HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSAC Agenda Packet 02-20-2019Public Safety Advisory Commission
City of Lake Elsinore
Regular Agenda
LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG
(951) 674-3124 PHONE
CULTURAL CENTER
183 N. MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA
92530
JAY STEWART, CHAIR
JERRY CARLOS, VICE-CHAIR
KELLY HENDLEY, COMMISSIONER
ROGER MILLER, COMMISSIONER
AGNES WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER
MARK MAHAN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Cultural Center6:00 PMWednesday, February 20, 2019
The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Public participation provides the Public Safety
Advisory Commission with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Regular meetings are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month.
If you are attending this Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting, please park in the Parking Lot
across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on
Historic Main Street. Thank you for your cooperation.
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each
meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at City Hall on the Friday prior to the
Commission meeting and are available on the City’s web site at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings
distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed
to the Public Safety Advisory Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a
modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Manager's
Office at (951) 674-3124, ext. 204 at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility.
CITY VISION STATEMENT
The City of Lake Elsinore will be the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work and play, build
futures and fulfill dreams.
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
February 20, 2019Public Safety Advisory Commission Regular Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Commission will be called to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS
1) Code Enforcement Updates
2) Public Works Street and Sidewalk Improvements
3) Public Works Holy Flood Update
4) Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON AGENDIZED ITEMS – 3 MINUTES
(Please read and complete a Request to Address the Advisory Commission form prior to
the start of the meeting and turn it in to the Clerk. The Chair or Clerk will call on you to
speak.)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S)
(All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a
Commissioner or member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.)
1)Minutes of the Regular Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting of
December 19, 2018 and Cancelled Meeting of January 16, 2019.
Recommendation:Approve the minutes.
12-19-2018 Minutes
01-16-2019 Cancelled
Attachments:
BUSINESS ITEM(S)
2)Active LE Plan
Recommendation:Receive and file.
Active LE Plan - SR
Active LE Plan - Exhibit A Existing Conditions Report
Attachments:
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
STAFF COMMENTS
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
February 20, 2019Public Safety Advisory Commission Regular Agenda
The Lake Elsinore Public Safety Advisory Commission will adjourn to the Regularly meeting of
Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake
Elsinore.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Luz Reyes, Acting Secretary of the Public Safety Advisory Commission, do hereby affirm that a copy
of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall at ______ p.m. on February 15, 2019.
________________________
Luz Reyes
Acting Secretary
Page 3 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-021
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: Presentation/CeremonialVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number:
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-022
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: Presentation/CeremonialVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number:
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-023
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: Presentation/CeremonialVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number:
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-024
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: Presentation/CeremonialVersion: 1
File Type: Informational ReportIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-025
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1
File Type: MinutesIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 1)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
Page 1
City of Lake Elsinore
Public Safety Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Call to Order
A Regular meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Commission (PSAC) was held in the Cultural Center,
183 North Main Street, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at6:00 p.m. by Chair Stewart.
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of allegiance was led by Chair Stewart.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Hendley, Miller, and Williams; and Chair Stewart
Absent: Vice-Chair Carlos
Presentations
1) Holy Flood Update – Public Works Superintendent De Santiago provided a Power Point presentation
and responded to questions from the Commission.
Public Comments – Non Agendized Items
There were no members of the public appearing to speak.
Consent Calendar Items
It was moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Chair Stewart and unanimously carried, noting the
absence of Vice-Chair Carlos to approve the Consent Calendar.
1) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 21, 2018 – approved the minutes.
Business Items
1) Proposed Red Curbs within Alberhill – Acting City Engineering Habib provided additional information
on City wide transportation projects, a Power Point presentation and responded to questions from the
Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Hendley, and unanimously carried,
noting the absence of Vice-Chair Carlos to approve the No Parking sign that will be provided, installed,
and maintained by the HOA and shall be placed within the HOA property in the planter behind the
mailboxes once approved by the City Council.
Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Williams provided an update on the Homeless Task Force Subcommittee.
Page 2
Staff Comments
Deputy City Clerk Mahan provided an update on the young boy who was hit on December 11, 2018 by
a car on Riverside Drive; and, informed the Commission that some cities have passed an ordinance not
allowing handouts in regards to the homeless.
Commissioners' Comments
Commissioner Miller wished everyone Happy Holidays.
Commissioner Williams mentioned that parents are not following protocol when school buses are
dropping off students, reminded everyone not to go around the buses when students are being dropped
off by the bus; and, wished everyone a Happy Holiday, peace on earth and good will towards everyone.
Chair Stewart stated the Commission can look at some of the safety issues as well as utilizing the Public
Safety pages to remind everyone about being safe.
Commissioner Hendley wished everyone Happy Holidays; and, stated some of the community members
have concerns about the gym and the field at Terra Cotta Middle School, she will provide Deputy City
Clerk Mahan with the list of concerns.
Chair Stewart wished everyone a safe holiday, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year; stated this is one
of the best group of Commissioners that he has worked with in his 12 years and is looking forward to the
next 6 months; hoped Vice-Chair Carlos is having a great time; and, thanked staff and welcomed Deputy
City Clerk Mahan aboard.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. to the Regular meeting on Wednesday, January 20, 2019, in the
Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street.
Jay Stewart Luz Reyes
Chair Acting Secretary
City of Lake Elsinore
Public Safety Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
A meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore was not held on this
date due to a lack of quorum.
_____________________________
Jay Stewart
Chair
_______________ ________
Luz Reyes
Acting Secretary
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 19-026
Agenda Date: 2/20/2019 Status: BusinessVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 2)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/15/2019
REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION
To:Public Safety Advisory Commission
From:Nicole Dailey, Assistant to the City Manager
Prepared by: Audrey Young, Management Analyst
Date:February 20, 2018
Subject:Active LE Plan
Recommendation
It is Recommended that the Public Safety Advisory Commission consider the Active LE Existing
Conditions Analysis and provide feedback for consideration in moving forward with the drafting
of the Active LE Plan.
Background
The City of Lake Elsinore is one of the fastest growing California cities with 2% annual growth.
While the City’s Healthy LE initiative offers programs to promote a healthy lifestyle, it has limited
pedestrian and bicycle amenities to allow this healthy lifestyle to be practiced. The City
recognizes the need for a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan / Regional Commuter
Based Access Plan (ATP). As a result, the City has been working with our consultant Chen
Ryan Associates to conduct an Existing Conditions Analysis, do public outreach, prepare
guidelines for moving forward and develop the Active LE Plan (our ATP).
Discussion
The Active LE Plan will include the planning of a complete network of non-motorized facilities
that connect existing and future activity centers, recreation facilities, transit stations, residential
neighborhoods, employment centers, as well as civic and retail hubs. The Active LE Plan will
prioritize bikeway and pedestrian improvements based on criteria such as: regional and local
connectivity, safe routes to school, ten-minute neighborhoods, recreation amenities, and
recommendations for smart infill growth with accompanying active transportation improvements.
By developing an Active LE Plan, the City will substantially increase opportunities for additional
grant funding for implementation of related projects.
We have completed the Existing Conditions Analysis (Exhibit A) and are seeking your
comments regarding the Existing Conditions Analysis and general comments for consideration
moving forward with the preparation and development of the draft Active LE Plan. We look
forward to your continued participation in the outreach activities and review of the draft Active
LE Plan upon its completion. The final Active LE Plan is anticipated to be completed ahead of
schedule and ready for review in late Fall 2019.
Exhibits
Active LE Plan – Exhibit A Existing Conditions Analysis
Active LE Plan
February 20, 2019
Page 2
REVISED Existing Conditions Report
ACTIVE LE PLAN
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
Page i
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Planning Context ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Background and Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Organization of the Report .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislative Framework ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Document Review .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Community Profile ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Demographic Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
“Eight-to-Eighty” Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Equity Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Commuter Profile ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Travel Time to Work ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Health Index ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
3.0 People on Foot......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Network Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Pedestrian Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation (PEQE) ........................................................................................................................................... 43
4.0 People on Bicycles ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Network Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Collision Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
5.0 People on Transit ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Existing Service .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Transit Ridership .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 63
6.0 Additional Evaluations ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Posted Speed Limits ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Combined Collision Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 69
Active Transportation Demand ........................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Connectivity to Schools ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................................................................................................................ 78
Page ii
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
List of Tables
Table 2-1 The Four Types of Cyclists ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Table 2-2 Bicycle Facility Design Classifications ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 2-3 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Block Group ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 3-1 Multiple Pedestrian Collision Locations (Pedestrian): January 2013 – December 2017 ............................................................................. 38
Table 3-2 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017)........................................................................................... 38
Table 3-3 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017) .................................................................................................. 38
Table 3-4 Primary Pedestrian Collision Factor (January 2013 – December 2017) ....................................................................................................... 40
Table 3-5 Pedestrian Action During Collision (January 2012 – December 2017) ........................................................................................................ 40
Table 3-6 Pedestrian Collision Severity (January 2013 – December 2017) .................................................................................................................. 43
Table 3-7 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Table 3-8 Sidewalk Inventory by PEQE Rating .............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 3-9 PEQE Classifications and Descriptions .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4-1 Bicycle Facility Classifications and Existing Network Mileage ...................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4-2 Existing Bicycle Racks and Support Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 52
Table 4-3 Multiple Bicycle Collision Locations: January 2013 – December 2017 ........................................................................................................ 54
Table 4-4 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017) ................................................................................................. 56
Table 4-5 Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017) ........................................................................................................ 56
Table 4-6 Primary Bicycle Collision Factor Violation (January 2013 – December 2017) ............................................................................................. 57
Table 4-7 Bicycle Collision Type (January 2013 – December 2017) ............................................................................................................................. 57
Table 4-8 Bicycle Collision Severity (January 2013 – December 2017) ........................................................................................................................ 60
Table 6-1 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Inputs .............................................................................................................................. 71
Table 6-2 Attractor Submodel ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Page iii
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Lake Elsinore within the Region ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2-2 Existing Land Uses (2016) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2-3 Activity Centers ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2-4 City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Classifications .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2-5 Population Density ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2-6 Employment Density ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-7 Percent of Population by Age Group – City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County .................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-8 Lake Elsinore Youth and Senior Populations ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 2-9 Distribution of Senior Population by Census Block Group ........................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-10 Distribution of Youth Population by Census Block Group ............................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2-11 Zero Vehicle Availability by Census Block Group .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-12 Median Household Income by Census Block Group .................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2-13 Means of Transportation to Work ................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 2-14 Percent of Commuters Who Walk to Work by Census Block Group ........................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2-15 Percent of Commuters Who Bicycle to Work by Census Block Group ........................................................................................................ 31
Figure 2-16 Percent of Commuters Who Take Transit to Work by Census Block Group ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 2-17 Mean Travel Time to Work ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 2-18 Healthy Places Index Score (2017) ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 3-1 Missing Sidewalks on Circulation Element Arterials ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3-2 Collisions Involving People on Foot (2013 – 2017) ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3-3 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-4 Pedestrian Collisions by Hour (January 2013 – December 2017) ................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 3-5 Pedestrian Collisions by Day of Week (January 2013 – December 2017).................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3-6 Pedestrian Collisions by Month (January 2013 – December 2017) ............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 3-7 Pedestrian Collisions by Age (January 2013 – December 2017) .................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 3-8a Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation - Citywide................................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 3-8b Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation – City Center ........................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-1 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4-2 Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 4-3 Collisions Involving People on Bicycles (2013 - 2017) .................................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 4-4 Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault ............................................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-5 Bicycle Collisions by Hour ............................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Page iv
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-6 Bicycle Collisions by Day of Week ................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4-7 Bicycle Collisions by Month .......................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-8 Bicycle Collisions by Age (January 2013 – December 2017) ........................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 4-9 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 5-1 Transit Routes and Stops .............................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 5-2 Transit Boardings and Alightings .................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 6-1 Posted Speed Limits ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 6-2 Density of Active Transportation Collisions (2013-2017) ............................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 6-3 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Results ............................................................................................................................ 72
Figure 6-4 Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel Results .............................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 6-5 Active Transportation Propensity Model Results ......................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 6-6 Lake Elsinore Unified Schools ....................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Page 1
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
1.0 Introduction and Planning
Context
The Active LE Plan (the “Plan”) will lay the foundation for improving
mobility for all modes of travel, particularly for pedestrians and
bicyclists, within the City of Lake Elsinore. As part of the mobility
improvements, the Plan will identify ways to improve connectivity
and safety. This represents the City’s inaugural Active Transportation
Plan, building upon recommendations set forth in numerous plans
preceding this effort:
• The currently underway Lake Elsinore Circulation Element
• The City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (2011)
• Western Riverside County Council of Governments’
(WRCOG) Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan
(2015)
• Regional sustainability frameworks
• The sixteen District Plans that underscore Lake Elsinore
planning efforts
• The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
The regional context of Lake Elsinore is displayed in Figure 1-1.
Background and Purpose
In 2017, the City was awarded a Caltrans Sustainable Communities
Grant for the development of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
Active transportation facilities and regional connections are essential
to a community’s ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled and
encourage a healthy, active lifestyle. To achieve the City’s
vision of becoming “the ultimate lake destination where all can live,
work, and play, build futures and fulfill dreams,” this planning
process will further leverage existing planning documents to foster,
develop, and grow the City’s bicycle, sidewalk, and trail related
network.
The planning process benefits from a thorough examination of
existing conditions – the current physical and operational conditions
of Lake Elsinore’s mobility networks. To fully understand the
mobility environment in Lake Elsinore, a series of analyses were
performed. These analyses will be supplemented by community
outreach - people who live, work and play in Lake Elsinore know how
the City operates and will add valuable firsthand insight to inform the
existing conditions analyses. The results of this analyses and public
outreach will shape the overall recommendations which will be set
forth in this Plan.
Organization of the Report
This Existing Conditions Report is organized into the following
chapters:
• Chapter 1 introduces the context of the active transportation
planning process and the legislative framework that
underlies the Plan. Recent relevant documents summarize
previous planning efforts in the City of Lake Elsinore to
provide context for the Active Transportation Plan.
• Chapter 2 provides a community profile for the City of Lake
Elsinore, presenting land uses, population density,
demographics, and community health factors.
• Chapter 3 summarizes the existing pedestrian conditions
related to infrastructure and safety.
Page 2
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 1-1 Lake Elsinore within the Region
Page 3
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
• Chapter 4 summarizes the existing bicycle conditions related
to infrastructure and safety.
• Chapter 5 presents existing transit-related conditions,
particularly pertaining to the first-last mile access to transit
that walking and biking can provide.
• Chapter 6 provides a series of analyses used to identify
opportunities and constraints related to the existing
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identifies the key
findings from the various analyses. This information will help
identify and justify recommendations made throughout this
report.
Legislative Framework
Several key planning efforts and legislative actions of the past
decade have redefined the way community transportation planning
is carried out, including Assembly Bill 1358 – The Complete Streets
Act, Senate Bill 375 – The Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act, Assembly Bill 32 – The Global Warming Solutions Act,
and the SCAG RTP/SCS. A unifying theme among these documents is
to achieve a more balanced, multimodal transportation system that
increases travel mode options for all users, with an emphasis on
active transportation and public transportation.
Assembly Bill 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act was adopted in
2006, which codified California’s pursuit of a low-carbon, sustainable
future. The Bill enacted a mandate of reducing California’s
greenhouse gas emissions to year 1990 levels by 2020, which would
constitute a 15 percent overall reduction relative to baseline
conditions.
In 2008, Senate Bill 375 was adopted, requiring California
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to formulate a
“sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) as part of their regional
transportation plans, specifically identifying how the region will
achieve targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from
automobiles and light trucks.
Assembly Bill 1358 The Complete Streets Act went into effect in
California on January 1, 2011, requiring the legislative body of a city
or a county to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation
network that meets the needs of all roadway users, defined to
include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with
disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public
transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or
urban context of the general plan. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS sets the
precedent for how Southern California’s transportation network will
accommodate the anticipated growth the area can expect by 2040.
The Regional Plan demonstrates how SCAG will invest in
infrastructure to provide more transportation choices, while
strengthening the economy, and promoting a healthy environment.
Document Review
This Chapter describes previous and on-going planning efforts and
relevant documents in the City of Lake Elsinore, to provide context
for the Active Transportation Plan. The following documents were
referenced:
• City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element (Ongoing)
• Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan (2018)
• East Lake Specific Plan (2017)
• City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (2011)
• Lake Elsinore General Plan District Plans (sixteen total)
• RTA First & Last Mile Mobility Plan (2017)
• Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan (2015)
Page 4
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
• SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (2016)
• WRCOG and SCAG Sustainability Frameworks (2012, 2016)
City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element (Ongoing)
The upcoming Lake Elsinore Circulation Element, currently under
development, offers an exciting opportunity for a cooperative
consideration each form of mobility and how they relate to Lake
Elsinore’s unique built and natural environment. As this Plan
continues forward, project staff will perform regular check-ins with
the progression of this document to ensure that goals, policies,
implementation measures, network development, and planned
future conditions remain in line to serve as a well-integrated
platform upon which future mobility options may be fostered.
Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan (2018)
The Downtown Elsinore Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides a vision
and strategic
framework to guide future
development in the City’s historic
downtown. It capitalizes on the City’s
unique assets with the overarching
goal of vitalizing downtown and
implementing the City’s vision that
“The City of Lake Elsinore will be the
ultimate destination where all can live,
work, and play, build futures and fulfill
dreams.” The Specific Plan will draw
residents and visitors to the City’s
historic Main Street corridor by
encouraging a mixed-use downtown
area that has a variety of commercial and residential uses, including
restaurants with outdoor dining, entertainment, hotel, office, retail,
service, high density and affordable housing, cultural and civic uses.
The Specific Plan reimagines the previous 2011 Master Plan, and
pursues the following mobility-related visions and objectives:
• Create a “park-once-and-walk” district.
• Enhance connectivity from the downtown to the lake with a
realignment of Main Street, Lakeshore Drive, and Library
Street.
• Create walkable streets, with new sidewalks, streetscaping,
and quality lighting.
• Provide adequate parking.
The Specific Plan embraces a complete streets approach, laying
groundwork for a pedestrian-friendly downtown core with a
multimodal streetscape where accessible and equitable
transportation options exist for people who live, work, or shop in
Downtown. Specific design elements from the Specific Plan include:
• Pedestrian circulation routes that are clearly defined.
• Mid-block street crossings to avoid conflicts with the turning
movements of vehicles at intersections.
• Limited number and width of sidewalk curb cuts, particularly
on Main Street, to minimize pedestrian-vehicular conflicts.
• Spaces between the sides of buildings should incorporate
seating areas for enhanced pedestrian connections where
appropriate.
• Pedestrian access from residential facilities into commercial
areas through the use of restricted access pedestrian gates
that facilitate access for residents to commercial services.
Page 5
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
• Right-sizing of streets to reduce the number of vehicle travel
lanes that a pedestrian must cross. If infeasible, then
landscaped pedestrian refuge areas provided at mid-
crossing.
• Bike racks at accessible, safe, well-lighted locations.
• Further encouragement for development of a bikeshare
program and trolley service to connect Downtown to the
Outlet Center, the Diamond Stadium, the Launch Pointe
Recreation Destination & RV Park, and other points of
interest in the City.
Recently, Class II bike lanes were installed along Graham Avenue and
Main Street in the Downtown area. The California Natural Resources
Agency Urban Greening Grant will provide for the construction of
Class II bike lanes along Sumner Avenue and Pottery Street, as well
as pedestrian and urban greening improvements along Heald
Avenue, Sumner Avenue, Pottery Street, and the Riverwalk, which
will complement the existing bike infrastructure. The City’s General
Plan highlights future goals to further extend Class II bike lanes along
Pottery Street and south of Limited Avenue along Main Street and
Lakeshore Drive, offering additional connections to the other areas
of the City.
East Lake Specific Plan (2017)
The East Lake Specific Plan, adopted by City Council in November
2017, is a blueprint guide for the development of approximately
2,977 acres at the southern end of the City of Lake Elsinore.
Adjacent to both the southeasterly shore of Lake Elsinore and
Diamond Stadium, it has become home to active sports facilities such
as skydiving, hang-gliding, motocross, as well as an 18-hole golf
course. The document, which
encompasses nine planning areas,
provides typical cross-sections and
street standards for area roadways.
An important component of the
Circulation Plan for East Lake is the
provision of pedestrian and bicycle
trails throughout the community.
This non-vehicular system
complements the overall circulation
system and includes Class II bikeway
lanes within the roadbed of Urban
Arterial and Major streets, pedestrian pathways within street
parkways, and completely separate off-road trails for pedestrian and
bicyclist use. Class II Bike Lanes are identified for Cereal Street,
Corydon Road, Diamond Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Lucerne Street,
Malaga Road, Mission Trail, and Stoneman Street.
Within and near the Specific Plan Boundary, the Murrieta Creek
Regional Trail and Levee Trail complement on-street facilities with
recreational soft-surface trails. Additionally, a number of community
trails are identified in nearby Lakeland Village which connect to other
regions as well as the Cleveland National Forest.
Page 6
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lake Elsinore Climate
Action Plan (2011)
The City of Lake Elsinore
Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a
long-range plan to reduce
communitywide greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from
activities that occur within the
City limits. Specifically, the CAP
is designed to accomplish each
of the following large-scale
goals:
• Benchmark Lake
Elsinore’s existing
(2008) GHG emissions
and projected emissions relative to statewide emissions
targets.
• Establish GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures
to reduce the City’s proportionate share of emissions to
meet the statewide targets identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32
and Executive Order S-3-05.
• Set forth procedures to monitor and verify the effectiveness
of the CAP and require amendment if the CAP is not
achieving targeted levels of emissions.
• Mitigate Lake Elsinore’s GHG emissions impacts (by reducing
GHG emissions consistent with the State of California via the
California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines, AB
32, and Executive Order S-3-05).
• Serve as the programmatic tiering document for the
purposes of CEQA within the City of Lake Elsinore for GHG
emissions, by which applicable projects will be reviewed.
The City has made a considerable effort to select emissions
reduction targets that are both ambitious and practical, and
consistent with AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. For local
governments, there are several types of reduction targets that may
be supported by substantial evidence and be consistent with the AB
32 and Executive Order S-3-05 targets, such as 1990 levels, a
performance standard (% reduction) or
an efficiency metric (e.g., emissions per
capita or service population) (California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association
[CAPCOA], 2008). The City selected
efficiency-based targets for the years
governed by the General Plan to reduce
community-wide emissions by 2020.
The Climate Action Plan also identifies
strategies and measures to reduce
municipal and community-wide GHG
emissions in several categories, including
transportation. Pertinent to active
transportation are the following measures:
• Measure T-1.2: Pedestrian Infrastructure - Through the
development review process, require the installation of
sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets. Also require
new subdivisions and large developments to provide
sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses where applicable
Page 7
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
and provide connections to neighborhood activity centers,
major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the
project site; implement through conditions of approval.
• Measure T-1.3: Street and Sidewalk Maintenance and
Improvements - Continue, through the Pavement
Management and Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repair
programs, to preserve the pedestrian and bicycle circulation
system by annually identifying and scheduling street and
sidewalk improvement and maintenance projects.
• Measure T-1.4: Bicycle Infrastructure – Through the
development review process, require new development, as
applicable, to implement and connect to the network of
Class I, II and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified
in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails Master
Plan and Western Riverside County Non-Motorized
Transportation plan; implement through conditions of
approval. The City will also continue to pursue and utilize
funding when needed to implement portions of these plans.
• Measure T-1.5: Bicycle Parking Standards - Through the
development review process, enforce short-term and long-
term bicycle parking standards for new non-residential
development (consistent with 2010 California Green Building
Code [CalGreen], Section 5.106.4).
Lake Elsinore General Plan District Plans
The City of Lake Elsinore is divided into a total sixteen distinct
districts that form a subset of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. The
General Plan recognizes adopted Specific Plan land uses, as well as
other existing neighborhoods in the City, through a series of District
Plans. These Plans address the unique neighborhoods and planning
areas in the City. These District Plans aid the growth and
development of Lake Elsinore, while honoring and preserving the
City’s physical environment, which contains a wide range of land
uses, spanning from a traditional downtown, to rural estate
residential, to modern master-planned commercial and residential
development.
Each District Plan provides an invaluable guide to local land uses and
senses of place, and provides tailored goals and policies to ensure
that larger-scale plans, such as the Active LE Plan, honors the unique
needs, preferences, history, and desired future direction for each
District.
Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan (2015)
The Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) strives to
support all residents and visitors of
WRCOG whether they choose to
walk, bike, take transit, or drive. This
Western Riverside Active
Transportation Plan (ATP) focuses
on enhancing the non-motorized
infrastructure throughout the
region, in hopes of developing a
robust network for people who
choose or need to walk and/or bike.
Improvements to the active transportation network will ultimately
benefit all users of the transportation system by providing more
transportation choices. This plan serves as a resource for WRCOG
Page 8
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
member jurisdictions and
stakeholders to help identify
important active
transportation facilities they
would like to see in their
community and provides
guidance on how each
individual project can be
achieved.
The ATP identifies facilities at the county level to enhance and
increase active transportation options in the region. It builds
forward from the preceding Western Riverside County Non-
Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) published in June 2010, by
significantly updating active transportation network improvement
projects, implementation strategies, and funding opportunities
found in that plan. The NMTP was helpful in identifying the gaps in
the regional active transportation network, and few of the proposed
projects were implemented. The goal and purpose of the ATP is to
provide guidance to WRCOG and its member agencies in identifying
projects, planning for them, and being able to successfully
implement them.
In this vein, the ATP identifies several regional facilities within Lake
Elsinore and its sphere of influence:
• Bautista Creek/Mission Trail Route (including regionally-
significant on-road facilities along Mission Trail in Lake
Elsinore),
• Lake Elsinore-Murrieta Creek Route,
• Alberhill Ranch-Ramona Expressway Route,
• Butterfield Overland Trail, and
• Lake Elsinore Loop (including regionally-significant on-road
facilities along Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive in Lake
Elsinore).
SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and Sustainability Framework (2016)
Approved by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) Board of Directors in April of 2016, the 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP/SCS) serves as the overarching vision for
the majority of Southern California over the next two and a half
decades.
Developed in close partnership
with the region’s 191 cities, six
counties, and tribal government,
the RTP/SCS proposes a
transportation network that will
provide sustainable mobility
choices and planning to support
a sustainable and healthy region,
a vibrant economy, and an outstanding quality of life for all. It
includes greater investments in public transportation, bike paths,
and pedestrian improvements and allows the region to meet and
exceed GHG reduction targets. The primary objectives of the
Regional Plan are to:
• Preserve the existing transportation system,
• Expand the regional transportation system to give people
more alternatives to driving alone,
• Expand passenger rail,
• Improve highway and arterial capacity,
Page 9
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
• Manage demands on the transportation system through
Transportation Demand Management (TDM),
• Optimize the performance of the transportation system,
• Promote walking, biking, and other forms of active
transportation,
• Strengthen the regional transportation network for goods
movement,
• Leverage new advances in technology,
• Improve airport access, and
• Focus new growth around transit through support of High
Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), promotion of livable
corridors, and strategies to bolster Neighborhood Mobility
Areas (NMAs).
The Regional Plan includes a
transportation network that identifies
a number of public transit, highway,
goods movement, bikeway,
pedestrian, and supportive program
projects to be implemented by 2040.
The RTP/SCS includes a financially
constrained plan and a strategic plan.
The constrained plan includes
transportation projects that have
committed, available or reasonably
available revenue sources, and thus are probable for
implementation. The strategic plan is an illustrative list of additional
transportation investments that the region would pursue if
additional funding and regional commitment were secured. Such
investments are potential candidates for inclusion in the constrained
RTP/SCS through future
amendments or updates.
SCAG is anticipating it will obtain approximately $556.5 billion in
revenues through 2040. Of this, approximately 50% would be utilized
for operations and maintenance of the existing regional
transportation system, 44% for transportation capital improvements,
and 6% for serving debt. Of the 50% of revenues earmarked for
operation and maintenance, approximately 28% of revenues would
be utilized for transit operations and maintenance, 12% for highway
operation and maintenance, 7% for the operation and maintenance
of locally significant roads, and 3% for the operation and
maintenance of passenger rail. Because not all revenues will be
available at once, transportation projects and programs will be
phased over the life of the plan. Revenues are projected to flow
from local sales tax (46%), countywide taxes (12%), core and
additional federal funds (20%), and core and state funding (23%).
WRCOG Sustainability Framework (2012)
WRCOG’s Sustainability Framework is the beginning point in a longer
process to establish, implement, and continuously refine a
subregional sustainability plan. The Framework serves four broad
objectives:
• Provide a starting point for dialogue about sustainability and
its importance to the region, and articulate a framework for
the development of a subregional sustainability plan,
• Provide a vision for a sustainable Western Riverside County
and establish goals to inform and guide regional
collaboration and local action until the subregional
sustainability plan is prepared,
• Define and prioritize short-term actions that WRCOG can
pursue in the interim to begin realizing the Framework’s
vision and goals for sustainability, and
Page 10
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
• Define initial indicators, benchmarks, and targets by which
WRCOG can measure the effectiveness of efforts to create a
more sustainable subregion.
The Framework establishes a work plan by which WRCOG can seek
funding and implement new projects and programs that support the
vision without having to wait until the subregional sustainability plan
is prepared, fully vetted, and adopted.
Pertinent to active transportation, the Framework responds to and
catalyzes a local cooperation with legislation such as AB 1358, the
Complete Streets Act, placing a focus on local planning processes
and ensuring the provision of local roadway infrastructure that is
designed and operated to accommodate all roadway users, including
bicyclists, public transit riders, and pedestrians of all ages and
abilities.
RTA First & Last Mile Mobility Plan (2017)
This document, prepared as a collaboration between by the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SCAG, establishes a goal of
increasing transit ridership through developing strategies that
address first and last mile barriers to transit use.
In addition to summarizing ridership characteristics, the First & Last
Mile Mobility Plan highlights the future needs of RTA customers,
station typologies in the RTA system, and provides an
implementation plan for these strategies. It is believed that more
people would take transit if it were more convenient, safe, and
attractive to ride. Thus, the objective of the Plan is to provide
improved access to transit to both retain existing and add potential
new transit users.
In Lake Elsinore, stations are identified as primarily of the
“Suburban” typology, which carry a framework of recommendations
that include wayfinding, bicycle network improvements, pedestrian
network improvements (including crossing treatments), bus stop
enhancements, carsharing, transit-oriented development, and
placemaking efforts. The document also identifies the Lake Elsinore
Outlet Center as a primary transit connection point on the RTA
system.
Existing pedestrian crossing with flashing beacons. in
Page 11
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
2.0 Community Profile
This chapter provides an overview of the City of Lake Elsinore,
including its setting in relation to Western Riverside County and
Southern California as a whole, land use characteristics, and places in
the City that serve as community keystones and gathering places.
Additionally, the chapter presents an overview of Lake Elsinore
demographics and commuter characteristics.
Overview
The City of Lake Elsinore is located in western Riverside County in
Southern California, approximately 60 miles south of Downtown Los
Angeles and approximately 60 miles north of Downtown San Diego.
Lake Elsinore is bordered by the unincorporated Riverside County to
the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, and southwest, the
City of Menifee to the east, and the City of Wildomar to the
southeast. Interstate 15 traverses the City in a north-south
direction, providing the primary north-south freeway access to Lake
Elsinore, while California State Route 74 connects Lake Elsinore with
Orange County to the west, and the City of Perris located to the
northeast.
The City of Lake Elsinore has several qualities contributing to the
potential for an ideal walking and cycling environment, including a
temperate Southern California climate, an active population, region-
drawing recreation in the form the lake and mountains that form the
backdrop of the City, and wide streets in many newer parts of the
City that can, or already do, accommodate active transportation
infrastructure. In addition, the City has embraced its community
health initiative, called Healthy LE, which guides programming,
infrastructure improvements, and community input strategies to
promote a healthy active lifestyle.
2.1.1 Existing Land Use
Lake Elsinore is truly unique in terms of its land use characteristics,
particularly in relation to its neighboring communities. The City’s
heritage is evident in its range of built environments, which span
development eras that range from a compact, walkable downtown,
to hillside vista residential neighborhoods, modern master-planned
communities, and region-drawing retail.
Additionally, the City is home to popular extreme recreational
activities, such as skydiving, water sports, motor sports, mountain
biking and trail use, and skydiving. As with commercial centers, the
City’s recreation destinations draw visitors from the region and
beyond.
As presented in Figure 2-2, land uses generally contain commercial
features near major transportation facilities, such as along I-15 and
SR-74. Residential uses primarily consist of single-family units,
dispersed around the lake, as well as near Downtown and into the
canyons east of I-15.
Page 12
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-2 Existing Land Uses (2016)
Page 13
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
2.1.2 Activity Centers
Key activity centers in Lake Elsinore include Downtown Lake Elsinore,
area schools, parks, and retail districts. These locations represent
portions of the City that serve as attractors for residents and visitors
to the City. As the planning process progresses into identification of
opportunities and constraints and network recommendations, these
activity centers will become an important frame of reference for
understanding the parts of the City that people are naturally
attracted to. Activity centers are presented in Figure 2-3. As shown,
The City contains activity centers in a relatively even distribution,
including near the lake, the Interstate 15 corridor, and newly
developed portions of the City near the eastern city limits and
neighboring communities of Warm Springs, Canyon Lake, and
Menifee.
2.1.3 Adopted Roadway Network
In conjunction with the Draft City of Lake Elsinore Circulation
Element, the city’s streets have been categorized by typology. This
categorization effort takes a number of factors into consideration,
including geographic setting, adjacent land use, anticipated traffic
levels, and the overall function that a roadway is intended to serve as
a component of the City’s overall mobility network.
The City’s roadway classifications are displayed in Figure 2-4. As
shown, roadway mobility is supported by an even network of Urban
Arterials and Major roadways, which also serve I-15. Supporting
Secondary and Collector roadways feed residential and
neighborhood traffic to these facilities. Downtown Lake Elsinore’s
compact, walkable environment is served by 2-lane Collector
roadways.The Downtown environment is supported by collector roadways
(top), while arterials and major roadways serve much of the City,
and connect to I-15 (bottom).
Page 14
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-3 Activity Centers
Page 15
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-4 City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Classifications
Source: City of Lake Elsinore
Page 16
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Demographic Summary
Demographic information is used to better understand the people
who live in Lake Elsinore today. Age groups, means of transportation
to work, and vehicle availability are described in this section.
Demographic information was obtained from the US Census 2013 –
2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, which
represent the most recent available data.
A growing community such as Lake Elsinore is subject to continual
change, thus it is expected that demographics and data may rapidly
shift as Lake Elsinore develops further. Currently, growth areas
include Canyon Hills, Summerly, Rosetta, and Alberhill. Future
demographic analyses may indicate shifts relative to what is
presented in this report, due to this ongoing development.
2.2.1 Population and Employment Density
Figure 2-5 displays the portions of Lake Elsinore with the highest
population density. As shown, much of the City’s land area is
relatively rural, with several distinct clusters of density primarily
located at the northwest shore of the lake, historic Downtown, the
southeast shore of the lake, near the Wildomar border, and in
neighboring communities of Canyon Lake and Menifee. Temescal
Valley also exhibits relatively higher density than Lake Elsinore as a
whole. These population centers exhibit notable similarity to the
Activity Centers defined in Figure 2-3, which suggest opportunity to
serve local catchment areas with facilities that allow residents to
access activity centers near them by non-vehicular means.
In addition to developing an understanding of population density,
employment density is a key indicator of the jobs-housing balance of
Lake Elsinore. This is also critical in uncovering the best potential
treatments for a mobility network, since a large portion of trips are
commute trips. Commute-related time periods are also related to
peak periods of roadway congestion. Figure 2-6 presents
employment density by Census Block Group. As shown, the City’s
main employment areas are along the northeast shore of the lake,
including Downtown and the portion of the City along the SR-74
corridor. Additional significant employment density is found along
the I-15 corridor, adjacent to the Wildomar border. Elsewhere, the
City is shown to be primarily residential in nature.
2.2.2 Youth and Senior Populations
Figure 2-7 shows the percent of population by age group for the City
of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County. As shown, Lake Elsinore’s
population distribution by age is relatively younger than Riverside
County as a whole, with more people in the Under 5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-
19, 25-34, and 35-44 age groups than the County population, and
somewhat fewer people in the 20-24, 45-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-74,
75-84, and 85 and older age groups.
Page 17
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-5 Population Density
Page 18
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-6 Employment Density
Page 19
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-7 Percent of Population by Age Group – City of Lake Elsinore
and Riverside County
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2019)
Figure 2-8 identifies the percent of Lake Elsinore’s population making
up youth (age 17 and younger) and seniors (age 65 and older). Youth
and senior populations have more limited mobility options than the
general adult population, making them more vulnerable and reliant
on alternative transportation modes and infrastructure, and
therefore requiring additional considerations when planning
transportation networks.
Figure 2-8 Lake Elsinore Youth and Senior Populations
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2019)
Figure 2-9 presents the distribution of the senior citizen population
within the City of Lake Elsinore by Census Block Group. As shown, a
large geographic portion of the City contains a senior population of
9% or lower. Distinct clusters, including the northwest portion of the
lake, and the eastern border near Canyon lake, exhibit higher senior
populations, which include up to 16% and 22.5% senior citizens,
respectively.
Figure 2-10 displays the distribution of the youth population within
the City, also by Census Block Group. Relative to senior populations,
youths are more dispersed throughout the City. Though there are
areas of slightly higher concentrations of youth populations, such as
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%Percent of populationLake Elsinore Riverside County
Page 20
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-9 Distribution of Senior Population by Census Block Group
Page 21
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-10 Distribution of Youth Population by Census Block Group
Page 22
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
east of I-15, distinct population clusters do not exist to the same
degree as is so for senior citizens. Since walking and riding to school
are two key aims of this Plan, this illuminates a need to ensure that
safe, comfortable facilities are present in an even distribution to
ensure the best catchment of youth riders.
“Eight-to-Eighty” Approach
An “Eight-to-Eighty” city places a priority on both eight and eighty-
year-old members of the community when planning. The intent of
this approach is to produce planning outcomes that ensures a city
functions properly and equitably for everyone’s ability. Generally,
the past fifty years have produced planning outcomes for North
American cities that prioritize driver-based mobility. Car-centric
planning oftentimes neglects mobility for those that may be not be
able to operate a motor vehicle, such as children and seniors.
Among others, this approach reduces much of life’s daily physical
activity. Rather, the eight-to-eighty approach shifts the focus back to
people, resulting in healthier and more equitable cities supported by
safe mobility infrastructure that accommodates all modes of travel.
Bicyclists form a highly diverse group of individuals whose cycling
preferences and cycling skill is varied. Cyclists have been generally
categorized as belonging to one of four types, based upon their
comfort and interest in cycling (Dill, et al; Four Types of Cyclists?
Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling
Behavior and Potential, Portland State University), as shown in Table
2-1.
Generally, when planning for bicycle facilities, various levels of
bicyclist abilities are considered in relation to the community and
environment in which they live and cycle. Advanced cyclists are
oftentimes happily served by bicycle compatible roadways designed
to accommodate shared use by bicycles and vehicles. Basic riders,
on the other hand, are more comfortable with designated roadways
with bicycle facilities that encourage bicycle use.
A compatible roadway is one which incorporates design features that
allow a competent bicyclist to safely share the roadway with a
vehicle. Features may include carefully considered traffic volumes,
speeds, and signage. Typically, this facility is a Class Ill bicycle route.
A designated roadway is one that encourages cycling through the
use of lane markings and signage. Typically, this facility is a Class II
bicycle lane or Class IV cycle track. Other considerations of a
designated roadway may include traffic conditions, appropriate
width and geometries, and directness of route. A Class I bicycle path
is recommended for those inexperienced cyclists and other
recreational uses since it is separated from the road and motorized
traffic.
In Lake Elsinore, the experience level of cyclists predominantly falls
into the “interested but concerned” category, based upon the small
but steady number of cyclists observed throughout the city where
roadway conditions are calm and inviting. There are also more
experienced cyclists that bike longer distances, making use of the
region’s rural open spaces. Implementation of the recommended
network will ultimately result in bicycle facilities that can improve
mobility for varying levels of cyclists. Caltrans-adopted bicycle
facility classifications are presented in Table 2-2.
Page 23
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 2-1 The Four Types of Cyclists
Example Description
The “Strong and the Fearless” represent fewer than half of a percent of the population. These are the people who will ride regardless of
roadway conditions. They tend to self-identify as “cyclists,” and riding is a strong part of their identity. They are generally undeterred by
roadway conditions.
The “Enthused and Confident” are those who have been attracted to cycling and are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive
traffic, but prefer to do so operating on their own facilities. They are attracted to riding where streets have been redesigned to make them
work well for bicycling. They appreciate bicycle lanes and bicycle boulevards. This demographic comprises approximately seven percent of
the population.
The vast majority of people are the “Interested but Concerned.” These individuals are curious about bicycling. They are hearing
messages from a wide variety of sources about how easy it is to ride a bicycle regularly, about how bicycling is booming, about “bicycle
culture”, and about the need for people to lead more active lives. They like riding a bicycle, and they would like to ride more. However, they
are cautious toward most riding conditions, and are uncomfortable with riding in mixed traffic. Very few of this group regularly rides
bicycles, and particularly not along arterials, or to major commercial and employment destinations. This group represents approximately 60
percent of the population. They would ride if they felt safer on the roadways—if cars were slower and less frequent, and if there were more
quiet streets with few cars and paths without any cars at all.
Approximately one third of the population falls into the last category - the “No Way, No How” group that is currently not interested in
bicycling at all, for reasons of topography, inability, or simply a lack of interest.
Source: Dill, et al; Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Page 24
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 2-2 Bicycle Facility Design Classifications
Example Description
Class I Multi-Use Path – Also referred to as a bike paths or shared-use paths, Class I facilities provide a completely
separated right-of-way designed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists
minimized. Multi-use paths can provide connections where roadways are non-existent or unable to support bicycle
travel. The minimum paved width for a two-way multi-use path is considered to be eight-feet, with a two-foot wide
graded area adjacent to the pavement.
Class II Bike Lane – Provides a striped lane designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through
travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited. Bike lanes are one-way facilities located on either side of a roadway.
Pedestrian and motorist crossflows are permitted. Additional enhancements such as painted buffers and signage may
be applied. The minimum bike lane width is considered to be five-feet.
Class III Bike Route – Provides shared use of traffic lanes with cyclists and motor vehicles, identified by signage and/or
street markings such as “sharrows”. Bike routes are best suited for low-speed, low-volume roadways with an outside
lane of 14 feet or greater. Bike routes provide network continuity or designate preferred routes through corridors with
high demand.
Class IV Cycle Track – Also referred to as separated or protected bikeways, cycle tracks provide a right-of-way
designated exclusively for bicycle travel within the roadway and physically protected from vehicular traffic. Cycle tracks
can provide for one-way or two-way travel. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible
posts, or on-street parking.
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Page 25
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Equity Analysis
A well-considered multimodal mobility network will serve the needs
of all users, ages, and abilities. This section summarizes findings of
the portion of the City that lacks access to a vehicle, as well as
household income per census block group.
2.4.1 Zero-Vehicle Households
Vehicle availability for Lake Elsinore households is displayed in Table
2-3. Ninety-seven percent of households have access to at least one
vehicle, while approximately seventy-four percent of households
have access to more than one vehicle.
Table 2-3 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Block Group
Mode of Transportation Households Percent of
Total
3 or More Vehicles Available 5,232 31.6%
2 Vehicles Available 7,010 42.4%
1 Vehicle Available 3,805 23.0%
No Vehicles Available 491 3.0% Total Occupied Household Units 16,538 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2019)
The distribution of households without vehicles can be seen in Figure
2-11. As shown, although few households lack access to a car, those
that do are concentrated in higher percentages near downtown,
where walking, cycling, and transit use are most feasible. Secondary
clusters of zero-vehicle households are located along the northwest
shore of the lake, and near the border with the unincorporated
community of Warm Springs.
The greatest number of zero-vehicle households is found near Downtown
Lake Elsinore.
Page 26
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-11 Zero Vehicle Availability by Census Block Group
Page 27
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
2.4.2 Household Income
Figure 2-12 displays the median household income for the City of
Lake Elsinore by census block group. As shown, there is a correlation
between income and zero-vehicle household status, whereby the
portions of the City with lower incomes tend to be located near
Downtown, as well as the same census block group along the lake’s
northwest shore that exhibited relatively higher rates of zero-vehicle
ownership.
Page 28
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-12 Median Household Income by Census Block Group
Page 29
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Commuter Profile
Examining the current commuter patterns of the residents of the
City of Lake Elsinore, provides a deeper understanding of how people
are currently traveling, and in turn, will inform the decisions made
for the City’s future multimodal mobility network.
2.5.1 Means of Transportation to Work
Figure 2-13 displays a comparison of means of transportation to
work for Lake Elsinore and Riverside County. As shown below, Lake
Elsinore has relatively similar rates of commuters driving alone to
work, carpooling, working from home, and biking to work, as
compared to Riverside County as a whole. Lake Elsinore has slightly
fewer public transportation commuters and walking commuters than
the County as a whole, and slightly more workers that commute via
an “other” means.
Figure 2-14 displays the percentage of commuters who walk to work
citywide, while Figure 2-15 displays commuters who ride a bicycle to
work. The level of pedestrian commuting is relatively higher in
several areas throughout the community where residential density is
generally higher, and where there is nearer proximity to jobs, such as
near Downtown. Bicycle commuting is generally higher near
Downtown as well. Lakeland Village, and neighborhoods along the
northwest shore the lake, also show relatively higher rates of bicycle
commuting.
Figure 2-16 presents the distribution of commuters who take transit
to work and those use a vehicle to commute to work within the City
of Lake Elsinore. As shown, those that reside in the central portion
of the City commute via transit at higher rates than those that live at
the periphery of the City.
Figure 2-13 Means of Transportation to Work
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates (2019)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Drove AloneCarpooledWorked atHomePublicTransportationWalkedOtherBicyclePercent of Working PopulationLake Elsinore Riverside County
Page 30
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-14 Percent of Commuters Who Walk to Work by Census Block Group
Page 31
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-15 Percent of Commuters Who Bicycle to Work by Census Block Group
Page 32
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-16 Percent of Commuters Who Take Transit to Work by Census Block Group
Page 33
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Travel Time to Work
Figure 2-17 displays the mean travel time to work for residents of
Lake Elsinore, relative to Riverside County as a whole. As shown,
most Lake Elsinore residents have a longer commute than Riverside
County residents as a whole. As a community with many residents
that work outside the City limits, a greater proportion of Lake
Elsinore residents commute 35 or more minutes than do other
County commuters, while fewer Lake Elsinore residents have
commutes of less than 35 minutes than do county commuters, as a
whole. However, Lake Elsinore has a greater number of commuters
that travel between 25 and 29 minutes to work than Riverside
County as a whole.
The mean travel time for working residents of Lake Elsinore is 44.1
minutes, whereas the mean travel time to work in Riverside County
as a whole is shorter, at 33.1 minutes.
Figure 2-17 Mean Travel Time to Work
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2019)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
< 10 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-59 60 +Percent of Working PopulationMinutes
Lake Elsinore Riverside County
I-15, a common commute corridor for Lake Elsinore residents.
Page 34
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Health Index
There are a number of community conditions including housing,
education, economics, and social factors, among others, when
grouped together can be used to assess a community’s life
expectancy. The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) is one such
metric that is structured to highlight the community conditions
shaping health outcomes in neighborhoods in California. It is
designed to showcase a cross-section of data that properly frames
and recognizes equity issues communities are experiencing. The HPI
has been used as a prime resource throughout the State for guiding
informed prioritization of public and private investments, resource
allocations, program planning and service delivery. These social
determinants of health have been grouped and analyzed to derive a
general picture of the City of Lake Elsinore’s health, using a total of
eight factors, listed below.
• Economic
• Education
• Housing
• Health Care Access
• Neighborhood
• Clean Environment
• Transportation
• Social Factors
The Economic category analyzes an area’s poverty levels,
employment rates and median household income. The Education
category includes the number of postsecondary degrees or higher in
the area, high school graduation rates, as well as preschool
enrollment rates. The Housing category includes homeownership
rates, the burden of owning vs. renting, the percent of uncrowded
housing, and the percent of housing stock which is habitable. The
Health Care Access category includes the percent of insured adults in
the community. The Neighborhood category includes retail density,
supermarket access, park access, and tree canopy, in addition to the
number of people who live within a quarter-mile of a store which
sells alcohol. The Clean Environment category examines the
availability of safe drinking water, as well as clean air in three
different metrics: particulate matter, diesel particulate matter, and
ozone. The Transportation category includes automobile access and
rates of active commuting. The final category of Social Factors
examines the percentage of two parent households and the
percentage of registered voters.
Figure 2-18 presents the California Healthy Places Index Score, as a
composite of these factors. The areas which are darker in color are
statistically less healthy when all eight factors are taken into
consideration, in comparison to the areas which are lighter in color.
In all, a majority of the City is located within the 65.6% percentile or
above. Highest scoring areas are count close to the lake, near
Downtown, and in several outlying areas. Conversely, relatively
lower scores are found further toward the City’s periphery.
Page 35
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 2-18 Healthy Places Index Score (2017)
Page 36
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
3.0 People on Foot
This chapter provides an overview of existing pedestrian
infrastructure, travel behaviors and demographics, and pedestrian
collision histories.
Network Summary
The inventory of pedestrian infrastructure considered sidewalks,
curb ramps, and crosswalks along the City’s Circulation Element (CE)
roadways. Resources used in this evaluation include geographic
information system (GIS) data, satellite imagery, document review,
and field review confirmations.
Figure 3-1 displays the location of missing sidewalks along CE
roadways. As shown, a significant number of the City’s CE roadways
lack sidewalks on one or more sides of the street. Roadways with
missing sidewalks are also found distributed throughout the City,
rather than in a particular portion of the community. Note that in
certain locations, particularly in Downtown, sidewalks are sometimes
found in front of individual parcels, but do not reflect the overall
condition. In these cases, the block was noted as missing sidewalks
to identify that a need still remains.
A known deterrent to pedestrian mobility is a lack of space for the
pedestrian that places him or her a safe, comfortable distance from
passing vehicles. Sidewalk infill will become an important step
toward building a robust pedestrian mobility network, particularly
where land use characteristics or regional draws encourage
pedestrian trips.
Sidewalks are commonly missing along older roadways (top),
but can be found in newer developments (bottom).
Page 37
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-1 Missing Sidewalks on Circulation Element Arterials
Page 38
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Pedestrian Collision Analysis
Collision data can be used to identify potential deficiencies related to
pedestrian travel. The collision review draws from five years of data
(January 2013 – December 2017) obtained from the California
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The analysis
was used to identify trends and patterns related to collision
locations, causes, time, party-at-fault and victim age.
3.2.1 Collision Locations
A total of 64 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported in Lake
Elsinore during the five-year analysis period. Figure 3-2 displays the
location of the pedestrian collisions across Lake Elsinore. As shown,
the northwest shore of the lake, particularly along the Riverside
Drive, Lincoln Street, and Lakeshore Drive corridors, were locations
of multiple pedestrian-involved collisions. Downtown Lake Elsinore,
as well as southeast Lake Elsinore also recorded several collisions in
each respective location.
Table 3-1 identifies the locations where multiple pedestrian involved
collisions were reported.
Table 3-1 Multiple Pedestrian Collision Locations (Pedestrian): January 2013
– December 2017
Rank Intersection Collisions
1 Riverside Drive and Joy Street 3
Lakeshore Drive and Terra Cotta Road 3
2
Lakeshore Drive and Hursh Street 2
Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive 2
Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue 2
Summerhill Drive and Canyon Estates Drive 2
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Table 3-2 reports pedestrian collisions by roadway location,
differentiating between intersection and midblock locations. As
shown, nearly two thirds of pedestrian-involved collisions occurred
at intersections, whereas approximately one third of pedestrian-
involved collisions occurred at midblock locations.
Table 3-2 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 –
December 2017)
Collision Location Collisions Percent of Total
Intersection 42 65.6%
Midblock 22 34.4% Total 64 100%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
3.2.2 Party-At-Fault & Primary Collision Factors
The party at-fault is reported for pedestrian-involved collisions in
Table 3-13 and Figure 3-3. The driver was reported as at-fault for the
majority of pedestrian-involved collisions, approximately 55 percent,
while the pedestrian was reported as the party at-fault for
approximately 45 percent of occurrences.
Table 3-3 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December
2017)
Collision Location Collisions Percent of Total
Pedestrian 29 45.3%
Driver 35 54.7% Total 64 100%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Page 39
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-2 Collisions Involving People on Foot (2013 – 2017)
Page 40
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Source: SWITRS (2019)
The primary collision factors for pedestrian-involved collisions are
reported in Table 3-4. As shown, the leading cause was a pedestrian
violation, accounting for 45.3 percent of collisions, followed by
violating the pedestrian’s right-of-way violations, representing 25.0
percent of collisions.
Table 3-4 Primary Pedestrian Collision Factor (January 2013 – December
2017)
Collision Cause Collisions Percent of Total
Pedestrian Violation 29 45.3%
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 16 25.0%
Improper Turning 9 14.1%
Unsafe Speed 4 6.3%
Unknown 3 4.6%
Traffic Signals and Signs 2 3.1%
Other Than Driver/Pedestrian 1 1.6% Total 64 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Table 3-5 reports the pedestrian action during the collisions. The
pedestrian was reported as crossing in the crosswalk at an
intersection for less than half the collisions (35.9 percent). The
second leading cause was due to the pedestrian being in the road,
including the shoulder, at (34.4 percent). Oftentimes a lack of
sidewalks leads pedestrians to walk within the road, placing them
within dangerous proximity to traffic.
Table 3-5 Pedestrian Action During Collision (January 2012 –
December 2017)
Pedestrian Action Collisions Percent of Total
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 23 35.9%
In Road, Including Shoulder 22 34.4%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 16 25.0%
Not in Road 2 3.1%
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 1 1.6%
Total 64 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
45%
55%
Pedestrian Driver
Figure 3-3 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault
Page 41
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
3.2.3 Temporal Collision Assessment & Victim Ages
The temporal assessment reports collisions by time of day, day of
week, and month of year. This information may be used to help
identify potential factors contributing to collisions, such as lack of
lighting (collisions occurring in the evening), or patterns, such as
collisions occurring during peak commute hours (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM
& 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM). Victim age is also examined in this section.
The age group analysis will help determine whether any age group is
experiencing a disproportionate amount of collisions.
Pedestrian collisions are reported by hour in Figure 3-4. As shown,
the hour between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM has the highest number of
pedestrian collisions (12 collisions). This is followed by the hours of
4:00 PM to 5:00 PM and 8:00PM to 9:00PM (7 collisions in each
hour), and 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM (6 collisions). This timeframe
includes the time before and after the school day, as well as the near
the evening peak commute period, including twilight hours when
people may be likely to go for a walk after work during potentially
difficult lighting conditions.
Figure 3-4 Pedestrian Collisions by Hour (January 2013 – December
2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
0 0 0 0 0
2 2
6
2 3
1 1 0
2 2 3
7
4
12
4
7
3 2 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
12:00AM1:00AM2:00AM3:00AM4:00AM5:00AM6:00AM7:00AM8:00AM9:00AM10:00AM11:00AM12:00PM1:00PM2:00PM3:00PM4:00PM5:00PM6:00PM7:00PM8:00PM9:00PM10:00PM11:00PMNumber of Pedestrian CollisionsHour of Day
Page 42
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-5 Pedestrian Collisions by Day of Week (January 2013 –
December 2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Pedestrian collisions by day of week are reported in Figure 3-5.
Relatively greater pedestrian collisions were noted on Tuesdays (15
collisions). The fewest collisions were found to occur on weekends,
with Saturdays and Sundays recording 5 collisions and 4 collisions,
respectively. This potentially points to a relatively higher proportion
of utilitarian, or commute-related walking in Lake Elsinore, since
weekdays register larger numbers of collisions on the whole. It may
also be possible that the greater traffic volumes that exist during
typical commute periods may be a factor.
Figure 3-6 Pedestrian Collisions by Month (January 2013 – December
2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Figure 3-6 reports pedestrian-involved collisions by month. The
greatest number of pedestrian collisions were reported as occurring
in February, with 15 collisions, followed by December, with 9
collisions, and April, with 8 collisions. This pattern may indicate a
connection to weather factors, particularly to the rainier months of
the year.
4
9
15
12
7
12
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Number of Pedestrian CollisionsDay of Week
2
15
3
8
3
1
4 5 5
3
6
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Number of Pedestrian CollisionsMonth of Year
Page 43
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-7 Pedestrian Collisions by Age (January 2013 – December
2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Pedestrian collisions are displayed by age group in Figure 3-7.
3.2.4 Collision Severity
Pedestrian collisions are summarized by severity in Table 3-6. As
shown, a majority of collisions resulted in “Complaint of Pain,” at
40.6 percent of all collisions, followed by “Other Visible Injury,”
meaning an injury that is visible but not traumatic, at 25 percent of
all collisions. A total of three pedestrian collisions, or 4.7 percent,
were fatal.
Table 3-6
Pedestrian Collision Severity (January 2013 – December 2017)
Collision Severity Collisions Percent
Complaint of Pain 26 40.6%
Other Visible Injury 16 25.0%
Severe Injury 10 15.6%
Fatality 3 4.7%
Property Damage Only 9 14.1%
Total 64 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Pedestrian Environment Quality
Evaluation (PEQE)
All Circulation Element roadways in Lake Elsinore were evaluated
using the Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation (PEQE),
developed by Chen Ryan Associates based upon an adaptation of the
San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Pedestrian
Environmental Quality Index (PEQI). PEQE assigns a score to each
side of a roadway segment based on four measures: horizontal
buffer, lighting, clear pedestrian zone, and posted speed limit.
Intersections are also scored based upon the presence of four
features: physical features, operational features, ADA curb ramps,
and type of traffic control. Additionally, mid-block crossings are
scored based upon visibility, crossing distance, ADA features, and
type of traffic control. These scores are used to assign facility ratings
of high, medium, or low, indicating the relative pedestrian comfort
associated with a particular intersection, segment, or midblock
crossing. Table 3-7 displays the attributes influencing the segment
scores and, scoring evaluation.
4
11 13
3
6 5
2 3 1
4 3 2 2 1 1 1 2
02468101214
5-1011-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-5051-5556-6061-6566-7071-7576-8081-85UnknownNumber of Pedestrian CollisionsAge of Pedestrian
Page 44
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 3-7 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System
Facility Type Measure Description/Feature Scoring
Segment
between two
intersections
1. Horizontal Buffer Between the edge of auto travel way and the edge
of clear pedestrian zone
0 point: < 6 feet
1 point: 6 - 14 feet
2 points: > 14 feet or vertical buffer
2. Lighting
0 point: below standard/requirement
1 point: meet standard/requirement
2 points: exceed standard/requirement
3. Clear Pedestrian Zone 5’ minimum 0 point: has obstructions
2 points: no obstruction
4. Posted Speed Limit
0 point: > 40 mph
1 point: 30 - 40 mph
2 points: < 30 mph Maximum 8 points
Intersection by Leg
1. Physical Feature
• Enhanced/High Visibility Crosswalk
• Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table
• Advanced Stop Bar
• Bulb out/Curb Extension
0 point: < 1 feature per ped crossing
1 point: 1 – 2 features per ped crossing
2 points: > 2 features per ped crossing
2. Operational Feature
• Pedestrian Countdown Signal
• Pedestrian Lead Interval
• No-Turn On Red Sign/Signal
• Additional Pedestrian Signage
0 point: < 1 feature per ped crossing
1 point: 1 – 2 features per ped crossing
2 points: > 2 features per ped crossing
3. ADA Curb Ramp
0 point: no ramps and no truncated tomes
1 point: ramps only, no truncated domes
2 points: meet standard/requirement
4. Traffic Control
0 point: no control
1 point: stop sign controlled
2 points: signal/roundabout/traffic circle Maximum 8 points
Mid-block Crossing
1. Visibility 0 point: w/o high visibility crosswalk
2 points: with high visibility crosswalk
2. Crossing Distance 0 point: no treatment
2 points: with bulb out or median pedestrian refuge
3. ADA
0 point: no ramps and no truncated tomes
1 point: ramps only, no truncated domes
2 points: meet standard/requirement
4. Traffic Control
0 point: no control
1 point: flashing beacon (In-pavement, RRFB, etc.)
2 points: signal/pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) Maximum 8 points
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Page 45
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 3-8 displays the three possible ranks and a description of the
environmental characteristics pertaining to each.
This analysis, which surveyed Circulation Element (CE) roadways
only, indicats that there are approximately 157.7 sidewalk miles
within the City along CE roadways. As shown, the majority of Lake
Elsinore sidewalks surveyed were found to exhibit low characteristics
(approximately 121.0 sidewalk miles) followed by medium
characteristics (approximately 34.0 sidewalk miles) and high
characteristcs (2.7 sidewalk miles). Several segments were found to
exhibit high characteristics, which were traffic-calmed segments in
residential areas or in Downtown Lake Elsinore. Segments that
recevied a low score score are areas where a sidewalk is not present
or partially discontinuous or where high vehicular speeds preclude
the award of full points.
Few roadways in the City posess horizontal buffers separating the
sidewalk from vehicular travel lanes. Of note, approximately 36.2
miles of CE roadways are missing sidewalks on both sides, and
approximately 11.9 miles of roadways only countain sidealks on one
side. Together, this creates a total of approximately 84.3 miles of
missing sidewalk along CE roadways.
Table 3-8 Sidewalk Inventory by PEQE Rating
Rating Percent Miles
Low 76.7% 121.0
Medium 21.6% 34.0
High 1.7% 2.7 Total Sidewalk Miles 100% 157.7 Missing Sidewalk Miles 84.3
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Table 3-9 presents a summary of sidewalk features by PEQE rating
type, including total and missing sidewalk miles.
Along segments, where buffers are present, they are usually in
residential neighborhoods, and oftentimes only run for a portion of a
given roadway segment. Thus, some roadways with sidewalk buffers
were not able to receive full points for that category. Nontheless,
clear pedestrian zones were identified along most segments where
full sidewalk coverage does exist.
Intersections were similarly noted to generally possess low
characteristics, followed by medium characteristics. No intersections
were found to exhibit high characteristics. In some locations, all four
legs of the intersection are closed to pedestrian crossings. Some
intersections lack curb ramps, or where they are present, are not
ADA-compliant with truncated domes for use by the visually
impaired. Additional physical and operational features, such as high-
visibility “continental” crosswalks, bulb-outs, or pedestrian
countdowns, were not noted in any significant capacity.
One mid-block crossing was noted in Downtown, with medium
characteristics due to being less than 30 feet in crossing distance,
containing ADA truncated domes and a flashing beacon, but lacking
high-visibility striping.
Page 46
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 3-9 PEQE Classifications and Descriptions
PEQE Rank Point Ranking Characteristics
Low < 4 points
Facility has fewer than one example of each feature type on average, or is generally below standard.
Segments may lack a horizontal buffer, lighting may be below standard, sidewalks may be obstructed, and posted
speed limits are generally high.
Intersections generally lack physical or operational features to enhance pedestrian crossing safety, may lack curb
ramps and/or traffic controls, such as free vehicular movement near freeway ramps.
Mid-block crossings generally lack high visibility treatments, crossing distances are long, curb ramps may not be
present, and there is generally no traffic control.
Medium 4 – 6 points
Facility is generally adequate and most features are to standard.
Segments generally have some horizontal buffer, lighting is usually to standard, sidewalks are not obstructed, and
posted speed limits are reasonable, but may be high.
Intersections generally possess a few operational or physical features to enhance pedestrian crossing safety such as
pedestrian countdowns, or high visibility crosswalks. Curb ramps are generally present but may lack ADA-compliant
truncated domes. Traffic controls are present.
Mid-block crossings generally have some pedestrian-friendly features, such as a high visibility crosswalk or flashing
beacon, but often do not have full ADA compliance and/or traffic control features.
High > 6 points
Facility generally exceeds standards and is fully ADA compliant
Segments generally have ample horizontal buffer, pedestrian-scale lighting exceeds standards, sidewalks are not
obstructed, and posted speed limits are low.
Intersections possess several operational or physical features to enhance pedestrian crossing including bulb-outs,
leading pedestrian intervals, or high visibility crosswalks. Curb ramps are ADA-compliant. Traffic controls are
present.
Mid-block crossings have several pedestrian-friendly features. Pedestrian refuges, bulb-outs, or other distance-
shortening features are present. Curb ramps have full ADA compliance, and traffic control features are present to
enhance pedestrian crossing safety.
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Page 47
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-8a displays the results of the PEQE roadway and intersection
analyses along Circulation Element Roadways citywide, while
complementing Figure 3-8b provides a localized inset of PEQE scores
in and near Downtown Lake Elsinore.
Intersections generally contain basic pedestrian features, such
as those found at the intersection of Mission Trail and Malaga
Avenue near the Wildomar border, above.
Page 48
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-8a Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation - Citywide
Page 49
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 3-8b Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation – City Center
Page 50
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
4.0 People on Bicycles
This chapter provides an overview of existing bicycle infrastructure,
travel behaviors and demographics, and pedestrian collision
histories.
Network Summary
As shown in Table 2-2, Caltrans currently recognizes four
classifications of bicycle facilities, including Class I multi-use paths,
Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle routes, and Class IV cycle tracks.
A summary of existing mileage per facility type is provided in Table 4-
1. As shown, total mileage incorporates approximately 27 miles of
facilities citywide.
4.1.1 Current Bicycle Network
Figure 4-1 displays the location of existing bicycle facilities within
Lake Elsinore. As shown in conjunction with Table 4-1, the Lake
Elsinore bicycle network is comprised of multi-use path (Class I), bike
lane (Class II), and bike route (Class III) facilities. Bike lanes make up
the bulk of the network, accounting for approximately 179.25 of the
27 miles of bikeway in Lake Elsinore. There are approximately 7.5
miles of Multi-Use Paved Path or Trails in the City of Lake Elsinore.
Multi-Use Path facilities exist along Nichols Road, the Lake Elsinore
Canal, and along portions of the lakefront.
Bike lane facilities exist along Graham Avenue, McVicker Canyon Park
Road, Lake Street/Grand Avenue, Lincoln Street, portions of
Lakeshore Drive, Ardenwood Way, Rosetta Canyon Drive, portions of
Mission Trail, portions of Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Hills Road,
Limited Avenue, Diamond Drive, and Lost Road.
Bike route facilities exist along portions of Lakeshore Drive and Main
Street in Downtown Lake Elsinore.
Bike lanes and bike routes facilities provide cyclists opportunities to
make short, local trips, but citywide connectivity is limited, as few
segments currently intersect, and no facility provides connectivity
across the entirety of the city limits.
Table 4-1 Bicycle Facility Classifications and Existing Network Mileage
Class Description Existing Mileage
Class I Multi-Use Path 12.8
Class II Bike Lane 17.39
Class III Bike Route 1.19
TOTAL MILEAGE 31.38
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Existing bicycle facilities, as well as currently planned facilities per a
review of relevant documents conducted in Chapter 2.0, is presented
in Figure 4-1.
Page 51
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-1 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
Page 52
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
4.1.2 Bicycle Support Facilities
An inventory of bicycle parking was conducted at civic facilities,
parks, and Main Street in Downtown Lake Elsinore to provide greater
insight as to the existence of end-of-trip facilities that support bicycle
travel. The presence or lack of these facilities is known to play a role
in one’s choice whether to bike to a destination rather than drive.
Table 4-2 presents the number of bicycle racks found at each key
location in the City, as well as the rack type, rack condition, and
estimated number of bicycles that can be accommodated based
upon the design standards of the particular style of rack used at each
location. Available bicycle parking is also displayed in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-2 Existing Bicycle Racks and Support Facilities
Location Bicycle
Racks
Rack
Type Condition
Total
Estimated
Capacity
Main Street (Heald
Avenue to Limited
Street)
1 Wave Good 5
Cultural Center 0 - - -
Lake Community
Center 0 - - -
Senior Activity Center 0 - - -
Youth Opportunity
Center 0 - - -
Sharron Lindsay
Community Center &
Gym
0 - - -
Alberhill Ranch
Community Park 0 - - -
Canyon Hills
Community Park 2 Bollard Good 8
Channel Walk 0
Table 4-2 Existing Bicycle Racks and Support Facilities
Location Bicycle
Racks
Rack
Type Condition
Total
Estimated
Capacity
City Park 0 - -
Creekside park 0 - - -
Lakepoint Park 0 - - -
Lincoln Street Park 1 Wave Good 9
Linear Park 0 - - -
Machado park 0 - - -
McVicker Canyon
Community Park 1 Wave Good 9
Oak Tree Park 0 - - -
Rosetta Canyon
Community Park 0 - - -
Serenity Park 1 Wave Fair 5
Summerhill Park 1 Wave Good 9
Summerlake Park 0 - - -
Summerly Community
Park 2 Arch Good 12
Swick and Matich Park 0 - - -
Tuscany Hills Park 2 Wave Fair 18
Yarbourough Park 0 - - -
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Page 53
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-2 Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities
Page 54
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Collision Analysis
Collision data can be used to identify potential deficiencies related to
bicycle travel. The collision review draws from five years of data
(January 2013 – December 2017) obtained from the California
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The analysis
was used to identify trends and patterns related to collision
locations, causes, time, party-at-fault and victim age.
4.2.1 Collision Locations
The bicycle collision assessment found 33 bicycle-involved collisions
reported during the five-year analysis period. The bicycle collision
locations are displayed in Figure 4-3. Bicycle collisions were found in
the greatest number in the Downtown area, near the Riverside Drive
Corridor, and near I-15 along Central Avenue.
Table 4-1 identifies the single location where multiple bicycle
involved collisions were reported, at the intersection of Central
Avenue and Collier Avenue.
Table 4-3 Multiple Bicycle Collision Locations: January 2013 –
December 2017
Rank Intersection Collisions
1 Central Avenue and Collier Avenue 2
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Off-road facilities, such as along this canal, provide the greatest
protection to the cyclist. On-road facilities can accomplish much
of the same through use of horizontal and vertical buffer.
Page 55
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-3 Collisions Involving People on Bicycles (2013 - 2017)
Page 56
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 4-4 displays bicycle-involved collisions by roadway location. As
shown, approximately 46 percent of all bicycle collisions occurred at
intersections. It is important to note that while some collisions may
occur at midblock locations, a portion of the midblock collisions are
within the influence area of major intersections, which likely exerts
an influence on some collision factors. Note that one collision was
not recorded as being at either an intersection or midblock location.
Table 4-4 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 –
December 2017)
Collision Location Collisions Percent of Total
Intersection 15 45.5%
Midblock 17 51.5%
Not Specified 1 3.0%
Total 33 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
4.2.2 Party At-Fault & Primary Collision Factors
The party at-fault for bicycle-involved collisions is reported in Table
4-5 and Figure 4-4. The bicyclist was reported as the party at-fault
for the majority of bicycle-involved collisions, approximately 67
percent of occurrences, while the driver was reported to be at fault
for approximately 33 percent of occurrences.
Table 4-5 Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 –
December 2017)
Collision Location Collisions Percent of Total
Bicyclist 22 66.7%
Driver 10 30.3%
Not Specified 1 3.0% Total 33 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Primary bicycle collision factors are reported in Table 4-6. The
leading cause was attributed to bicyclists using the wrong side of the
road, accounting for 24.3 percent of total bicycle involved collisions.
Violation of an automobile’s right-of-way was also a common cause,
accounting for 21.3 percent of bicycle involved collisions.
Figure 4-4
Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault
66.7
33.3
Bicyclist Driver
Page 57
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 4-6 Primary Bicycle Collision Factor Violation (January 2013 –
December 2017)
Collision Cause Collisions Percent of Total
Wrong Side of Road 8 24.3%
Automobile Right-of-Way 7 21.3%
Improper Turning 6 18.2%
Traffic Signals and Signs 3 9.1%
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 3 9.1%
Unsafe Speed 1 3.0%
Other Hazardous Violation 1 3.0%
Unknown 1 3.0%
Unsafe Lane Change 1 3.0%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence 1 3.0%
Lights 1 3.0%
Total 33 100%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
The bicycle collision type is reported in Table 4-7, with the leading
category identified as broadside collisions. Broadside collisions are
commonly driveway-related, particularly given that approximately
46% of bicycle collisions were linked to midblock locations.
Table 4-7 Bicycle Collision Type (January 2013 – December 2017)
Collision Type Collisions Percent of Total
Broadside 11 33.2%
With Vehicle/Pedestrian 8 24.3%
Sideswipe 6 18.2%
Other 2 6.1%
Rear End 2 6.1%
Not Stated 2 6.1%
Head-On 1 3.0%
Hit Object 1 3.0% Total 33 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Bollards restrict vehicular access to multi-use facilities, such as above, ensuring safe
separation of modes while allowing emergency access when needed.
Page 58
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
4.2.3 Temporal Collision Assessment & Victim Ages
Bicycle collisions are reported by hour in Figure 4-5. As shown, the
hour between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM has the highest number of
bicycle collisions (6 collisions). This is followed by the hour of 8:00
PM to 9:00 PM (4 collisions), and the hours of 2:00PM to 4:00PM (3
collisions each hour). This timeframe includes the evening peak
commute period, after school hours, and twilight hours when
recreational cyclists may be likely to go for a ride after work during
potentially difficult lighting conditions.
Figure 4- 5 Bicycle Collisions by Hour
(January 2013 – December 2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Bicycle collisions by day of week are reported in Figure 4-6.
Relatively greater pedestrian collisions were noted on Mondays and
Fridays (9 collisions), and relatively fewer collisions were noted on
weekends (3 collisions). On other days of the week, a similar rate of
bicycle collisions was found. This potentially points to a relatively
higher proportion of utilitarian, or commute-related cycling among
riders in Lake Elsinore, since the highest number of collisions is found
on weekdays. It may also be possible that the greater traffic volumes
that exist during typical commute periods may be a factor, given a
relative lack of dedicated bicycle infrastructure in the City.
Figure 4- 6 Bicycle Collisions by Day of Week
(January 2013 – December 2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
0 0
2
0 0
1 1
2
1
2
1
0
1 1
3 3
6
2 2
0
4
1
0 00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12:00AM1:00AM2:00AM3:00AM4:00AM5:00AM6:00AM7:00AM8:00AM9:00AM10:00AM11:00AM12:00PM1:00PM2:00PM3:00PM4:00PM5:00PM6:00PM7:00PM8:00PM9:00PM10:00PM11:00PMNumber of Bicycle CollisionsHour of Day
3
9
1
2
6
9
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of Bicycle CollisionsDay of Week
Page 59
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-7 reports bicycle-involved collisions by month. The greatest
number of bicycle collisions were reported as occurring in
September, with 7 collisions, followed by July, with 5 collisions.
Figure 4- 7 Bicycle Collisions by Month
(January 2013 – December 2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Bicycle collisions are displayed by age group in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4- 8 Bicycle Collisions by Age (January 2013 – December 2017)
Source: SWITRS (2019)
4.2.4 Collision Severity
Bicycle collisions are summarized by severity in Table 4-8. As shown,
a majority of collisions resulted in “Complaint of Pain,” at 39.4
percent of all collisions, and “Other Visible Injury,” also at 36.4
percent of all collisions. Three bicycle collisions were fatal, or 9.1
percent of all collisions.
2
9
5
6
2
1 1
0
2 2
1 1
0
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of Bicycle CollisionsAge of Pedestrian
1
0
2
4
3
1
5
4
7
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number of Bicycle CollisionsMonth of Year
Page 60
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 4-8
Bicycle Collision Severity (January 2013 – December 2017)
Collision Severity Collisions Percent of Total
Other Visible Injury 13 39.4%
Complaint of Pain 12 36.4%
Property Damage Only 4 12.1%
Severe Injury 3 9.1%
Fatality 1 3.0%
Total 33 100.0%
Source: SWITRS (2019)
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
The bicycle environment was assessed using the bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology for characterizing cycling
environments, as developed by Mekuria, et al. (2012) of the Mineta
Transportation Institute and reported in Low-Stress Bicycling and
Network Connectivity. LTS classifies the street network into
categories according to the level of stress it causes cyclists, taking
into consideration a cyclist’s physical separation from vehicular
traffic, vehicular traffic speeds along the roadway segment, number
of travel lanes, and factors related to intersection approaches with
dedicated right-turn lanes and unsignalized crossings.
Table 4-9 identifies the four LTS categories and provides a
description of the traffic stress experienced by the cyclist and the
environmental characteristics consistent with the category. LTS
scores range from 1 (lowest stress) to 4 (highest stress) and
correspond to roadways that different populations may find suitable
for riding on, considering their stress tolerance. Each LTS
classification is associated with a cyclist traffic tolerance category as
identified by Portland Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller and
documented in a Portland Bureau of Transportation memo titled
Four Types of Cyclists.
Figure 4-9 displays the bicycle Level of Traffic Stress results for all
roadways and paths where cyclists are permitted. As shown,
roadways in Lake Elsinore predominantly exhibit characteristics of
LTS 1, 2 or 4 environments. Roadways with an LTS 1 or 2
environment are generally residential streets and collectors. These
types of roadways are generally characterized as having one lane in
each direction while providing adequate width for cyclists and
vehicles, with a low posted speed.
Several roadways in the City offer an LTS 3 environment, including
near Downtown, or along main residential roadways. In these cases,
speed limits, vehicular volumes, and roadway widths were sufficient
to garner an LTS score improvement relative to most roadway
conditions in the City, but may not be deemed comfortable enough
for an average cyclist to prefer.
Page 61
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Table 4-9 Level of Traffic Stress Classifications and Descriptions
Level of Stress Category Level of Stress Description Collisions Cyclist Comfort Level
LTS 1
Presenting little traffic stress and
demanding little attention from cyclists;
suitable for almost all cyclists, including
children trained to safely cross
intersections.
Facility that is physically separated from traffic or an exclusive cycling
zone next to a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per
direction
A shared roadway where cyclists only interact with the occasional motor
vehicle with a low speed differential
Ample space for cyclist when alongside a parking lane
Intersections are easy to approach and cross
Interested but
Concerned – Vulnerable
Populations
LTS 2
Presenting little traffic stress but
demanding more attention that might be
expected from children.
Facility that is physically separated from traffic or an exclusive cycling
zone next to a well-confined traffic stream with adequate clearance from
parking lanes
A shared roadway where cyclists only interact with the occasional motor
vehicle (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential
Unambiguous priority to the cyclist where cars must cross bike lanes
(e.g. at dedicated right-turn lanes); design speed for right-turn lanes
comparable to bicycling speeds
Crossings not difficult for most adults
Interested but
Concerned –
Mainstream Adult
Populations
LTS 3
Presenting enough traffic stress to deter
the Interested but Concerned
demographic
An exclusive cycling zone (lane) next to moderate-speed vehicular
traffic
A shared roadway that is not multilane and has moderately low
automobile travel speeds
Crossings may be longer or across higher-speed roadways than
allowed by LTS 2, but are still considered acceptably safe to most adult
pedestrians
Enthused & Confident
LTS 4
Presenting enough traffic stress to deter
all but the Strong & Fearless
demographic
An exclusive cycling zone (lane) next to high-speed and multilane
vehicular traffic
A shared roadway with multiple lanes per direction with high traffic
speeds
Cyclist must maneuver through dedicated right-turn lanes containing no
dedicated bicycling space and designed for turning speeds faster than
bicycling speeds
Strong & Fearless
Source: Mekuria, et al., 2012; Chen Ryan Associates, 2019
Page 62
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 4-9 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results
Page 63
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
5.0 People on Transit
Lake Elsinore is served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which
offers fixed-route service, commuter bus routes, select long-distance
service, and dial-a-ride service. In total, RTA’s service area covers
approximately 2,500 square miles, offering a combination of local
and regional connectivity, as well as transfers to Metrolink, Coaster,
and Sprinter regional rail service.
Existing Service
Within Lake Elsinore city limits, local bus service is provided by Route
8, Route 22, and Route 40. These local routes are supplemented by
CommuterLink Express Route 205/206, which offers connectivity for
long-distance commuters between Temecula and the City of Orange,
by way of Lake Elsinore and the Corona Transit Center/Metrolink
commuter rail station. RTA routes that serve Lake Elsinore are
presented in Figure 5-1. As shown, transit coverage encircles the
lake, and provides access throughout several of the City’s residential
communities and to major roadways that link Lake Elsinore to
neighboring jurisdictions, such as Menifee, Meadowbrook,
Wildomar, or points north along Interstate 15. There are no transit
services in some of the hillier or newer portions of the City, generally
located around the periphery of the City.
Currently, RTA vehicles have bike racks onboard. Since local transit
provides accommodation for bicycles, there is a need for major
destinations to also provide convenient bicycle parking. Bicycle
parking is also preferable near transit stops, since not all transit
patrons are able to bring bicycles on board if on-board bike
accommodation is full. Common amenities at transit stops include
shelters, benches, and trash cans. Amenities are maintained by RTA,
and are located at stops with relatively higher ridership.
Transit Ridership
Figure 5-2 presents the City’s transit ridership in terms of boardings
and alightings at transit stops throughout the City, as collected by
RTA. As shown, relatively more transit ridership originates and/or
terminates near Downtown as compared to other portions of the
City. Other locations with relatively higher ridership include
communities along the southeast shore of the lake, Lakeland Village,
and communities along the northwest shore of the lake.
The individual stops with the highest number of boardings and
alightings were found in Downtown and in the commercial and retail
districts that lie along the I-15 corridor.
A bus bench similar to the type commonly found in Lake Elsinore.
Page 64
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 5-1 Transit Routes and Stops
Page 65
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 5-2 Transit Boardings and Alightings
Page 66
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
6.0 Additional Evaluations
This chapter presents additional analyses undertaken to identify
areas of relatively greater demand and deficiency, including posted
speed limits, and a series of models used to assist with identifying
areas with greater latent demand are also presented. This chapter
concludes with a summary of pedestrian and cycling needs in Lake
Elsinore.
Areas of need are reflective of those with relatively greater demand
and greater deficiency, drawing from the infrastructure review and
US Census information in the previous chapters, and the analysis
results presented in this chapter.
Posted Speed Limits
Figure 6-1 identifies the posted speed limits. The vast majority of
Lake Elsinore’s residential streets have a speed limit of 25 miles per
hour which create a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment
along those streets. Many other roadways have a speed limit of
between 35 and 40 miles per hour. Although these roadways are
primarily designed for higher volumes of traffic, residential frontage
is common along some streets of this type, which detracts from the
walking or bicycling environment once a pedestrian or cyclist leaves
the interior of a neighborhood. The highest-speed roadways in Lake
Elsinore have a speed limit generally between 45 and 50 miles per
hour with some speed limits of 60 miles per hour. These roadways
include portions of:
• Auto Center Drive
• Camino Del Norte
• Canyon Hills Road
• Collier Avenue
• Corydon Road
• Dexter Avenue
• El Toro Road
• Grand Avenue
• Grape Street
• Lake Street
• Lake Street
• Lakeshore Drive
• Minthorn Street
• Mission Trail
• Mission Trail
• Nichols Road
Higher-ridership locations, such as the Senior Center, garner additional stop
amenities, such as this architectural shelter, bench, and trash can.
Page 67
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
High speed limit roadways, continued:
• Railroad Canyon Road
• SR-74/Central Avenue
• Summerhill Drive
• Temescal Canyon Road
High speed limits are common in Lake Elsinore, and detract
from cycling and pedestrian comfort.
Page 68
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-1 Posted Speed Limits
Page 69
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Combined Collision Analysis
A combined analysis of all active transportation-related collisions,
including both bicycles and pedestrians, is presented in Figure 6-2.
This figure is useful in depicting locations in the City that have
relatively greater density of collisions involving people using non-
motorized forms of transportation, to illuminate potential areas of
need. As shown, four distinct clusters are identified as particularly
hazardous in terms of historic collision data. These clusters include
the northwest shore of the lake, including the Riverside Drive,
Lakeshore Drive, and Lincoln Street corridors, SR-74 near the I-15
corridor, Downtown Lake Elsinore, and the I-15 corridor near
Diamond Drive, Railroad Canyon Road, and Mission Trail. As shown
in Chapter 2, each of these locations exhibits relatively greater
population and/or employment density, and include locations where
active travel is more prevalent, shown through commute mode
share and percentage of zero-vehicle ownership. The popular nature
of these locations can be used to guide development of a future
bicycle network and targeted improvements to the pedestrian
environment.
Page 70
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-2 Density of Active Transportation Collisions (2013-2017)
Page 71
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Active Transportation Demand
A common analysis technique used to understand potential demand
for cycling and walking – or the propensity to make a walk or bike
trip – is through an assessment of population and land use
characteristics. An “active travel” propensity model was created to
support this assessment and combines likely walk and bike trip
generator inputs – population, employment, zero-vehicle
households, pedestrian commuters, and bicycle commuters – with
likely walk and bike trip attractors, or key land uses understood to
attract bicycle and pedestrian trips. These trip-attracting land uses
include schools, retail, parks, recreational spaces, and beaches.
When combined, the active transportation generators and attractors
provide a foundation for understanding active transportation
demand across the City of Lake Elsinore.
6.3.1 Active Transportation Trip Generators and
Attractors
Table 6-1 displays the inputs, thresholds, and multiplier values used
to create the active transportation trip generator submodel.
Generator input values listed as “high” reflect conditions with a
greater likelihood of generating an active transportation trip.
Generator input values in the “low” range are understood to
generate relatively fewer trips.
Table 6-1 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Inputs
Generator High Medium Low Zero
4 3 2 1 0
Population Density (persons
per acre) ≥ 20 15.1 -
20
10.1 -
15
5.1 -
10 < 5
Employment Density (jobs
per acre) ≥ 10 7.1 - 10 4.5 - 7 1.1 – 4 < 1
Bicycle Commuters (percent
of commuters) ≥ 1% - 0.1% -
1% - < 1%
Pedestrian Commuters
(percent of commuters) ≥ 4% 2.1% -
4%
1.1% -
2%
0.1% -
1% < 1%
Zero-Vehicle Households ≥ 10% 5-1% -
10%
3.1% -
5%
1.1% -
3% < 1%
Source: US Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2019); Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Higher population and employment densities are associated with
potentially higher levels of active transportation trip generation.
Bicycle and pedestrian commute rates, as well as zero-vehicle
households, are also contributing factors to trip generation
propensity.
Figure 6-3 displays the Active Transportation Trip Generator
Submodel results. As shown, a relatively higher concentration of
active transportation trip generators can be found near Downtown,
as well as in neighborhoods near the northwest shore of the lake,
and portions of the City northeast of I-15. This is consistent with
findings of Chapter 2, whereby, these areas are also noted for higher
rates of population and employment density, commutes by bicycle
or walking, and a relatively greater number of zero-vehicle
households.
Page 72
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-3 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Results
Page 73
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
The Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel was created using
the input variables displayed in Table 6-2. Each attractor is buffered
by one-mile, with multipliers that decrease every quarter-mile
interval away from the trip attractor. A point value is calculated by
multiplying the distance multiplier by the weight assigned to each
attractor. As shown in the graphic at right, particular land uses, in
this case hypothetical office locations, garner progressively lower
weights in terms of their ability to attract active transportation trips
as the distance required to travel along the roadway network to
reach them increases.
Table 6-2 Attractor Submodel
Land Use Attractors Weights
Within
¼
Mile
Between
¼ and ½
Mile
Between
½ and ¾
Miles
Between
¾ and 1
Mile
Multiplier 1.5 1.0 0.75 0.5
Retail Uses 4 6 4 3 2
Civic Uses 3 4.5 3 2.25 1.5
Office Uses 2 3 2 1.5 1
Parks 2 3 2 1.5 1
High, Middle and
Elementary Schools 1 1.5 1 0.75 0.5
Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)
Figure 6-4 displays the Active Transportation Trip Attractor
Submodel, combining each of the trip attractor inputs into a single
composite map. The greatest concentration of trip attractors is
located in census block groups in the northwestern portion of the
City, as well as near Downtown and along the I-15 corridor.
Additional attractors are found east of I-15, near the border with the
communities of Canyon Lake and Wildomar. Lower concentrations
of trip attractors are found in the hilly and primarily residential
portions of the community.
The Active Transportation Propensity Model, displayed as Figure 6-5,
was created by combining the trip generator and trip attractor
submodels with equal weighting. As shown, the results closely
mirror those presented in the trip attractor and trip generator
submodels, with the greatest propensity identified in neighborhoods
nearest the lake, such as along the northwest shore and Downtown,
with secondary concentrations along the I-15 corridor.
Higher propensity is indicative of areas with increased potential for
active transportation due to relatively higher levels of trip attractors
and trip generators. However, these areas may also have increased
barriers related to active transportation, including higher posted
speed limits and traffic volumes, more bicycle and pedestrian
collisions, and more travel lanes.
As distance from a location increases, fewer trips by foot or bike can be attracted.
Page 74
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-4 Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel Results
Page 75
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-5 Active Transportation Propensity Model Results
Page 76
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Connectivity to Schools
Home-to-school connections often provide an important benchmark
in determining a city’s active transportation connectivity, since
children can lack mobility options relative to the adult population as
a whole. Providing safe routes to school, either through an active
transportation plan such as the project that this document is
intended to support, or a formal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan,
can make strides in developing a community’s active transportation
infrastructure in locations where there stands an established need,
as well as serves a particularly vulnerable population.
Figure 6-6 presents an overview of Lake Elsinore Unified School
District Schools, including some schools that are part of the district
but are not located in Lake Elsinore City Limits and are attended by
children in neighboring jurisdictions. Schools in Lake Elsinore Unified
School District are scattered throughout the City, and are also
located in neighboring Wildomar. Given the distribution of area
schools, it is apparent that many school-aged students live within a
distance from their school that may require the crossing of a major
street. Other students may live a distance from their school that
precludes walking, leaving the option of a bike or vehicular commute
(either via private automobile, carpool, or school bus where services
are provided).
As presented in Chapter 4.3, many of the City’s streets outside of
residential communities are of an LTS score that many parents (and
children) would be uncomfortable using for a student’s daily home-
to-school commute. Thus, identifying a network of potential off-
street bicycle facilities or facilities that are adequately buffered from
traffic stands as a major objective of this Plan.
The network recommendations that are put forward from the
opportunities and constraints identified in this Existing Conditions
Report will be designed to be receptive to the needs of local
students, and thereby further the “Eight-to-Eighty” approach
introduced in Chapter 2.0
A school zone and well-marked crossing near Elsinore Elementary School. While
many schools are located on traffic-calmed roads, crossing major roads is required
for many students to access their local school, discouraging active home-to-school
travel.
Page 77
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Figure 6-6 Lake Elsinore Unified Schools
Page 78
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Opportunities and Constraints
This section summarizes the existing conditions analyses presented
in this report and identifies opportunities and constraints related to
bicycle and pedestrian travel in Lake Elsinore. The synthesis
incorporates information derived from the review of existing
documents, review of existing infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian
demand, and collision and needs analyses.
The City spans a variety of built environment types, ranging from a
pre-automobile era, walkable downtown, to hillside vista
communities, and master-planned developments. This range of built
environments is also seen in the widespread need for a complete
bicycle network that allows those in the City to have the option to
travel without a personal vehicle. Currently, several disconnected
facilities allow for comfortable travel along certain City streets, but
whole trips generally require extended travel along roadways that do
not have bicycle accommodation.
The City population also exhibits a young median age (30.3 years of
age in 2018), which underscores a need to improve school-related
active travel. The City’s strengths in outdoor recreation provide a
prime draw to the City, which can leverage its mountains and lake as
opportunities to further enhance recreational cycling. However,
ensuring that safe, comfortable facilities are available for a range of
users and abilities – an eight-to-eighty network, will require that
facilities include adequate buffer and balance on-road with off-road
facilities. Additionally, to enhance the share of utilitarian, or non-
recreational cyclists, it will be important to ensure that a complete
network provides the ability to access popular destinations and
schools throughout the City to ensure that entire trips may be made
on facilities that people find comfortable.
Differing built environments reflect the span of Lake
Elsinore’s development – including modern, master-
planned developments (top), a historic downtown
(middle), and rural areas (bottom).
Page 79
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Much of the same may be said of sidewalk coverage, which has many
gaps in its network. Coverage is generally present nearest
Downtown and in new master-planned developments, but walking to
accomplish errands, and for many, to school, requires a portion of
the trip be made along roadways that have gaps in sidewalk
coverage, or altogether missing segments. A completion of the City’s
sidewalk network along all Circulation Element roadways, through a
combination of infill and entire-road project, will provide the City
with a major milestone toward achievement of a balanced
pedestrian network. Similarly, future sidewalks should consider
buffer distances of six feet or greater, where possible, from vehicular
traffic, as well as offer pedestrian-scale lighting and mid-block
crossing opportunities along long block faces. Intersection crossings
may be prioritized to receive continental-style striping, and future
intersection improvements may make high visibility treatments
standard, along with other pedestrian-oriented physical features
such as pedestrian countdowns, or bulb-outs where applicable.
The portions of Lake Elsinore in the center of the community and
near Downtown were found to contain combinations of active
transportation trip generators and attractors associated with the
highest levels of cyclist and pedestrian demand. These opportunity
areas may be useful in identifying priority for treatments, since the
propensity model indicates a greater need to support bicycle and
pedestrian travel in these areas. Potential treatments may include
bike lanes, multi-use paths, and residential bicycle boulevards, and
sidewalk completion in adjacent residential areas that may be prime
feeders into the Downtown area.
Missing sidewalks along Circulation Element roadways offer a strong
opportunity to improve citywide pedestrian access.
Central Lake Elsinore offers a strong combination of attractors and
trip generators, indicating a strong active transportation
opportunity area that has recently been met with added Class II
bike lanes..
Page 80
Active LE Plan
Existing Conditions Report
High vehicular volumes and speeds are citywide constraints that may
limit implementation of comfortable on-road facilities for
pedestrians and/or cyclists without appropriate buffer. Potential
treatments for these busy major roadways include implementing
traffic calming measures along specific, targeted corridors. This
would include reducing or limiting vehicle speeds, as well as
implementing methods for increasing the awareness and visibility of
pedestrians and cyclists, such as signage and prioritized phasing at
signalized intersections. These facilities may parallel more
traditional, vehicle-oriented roadways, thereby taking advantage of
the strong grid of parallel roadways in the City, and delivering a
reasonable facility based upon a division of roadway typology or
modal focus.
Downtown Lake Elsinore offers an advantageous starting point for
these features, and indeed currently possesses many of the features
that make walking and cycling a safe, comfortable alternative to
vehicular travel, such as the recent re-striping project along Main
Street and Graham Street and provided new surface markings for
Class III bike routes for shared vehicular/bicycle use. The Downtown
Specific Plan, and under-development General Plan provide
significant traction for the implementation of a vibrant, walkable and
bikeable destination that can sustainably support the growth in jobs
and residents anticipated in the City’s future and further leverage
the City’s strategic, central location along the I-15 corridor in
Western Riverside County.
Moving forward, it may be advantageous to start with improvements
in this area, some of which have been recently implemented as of
late 2018, and expand to connect with the surrounding residential
areas, creating a core network of linear active transportation
corridors across the City in which a more elaborate network can be
expanded upon.
Downtown contains many features that have been shown to increase
pedestrian comfort, and may be emulated elsewhere, such as bulb-outs,
shown.