SRFOA Plans have extents that end midblock due to the ½ mile buffers around the schools and senior priority areas. To provide a cost estimate, the project team extended these end points to reach the next logical cross street, rather than ending midblock. This will result in a more realistic cost expectation for corridor level projects. The cost estimates also assume fixed costs for general overhead related construction items, roadway and unclassified excavation, permitting, PA&ED and PS&E, and other typical implementation costs. The cost estimate includes solar powered street lighting in the total project costs. However, an alternative traditional street light line is provided if the City prefers traditional street lighting. For some projects, such as sidewalk infill and pedestrian lighting, the City will need to review available right-of-way (ROW) and determine if an acquisition is needed. Based on preliminary reviews of available Riverside County Assessor Maps, there are projects that are likely to encroach beyond the existing City ROW. Prior to the implementation of any project that is not obviously in the City ROW, the City should hire a professional surveyor to determine exact parcel boundaries. Projects deemed to conflict with parcel boundaries or private property will require further action in implementation phases and are likely to incur additional costs. Due to uncertainties in the available ROW data, this memo does not include a line item for ROW acquisition. Cost Estimate Results The total costs for all the recommended projects is $38,692,852. Table 1 shows the summary of cost estimate items. The full cost estimate details can be found in Appendix A. Table 1. Cost Estimates Prioritization Overview The prioritization process ranks all project recommendations, including those within SRTS, SRFOA plans and LRSP. The prioritization process uses data collected from national, city, school district, and community sources to provide an objective score informing project implementation. Point projects at each intersection and mid-block area are combined and prioritized together as the recommendations work together to enhance overall safety at each location. Corridor projects are prioritized individually. The outcome is a list of corridor and intersection projects that can inform grant funding. Investment Strategy Prioritization Methodology Using an approach similar to the methods used to identify school and senior priority areas, the Investment Strategy prioritization process considers several data sources with an emphasis on safety, equity, and other relevant scoring criteria for SS4A and ATP grant funding. These data sources include: Pedestrian and bicycle collisions (2013-2022) Student population eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Meals Program (FRPM) Percentage of population with a disability Low-Income Communities (AB 1550) High Injury Network proximity Residential density Number of nearby destinations Households without access to an automobile Area population density of children and older adults Local support from the advisory committee, school and district staff, and stakeholders Relative cost of implementation Scoring criteria for the prioritization of each project can be found in Table 2. Each project can score a potential of 200 total points, which will then be normalized to a scale of 1 - 100. The criteria award different numbers of points based on their overall weight or importance, which is consistent with order of criteria importance in the SS4A and ATP applications. SS4A most highly scores projects that consider the safety impact of the project, and ATP most highly scores projects that consider the needs of the community and the potential to increase walking and biking to everyday destinations. Table 2. Scoring Criteria for School Ranking CRITERIA SCORE VALUE APPLICABLE SS4A CRITERION APPLICABLE ATP CRITERION MAX SCORE  Pedestrian or bike collisions within 150 feet of recommendation (#) 3 or more collisions = 20 2 collisions= 10 1 collision= 5 0 collisions = 1 1 – Safety Impact Increase the safety and mobility of nonmotorized users. 20   High Injury Network (HIN) within 150 feet of recommendation Yes = 20 No = 1 1 – Safety Impact Increase the safety and mobility of nonmotorized users. 20   Free and Reduced Priced Meals eligibility of student population within 500 feet of recommendation (%) 75% ‐ 100% = 20 50%-74% = 10 25%- 49% = 5 1% - 24% = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program. 20   Percentage of population with disability within 500 feet of recommendation 75th - 100th percentile = 20  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program. 20   Low-Income Communities (AB 1550) Fully within = 20 Partially within = 10 Not within = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program. 20   Number of destinations within ½ mile of recommendation Parks Medical facilities Public institutions (e.g., library) Senior housing Schools 75th - 100th percentile = 20  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 3 – Effective Practices and Strategies Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking. 20   Population density within 500 feet of recommendation 75th - 100th percentile = 20  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. 20   Population of older adults >65 within 1/4 mile of recommendation (#) 75th - 100th percentile = 15  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking. 15   Population of children <18 years old within 1/4 mile of recommendation (#) 75th - 100th percentile = 15  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking. 15   Households without access to an automobile within 500 feet of projects 75th - 100th percentile = 20  50th - 74th percentile = 10 25th – 49th percentile = 5 1st - 24th percentile = 1 4 – Other DOT Strategic Goals Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. 10   Local and advisory support Points are assigned based on results of public engagement for projects within ½ mile of school or senior areas as follows: 10 points: Schools - George Washington Carver, Abraham Lincoln, Palm Desert Charter MS, Col Mitchell Paige; Senior Areas - Joslyn Center 5 points: Schools – Palm Desert HS, Ronald Regan, Gerald Ford 3 points: Schools – James Earl Carter; Senior Areas – Town Center Wy, Washington St 2 – Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking 10   Relative project cost Points assigned based on highest cost element. Low cost (crosswalk striping, red curb striping, loading zone striping, stop and yield striping, signage, bike rack, signal or stop warrant, curb extension with delineators, programming) = 10 Medium cost (curb ramp, school gate, LPI, RRFB, bus pullout, shade structure, fencing, speed feedback sign) = 5 High cost (center median, pedestrian lighting, sidewalk, bikeway striping, lane width reduction) = 3 1 – Safety Impact Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. 10     TOTAL  200*  * Note: Final scores will be normalized to a range of 1 - 100 Prioritization Results and Grant Recommendations Once a score was assigned for each criterion, a composite project score was computed and then normalized to a scale of 1 – 100. The projects or groups of projects with the highest scores should be the most highly prioritized in the City to best provide infrastructure improvements where there are many people or destinations and the most potential to provide safer active transportation infrastructure with emphasis on vulnerable road users (VRU). While these prioritization scores should be used as a guide for the City to identify short-term improvements and to apply for grant funding, if the opportunity arises to implement lower scoring recommended improvements, the City should take advantage of those opportunities. Grant applications for highly prioritized projects should reference the prioritization process and scores to demonstrate the benefits of implementation. In the future, if Palm Desert chooses to run the prioritization process again, each criteria should be updated to reflect current data sources. For example, the most recent collision and census data should be used. The City may also choose to consider and score stakeholder feedback from other agencies, such as the Palm Desert Active Transportation Subcommittee, or from other outreach events that the City hosts after the SRTS and SRFOA planning processes have ended. The top prioritized projects in Table 3 include construction cost estimates and fees for projects totaling up to $15,000,000. These projects align with SS4A and ATP grant requirements, and can be used by the City as an initial list of capital improvements for grant funding applications. A full list of prioritization scores can be found in Appendix B. Table 3. Prioritization Results STREET FROM TO RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION PERCENTILE  Fred Waring Drive San Pascual Avenue Portola Avenue Class IIB 100  Fred Waring Drive San Pascual Avenue Primrose Drive Pedestrian Lighting 99  Fred Waring Drive San Pascual Avenue The Joslyn Center Priority Area Boundary Narrow Travel Lanes 99  Fred Waring Drive San Pascual Avenue  High Visibility Crosswalk 99  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue  Markings and Signs 98  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue  High Visibility Crosswalk 98  Fred Waring Drive San Pascual Avenue  Leading Pedestrian Interval 97  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive  Signage 97   Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue  Leading Pedestrian Interval 97  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue  Green Backed Bike Lane 96  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue 453ft West of Portola Avenue Restriping 96  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue 366ft West of Portola Avenue Narrow Travel Lanes 96  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive  ADA Curb Ramps 95  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive  Bicycle Conflict Striping 94  Monterey Fred Waring  Crosswalk 94  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive The Joslyn Center Priority Area Boundary Class IIB 94  Fred Waring Drive Portola Avenue Primrose Drive Class IIB 94  Candlewood Street Shadow Mountain Drive Quailbrush Street Sidewalk 93  Fred Waring Drive Goleta Court  ADA Curb Ramps 93  Hwy 111 San Pablo Ave  High Visibility Crosswalk 93  Fred Waring Drive Goleta Court  Bicycle Conflict Striping 92  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive Goleta Court Restriping 92  Hwy 111 San Luis Rey  High Visibility Crosswalk 91  Hwy 111 San Pablo Ave  Leading Pedestrian Interval 91  Fred Waring Drive 366ft West of Portola Avenue  Bicycle Conflict Striping 90  Portola Avenue Fairway Drive Chicory Street Pedestrian Lighting 89  Portola Avenue Fairway Drive Chicory Street Sidewalk 89  Portola Avenue Fairway Drive Shadow Mountain Drive Narrow Travel Lanes 89  Fairway Drive Lantana Avenue Portola Avenue Sidewalk 89  Hwy 111 San Luis Rey  Fencing 88  Hwy 111 San Luis Rey  Leading Pedestrian Interval 88  Chicory Street Portola Avenue Lantana Avenue Sidewalk 87  Chicory Street Portola Avenue Lantana Avenue Pedestrian Lighting 87   Parosella Street Lantana Avenue Quailbrush Street Sidewalk 87  Fairway Drive George Washington Charter School Priority Area Boundary (East of Deep Canyon Road) Lantana Avenue Sidewalk 86  Deep Canyon Road Fred Waring Drive Magnesia Falls Drive Class IIB 86  Deep Canyon Road Fred Waring Drive Magnesia Falls Drive Narrow Travel Lanes 86  Lantana Avenue Parosella Street 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 85  Shadow Mountain Drive Portola Avenue 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 85  Shadow Mountain Drive Portola Avenue Chicory Street Sidewalk 84  Shadow Mountain Drive Candlewood Street  High Visibility Crosswalk 84  Shadow Mountain Drive Candlewood Street 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 84  Fred Waring Drive Primrose Drive 143ft West of Primrose Drive Class II 83  Peppergrass Street Lantana Avenue Quailbrush Street Sidewalk 83  Deep Canyon Road Fred Waring Drive Magnesia Falls Drive Center Median 83  Portola Avenue Fairway Drive Hope Center Driveway Sidewalk 82  Fairway Drive Portola Avenue Mountain View Avenue Sidewalk 82  Shadow Mountain Drive Candlewood Street  ADA Curb Ramps 80  Fairway Drive Quailbrush Avenue  High Visibility Crosswalk 80  Hovley Lane E Warner Trail Washington Street Sidewalk 80  Lantana Avenue Peppergrass Street 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 80  Fred Waring Drive 514ft West of Portola Avenue 453ft West of Portola Avenue Class II 79   Fred Waring Drive Deep Canyon Road  ADA Curb Ramps 78  Fred Waring Dr Acacia  Speed Feedback Sign 78  Mountain View Avenue Shadow Lake Drive Fairway Drive Sidewalk 78  Portola Avenue George Washington Charter School Priority Area Boundary Shadow Mountain Drive Class II 77  Fred Waring Drive 453ft West of Portola Avenue  Signage 77  Fairway Drive Lantana Avenue  High Visibility Crosswalk 76  Fairway Drive Black Rabbit Road  High Visibility Crosswalk 76  Fairway Drive Quailbrush Avenue  ADA Curb Ramps 76  Country Club Dr   Speed Feedback Sign 76  Larrea Street Portola Avenue 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 76  Chicory Street Shadow Mountain Drive 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 76  Portola Avenue Magnesia Falls Drive Rutledge Way Pedestrian Lighting 74  Shadow Lake Drive Mountain View Avenue Mountain View Avenue Sidewalk 74  Portola Avenue Larrea Street  High Visibility Crosswalk 72  Chicory Street Shadow Mountain Drive  ADA Curb Ramps 72  Fairway Drive Black Rabbit Road  ADA Curb Ramps 72  Desert Star Boulevard Myrsine Avenue Portola Avenue Sidewalk 72  Fairway Drive Mountain View Avenue 30ft from the intersection Red Curb 72   Funding Options While there are many local, regional, federal, and private options to fund active transportation projects, the cost estimates and prioritization process for the active transportation recommendations were focused on data needed in the applications of three of the most significant funding programs available, the ATP and SS4A grants, and the regional Riverside County Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 grant. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) The ATP is a competitive California program created to encourage communities to use active transportation, including walking and biking. The goals of the ATP are to increase active transportation trips and the safety of non-motorized users; advance regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; enhance public health; ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program; and provide a broad spectrum of projects for many different types of active transportation users. The ATP process occurs every other year and receives funding from the federal Transportation Alternatives Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, State Highway Account funds, and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (SB 1) funds. Eligible projects include infrastructure projects that will further the goals of the ATP, including those in SRTS and SRFOA Plans; planning document projects; non-infrastructure programming projects; and quick build projects. Infrastructure projects must be at least $250,000 and do not require a local match. Request minimums do not apply for applications to fund the creation of a planning document. ATP Cycle 8 is expected to open applications in summer 2026, however fluctuations in grant funding may result in modified grant expectations. Project applications must explain how the project will benefit disadvantaged communities and how City policies will discourage gentrification in the project area. Disadvantaged community status is a crucial scoring criteria for the ATP. Grant policies state that at least 25% of ATP funds must benefit disadvantaged communities. However, due to the competitiveness of the application, jurisdictions that are awarded funding typically need all of the available points from disadvantaged community status, and jurisdictions without this status are less likely to be funded. There are several criteria for which a community can qualify as a disadvantaged community, including median household income, percentage of students receiving free or reduced priced meals, and USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer scores. Palm Desert staff should strategically choose projects for the ATP application that benefit communities or schools that meet these disadvantaged thresholds, such as communities along Alessandro Drive, along Country Club Drive, and near Abraham Lincoln Elementary School. Applications must also demonstrate the potential for the project to increase walking and biking to everyday destinations, including schools, and to promote equitable transportation access. Projects should also have the potential to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries, and should be community supported. The project prioritization process in this Investment Strategy memo considers the scoring criteria of the ATP application. The ATP application also requires discussion of the potential transformative nature of the project. This includes the potential for the project to support existing and planned housing. Palm Desert should consider applying for the state Prohousing Designation Program to prepare for the ATP. Alternatively, the City must be prepared to explain why housing is not an issue for the community. During the application process, the City must also contact the California Conservation Corps or local certified community conservation corps to participate in the project. Failure to gain approval from the Corps will results in removal of points. Project Study Report Requirements Project Study Reports (PSR) and PSR-Equivalents are engineering reports used to document agreement on the scope, schedule, and estimated cost of a project. The ATP application serves as a PSR-Equivalent if it defines and justifies the project scope, cost, and schedule and includes supporting documentation. The application narrative can serve as the PSR scope, and the concept designs in the SRTS and SRFOA Plans can serve as supporting maps and graphics to support the project scope. The City may choose to modify the maps from the SRTS and SRFOA planning documents to better highlight the specific project for which the City is applying. The City must also create cross-sections for the chosen project which show dimensions, existing and proposed conditions, and the width and depth of work. An engineer’s checklist is required as a part of the PSR. This checklist must be signed and stamped by a California registered professional engineer (PE) responsible for overseeing the project application. This should be a PE with the City of Palm Desert. The cost estimates in this Investment Strategy memo can be used as the basis for the required ATP cost estimates, though these estimates should be reviewed and increased as appropriate based on expected inflation costs. The City must also create a project schedule which provides time for environmental studies, technical studies and regulatory clearances. USDOT Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, SS4A is slated to provide funding until 2026 with the goals of improving roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The SS4A grant funds Planning and Demonstration Grants as well as Implementation Grants. Applicants are required to have an Action Plan in place to receive this funding. Action Plans are safety plans that include strategies to address safety risks on City roadways. Applicants may also apply for grant funding to develop this Action Plan. The Palm Desert Vision Zero Strategy was funded by an SS4A Action Plan grant. The FY2025 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was released March 28, 2025. Applications must be submitted by June 26, 2025. SS4A was established to improve roadway safety, and to help develop tools to help strengthen a community’s approach to roadway safety. There are two types of grants available. Planning and Demonstration Grants can be used to develop an Action Plan, conduct supplemental safety planning for an existing Action Plan, or carry out demonstration activities to inform the development of an Action Plan. Implementation Grants fund the planning, design, and development activities for projects identified in an Action Plan that will promote safety on public roadways. FY2025 Planning and Demonstration applications will be scored based on safety impact, underserved communities, and additional safety context. Safety impact measures the count of roadway fatalities based on 5-year data. Underserved communities criteria considers the percentage of the population in the applicant’s jurisdictions that resides in an Underserved Community Census tract. Planning and Demonstration Grants are also scored on additional safety criteria in which the application narrative should demonstrate how the proposed projects will reduce collisions, employ low-cost and high impact strategies, engage with stakeholders, adopt innovative technologies and use evidenced based solutions. Palm Desert is eligible to apply for a Planning and Demonstration Grant to conduct supplemental safety planning or carry out related demonstration activities. An existing Action Plan is required for an Implementation Grant. The SRTS, SRFOA and LRSP include enough components to make Palm Desert eligible for an Implementation Grant (see SS4A Self- Certification below). FY2025 Implementation Grants will be scored based on safety need, safety impact, engagement and collaboration, and supplemental planning and demonstration activities. Safety need will be scored based on the applicant’s ability to describe the safety problem using historical crash data, a high-injury network, and safety risk. The DOT will assess how well the proposed project is likely to significantly reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities or serious injuries, including of active transportation users. Safety strategies should be evidence based and should be low-cost, high impact over a wide geographic area. Applicants should ensure project investment includes underserved communities and that the application includes a demographic analysis and stakeholder engagement as part of the project development. If the project includes supplemental planning or demonstration activities, the application should describe the activity and explain how the activity will support further Action Plan development. The DOT encourages applicants to include supplemental planning and demonstration activities in their application. Implementation Grant applications are also scored on the City’s readiness to implement the project, including planned phasing for environmental approval, right-of-way plans, utility relocation plans, and mitigation strategies. The project prioritization process in this memo includes criteria that addresses the scoring criteria of the SS4A application for both grant types. SS4A Self- Certification Eligibility for a SS4A Implementation Grant is contingent on the City’s Action Plan meeting eight required metrics. As a part of the grant application, applicants must complete a Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet. FY24 SS4A Implementation applicants were required to answer Yes to questions 3, 6, and 8 and answer Yes to at least three of the five remaining questions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. If eligibility requirements are not met for an Implementation Grant or a Planning and Demonstration Grant, cities can still apply for funding for the creation of an Action Plan. The Eligibility Worksheet with the list of questions can be found in Appendix C. Palm Desert does meet the certification criteria to apply for an Implementation Grant or a Planning and Demonstration Grant. However, as shown in Table 4, there are steps the City can take to strengthen their future application. Table 4. Self-Certification Questions CERTIFICATION QUESTION PALM DESERT RESPONSE REQUIREMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY  Leadership & Goal Setting YES Must answer YES to 3 of 5 options. YES following the passage of the Palm Desert Vision Zero Resolution.  Planning Structure YES Must answer YES to 3 of 5 options. An advisory committee was established to guide the development of the Vision Zero Strategy and the LRSP in plan documents and the data dashboard. Palm Desert should also identify an advisory committee to be involved in the implementation and monitoring of the Vision Zero Strategy. This may be a safety subcommittee or task force that understands the Safe Systems Approach and is committed to the implementation of the SRTS and SRFOA Plans. This role could potentially be filled by the existing Active Transportation subcommittee.  Safety Analysis YES Must answer YES The data dashboard for the SRTS and SRFOA Plans identifies crash locations, severity, contributing factors, and crash types along with citywide trends. The SRTS and SRFOA Plans and the data dashboard also include a high injury network (HIN) to identify higher risk locations. A systematic analysis of targeted countermeasures (improvements such as leading pedestrian intervals [LPIs] and road diets) were conducted to determine their optimal location to reduce vulnerable road user (VRU) crashes. Additionally, the LRSP includes crash data and trends and identifies ten case study locations for countermeasure recommendations based on the location’s collision history and crash patterns.   Engagement & Collaboration YES Must answer YES to 3 of 5 options. The outreach memo included in the SRTS and SRFOA Plans documents all engagement activities including collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions, CVAG, and members of the multi-agency advisory committee. Palm Desert may choose to conduct further engagement with the private sector to bolster the SS4A application.  Policy & Process Change YES Must answer YES to 3 of 5 options. The SRTS and SRFOA Plans include policy and programmatic non-infrastructure recommendations. The LRSP also includes program, policy and practice recommendations to implement or enhance safety efforts.  Safety & Project Selections YES Must answer YES This Investment Strategy memo includes implementation information and an explanation of the project prioritization criteria. This information is not included in the SRTS or SRFOA Plans. In the SS4A application process, the City should address how it will prioritize projects in the future and keep the community involved. As mentioned in the prioritization section of this memo, the ATP subcommittee may be an appropriate channel for prioritizing future projects.  Progress & Transparency NO Must answer YES to 3 of 5 options. The LRSP lists a preliminary process to ensure proper implementation of the goals of the LRSP, including quarterly progress meetings, regular updates to the LRSP, monitoring of traffic incident data, and the maintenance of focus areas where there are transportation concerns. The SRTS and SRFOA Plans will be posted online.  Action Plan Date YES Must answer YES The LRSP was adopted June 2021. Based on current grant expectations, the LRSP and the SRTS and SRFOA Plans should satisfy the 5-years requirement. This requirement can also be satisfied with an update to a previous planning document within the last 5-years.   Action Plan Date YES Must answer YES The LRSP was adopted June 2021. Based on current grant expectations, the LRSP and the SRTS and SRFOA Plans should satisfy the 5-years requirement. This requirement can also be satisfied with an update to a previous planning document within the last 5-years.   Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities TDA Article 3 funds bicycle and pedestrian projects in Riverside County every two years. The 2025/2026 call for projects was released in February 2025 with proposals due April 24, 2025. FY 2025/2026 has an estimated $7 million available for project funding. Awards for the 2025/2026 cycle will be recommended on June 11, 2025. Awarded projects will start on July 1, 2025 and are to be complete by July 1, 2028. Cities in Riverside County can submit up to two applications. Application requests are limited to 10% of available capacity, or $700,000 for the upcoming cycle. Although Palm Desert may not meet the 2025/2026 application deadline, the City should prepare for the next round of funding in 2027. TDA Article 3 funds the construction of bicycle and pedestrian projects and educational programming, including the maintenance and repairs of existing Class I and Class II facilities. Facilities serving bicyclist commuters such as bike parking, park and ride lots, and transit terminals may also be funded. This program does not fund demonstration or quick build projects. Applications are scored based on the number of destinations served by the project, the potential to increase safety for non-motorized users or reduce non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries, explanations of the project safety countermeasures, and project connections to transit stops. RCTC calculates an equity score based on the city’s SB 821 allocations in the previous ten years versus the agency’s share based on a per capita basis. For the FY 2025/2026 cycle, Palm Desert would have received 5 of 5 points. Applications also receive additional points for each 5% match provided by the local agency, up to 10 points at a 50% match. In the case of tied scores, RCTC will prioritize funding based on safety improvements and construction readiness. RCTC staff host one-on-one sessions with interested applicants during the open call for applications period. Palm Desert staff should consider scheduling a session prior to applying. Other Grant Opportunities Table 5 provides an overview of other federal and state funding sources that City staff can reference for different project types. Over time, grant requirements may change and funding opportunities may close. Staff should review up-to-date information on federal or state web portals prior to applying for a grant. Table 5. Grant Opportunities GRANTS BICYCLE PARKING BIKEWAYS BUS STOPS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS CURB RAMPS DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION OR QUICK BUILD LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPING LIGHTING RESTORATION OF FACILITIES ROAD DIET SAFETY EDUCATION PATHS SIDEWALKS SIGNAGE AND SIGNALS  Carbon Reduction Program (CRP)  X  X X    X X X  X X X  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program X X X X X    X X X X X X X  Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)  X  X X X X  X X X X X X X   National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) X X X X X X  X X X X  X X X  Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT)  X X X X   X X X X  X X X  Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  Transportation Alternatives (TAP) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program X X X X X X  X X X X  X X X   Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program X X X X X X  X X X X  X X X  Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Grants      X      X     California Natural Resources Agency Urban Greening Program        X     X    Active Transportation Program X X  X X X X X X X X X X X X   RCTC TDA Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities X X X X X    X X X X X X X  Connect SoCal Sustainable Communities Program       X          SCAG Go Human Grants            X      City Implementation Options While grant applications can be an option for larger projects, there are also opportunities to implement lower cost projects from City funds or as part of existing maintenance strategies. For even shorter-term implementation, quick build projects can be installed using temporary low-cost materials to test new street designs and immediately provide benefits for active transportation users. Signage and striping projects, including bike lane striping, crosswalk striping, and wayfinding signage may be appropriate candidates for inclusion in existing city maintenance practices such as during annual pavement resurfacing. Palm Desert’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated every five years and lists the proposed capital budget and capital projects. Projects are approved by City Council based on recommendations by City staff. A project is more likely to be accepted into the CIP after the project has been thoroughly reviewed and approved by City commissions. Strong public support may help in the approval process from the commissioners. Using the project cost estimates and the prioritized project list, City staff can identify projects that are eligible for the City CIP. Using grant funds, or other available City funds, City staff should conduct targeted outreach to community members about the potential CIP projects, to collect specific feedback about the proposed changes. Public Works staff involved in the development of the Palm Desert Vision Zero Strategy can engage the City’s Active Transportation Subcommittee to develop and refine candidate projects for grants based on findings and cost estimates presented in this memo. Implementation Process Roadmap The roadmap in Figure 1 provides the steps the City should follow in applying for grant funding opportunities. Not all steps need to be followed in order, but each step should be considered prior to beginning the grant application process.