HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #3 Active LE Plan - Exhibit A Revised Draft 09 August 2019ACTIVE LEDRAFT PLAN - AUGUST 2019
2TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 61.1 PLAN SUMMARY AND PURPOSE 71.2 PROJECT CONTEXT 81.3 CALTRANS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CHECKLIST 101.4 LAND USE 121.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS 131.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 20LAKE ELSINORE TODAY 222.1 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 232.2 BICYCLE ENVIRONMENT 262.3 TRANSIT ENVIRONMENT 292.4 SAFETY 312.5 AN EIGHT-TO-EIGHTY APPROACH TO PLANNING 362.6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND 40GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES 46GOAL 1: AN EQUITABLE MULTIMODAL NETWORK THAT SERVES ALL USERS 47GOAL 2: A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY LAKE ELSINORE 49GOAL 3: MULTIMODAL MOBILITY THROUGH TRANSIT INTEGRATION 50GOAL 4: A SAFE WALKING, BIKING, AND ROADWAY ENVIRONMENT IN LAKE ELSINORE 51GOAL 5: EDUCATION ABOUT HEALTH AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 53GOAL 6: THOROUGH EVALUATION OF MULTIMODAL ENHANCEMENT EFFORTS 53
3TABLE OF CONTENTSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 564.1 PROJECT WEBSITE 574.2 WIKIMAP AND TEXT MESSAGE-BASED SURVEYS 574.3 POP-UP EVENTS 584.4 SCHOOL OUTREACH 584.5 PROJECT DESIGN TEAM (PDT) 584.6 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 594.7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM OUTREACH 59LAKE ELSINORE TOMORROW 625.1 DESIGN GUIDELINES APPROACH 635.2 PLANNED NETWORKS 635.3 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS 885.4 PRIORITY PROJECTS 895.5 PROJECT COSTS 1225.6 ADDITIONAL NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 1345.7 WAYFINDING 1385.8 PROGRAMMATIC IMPROVEMENTS 138NEXT STEPS 1426.1 PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATE 1436.2 ESTIMATED NEW USERS 1436.3 MAINTENANCE 1446.4 FUNDING 145
4TABLE OF CONTENTSAPPENDICESAPPENDIX A – LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN GUIDELINESAPPENDIX B – EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORTAPPENDIX C – WAYFINDING CONCEPTSAPPENDIX D – PROPOSED NEW USERSLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1 Regional Context 9Figure 1-2 Existing Land Uses (2016) 12Figure 2-1 Missing Sidewalks on Circulation Element Roadways 24Figure 2-2 Posted Speed Limits 25Figure 2-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities 28Figure 2-4 Transit Routes and Stops 30Figure 2-5 Collisions Involving People Walking (2013-2017) 32Figure 2-6 Collisions Involving People on Bicycles (2013-2017) 34Figure 2-7 Lake Elsinore Senior Population 38Figure 2-8 Lake Elsinore Youth Population 39Figure 2-9 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel 42Figure 2-10 Active Transportation Attractor Submodel 43Figure 2-11 Active Transportation Propensity Model 44Figure 4-1 Lake Elsinore Comment Distribution 60Figure 5-1 Planned Bicycle Network 65Figure 5-2 Bicycle Level of Traffi c Stress Results 72Figure 5-4 Pedestrian Treatment Types 75Figure 5-5 Pedestrian Environmental Quality Evaluation (PEQE) 87Figure 5-6 Improvement Project Prioritization 108Project 1: Lakeshore Drive (Riverside Drive to Diamond Drive) 109Project 1: Lakeshore Drive (Riverside Drive to Diamond Drive) 110Project 2: Mission Trail (Diamond Drive to Malaga Road) 111Project 2: Mission Trail (Diamond Drive to Malaga Road) 112Project 3: Collier Avenue / Minthorn Street (Nichols Road to Riverside Drive) 113Project 3: Collier Avenue / Minthorn Street (Nichols Road to Riverside Drive) 114Project 4: Riverside Drive (Grand Avenue to Collier Avenue) 115Project 5: Diamond Drive / Railroad Canyon Road (Malaga Road to City Limit) 116Project 6:Minthorn Street/Collier Avenue (Riverside Drive to Spring Street) 117Project 7: Main Street (Limited Avenue to W Lakeshore Drive) 118Project 8: Machado Street (Grand Avenue To Joy Street) 119Project 9: Limited Avenue (Lakeshore Drive to Main Street) 120Project 10: Chaney Street (Lakeshore Drive to Strickland Avenue) 121Figure 5-17 Existing and Project Bicycle Support Facilities 137LIST OF TABLESTable 1-1 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Checklist 10Table 1-1 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Checklist 11Table 2-2 Bicycle Facility Design Classifi cations 27Table 2-3 Multiple Pedestrian Collision Locations (January 2013 – December 2017) 31Table 2-4 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017) 31Table 2-5 Multiple Bicycle Collision Locations (January 2013 – December 2017) 33Table 2-6 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017) 33Table 2-7 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017) 35Table 2-8 Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017) 35Table 2-9 Bicycle Facility Design Classifi cations 37Table 2-10 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Inputs 40Table 2-11 Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel Inputs 41Table 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle Network 66Table 5-3 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – Intersections 76Table 5-4 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalk Infi ll 79Table 5-4 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalk Infi ll 80Table 5-5 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System 82-84Table 5-6 PEQE Classifi cations and Descriptions 85Table 5-7 Project Prioritization Criteria 88-89Table 5-8 Project Prioritization 91-107Table 5-9 Facility Design Cost Estimates 122Table 5-10 Estimated Project Costs 123Table 6-1 Existing and Future Daily Cyclist and Pedestrian Volumes 143Table 6-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities 146-149
INTRODUCTION1
ACTIVE LE6CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionINTRODUCTIONThe 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 proposed, the Plan will identify ways to improve connectivity and safety for all users of the roadway environment, inclusive of age and ability. 1
ACTIVE LE7CHAPTER 1 - Introductionregional transportation plans, specifi cally identifying how the region will achieve targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. To this end, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has implemented a combined Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted in 2016.In summary, the primary purpose of this Plan is to build upon these eff orts and mandates, identifying a system of pedestrian and bicycle routes and programs that will serve as a tool for implementing future active transportation facilities and multimodal roadway improvements. • RTA First & Last Mile Mobility Plan (2017)• Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan (2015)• SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (2016)• WRCOG and SCAG Sustainability Frame-works (2012, 2016)This Plan also embodies a “Complete Streets” mindset that is compatible with the State of California’s Complete Streets Act, California Assembly Bill 1358, which went into eff ect on January 1, 2011. The act requires 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, defi ned 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.In addition to Assembly Bill 1358 – The Complete Streets Act, other key planning eff orts and legislative actions that have redefi ned the way community transportation planning is carried out include Senate Bill 375, requiring California metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to formulate a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) as part of their 1.1 PLAN SUMMARY AND PURPOSEIn 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 vehicular use and related emissions, and encourage a healthy, active lifestyle. To achieve the City’s stated vision of becoming “the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work, and play, build futures and fulfi ll dreams,” this planning process leverages existing planning documents to foster, develop, and grow the City’s bicycle, sidewalk, and trail related network.This represents the City’s inaugural Active Transportation Plan, building upon recommendations set forth in numerous previous and ongoing plans, including:• City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element (Ongoing)• Downtown Elsinore Specifi c Plan (2018)• East Lake Specifi c Plan (2017)• City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (2011)• Lake Elsinore General Plan District Plans (sixteen total)WESTERN RIVERSIDEACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN ASSOCIATION WITH:ANDFinal Report | April 2017First & Last MileMobility Plan
ACTIVE LE8CHAPTER 1 - Introductionwhile California State Route 74 connects Lake Elsinore with Orange County to the west, and the City of Perris located to the northeast.As of the 2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, the US Census Bureau estimated the population as 62,229, an increase of 20% since 2010's Census population of 51,821. Lake Elsinore is the twelfth largest city in Riverside County. 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 1.2 PROJECT CONTEXTThe regional setting of Lake Elsinore is displayed in Figure 1-1. 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 Cities of Canyon Lake and 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, To fully understand the mobility environment in Lake Elsinore, a series of analyses were performed. These analyses were supplemented by community outreach – people who live, work and play in Lake Elsinore know how the City operates and add valuable fi rsthand insight to inform an optimal future mobility network. Together, the synergy of relevant guiding literature, technical analyses, and community participation have created a Plan that meets and complies with the State of California’s complete streets plan requirements and is intended to provide a fair assessment of current and future active transportation needs, implementation costs, and funding opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Adopted by City CouncilNovember 28, 2017EAST LAKESPECIFIC PLANLake Elsinore, CAopovemmbmbembemmbmmbemmbbebeembembemmbbebebeeeemmbmbbmbememmbembemmmbASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST LLTT LT LTTTTT LTTTTLT LTLTLT LLT TLT LTLT LT LTT LTLTLT LT LT LTT LTT LTLT LT LLTLTLTLLT LLTLT LLTTLT LTLLTLT LT LT LTLTLLLLTTTLTLTTTTTLLTTTLTLTLTLLTTTTLTTTLTTT LLLTTTLTTLTT TTT TTTTTTTAKEAKEAKAKEAKEAKAKEKKKEAKAKKAKAKAKEAKEAKAKAKEAKEAKEKAKKKAKEAKAKAKAKEAKEAKEAKAKEAKAKAKEKKAKKAKAKAKAAKEAKEAKAKEAKAKKAKAAAKEAKAAAKKAKKKEAKEEAKAKAAAKAAAAKKAAAKKKKAAAKAKAAAAKAKAKAAAAAAECIFCIFCIFIFIFCIFFFFIFCIFIFFCIFCIFCIFCIFIFIFIFIFCIFCIFCIFCIFIFCIFFIFCIFCIFCIFCIFCIFFCIFFCIIFCIFIFIFFCIFFIFCIFIFFFFFCIFFCIFCIFIFFIFIFFFIFFFCIFICIIIFIFIFCICIIIFFFFIFFFFFFCIFCIFFCICIFCIFICIIICICICICICICIICICICICICICICICICICICCCCICCC ICICICICICICICCICCICCICICCICICICICICICICICICICICICICIIIIICCICICICICCCCCICCICCCCIICCCCCCCCCCICCCCCICICICCICICICCICCCCCCCCLALAPLAPLAPLAPLALALALAPLALLALALAPLAPLAPLALAPLPLAPLAAPLAPLAPLAPLAAPLAPLAPLALALAAPLAPLAPLALAPLAPLAAAPLAAPLAPLLLALAAPLAPLAAALPLALAPLAPLALALAPLAAPLAAPLALALAAPLALALAPLAAAAAPLAPLAAAPLAAPLAAPLAPLAAAAAAAPLAPLAPLAALALALPLPLALPPPPPPPPPLPLLALAPLNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNakekekekekeeekekekekekeeeeekekekeekeeekekeeeekekekeeekeeekekekeeekekeeeeekeekekekekeeslsElsEEEElElsElsElsElsEElsEslsElsElsElsElsElsElsElElsEElsEElslElsElsElsElsElsElsEEElElElsEElsElslsElssEElEllslslsElsEEllsElElElssElElsElsElEElsElElElsEEEElEllsssssElsEssElsElsssElssEElssElssssElsEininorinoriiinorinorininorinoiinorinoorininninorrinornorinoinorininorinorrinorrrrinorinorrririnoriininorinoriinoiiiiininoinoiiiinoiiiininiiiniininnnnnininininie, CCCCe, Ce, Ce, CCe, CCCCCCCeCe, CCe, Cee, Ce, Ce, , CCC, Ce, Ce,Ce, Ce, ee,e, Ce, CCCCCCCeeCCe, CCe, Cee, CeCCeCC,CCCe, Ce, CCe, Ce, CCCCCCe, CCe, CCe, CCe, CeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'5$)76(37(0%(5'2:172:1(/6,125(63(&,),&3/$1/$.((/6,125(&$pted edd pteddedttteddddpted ededddededddedededdededdpteddeeeeeeeeptptpttttby Cityby CitytCityCity City CityyityCityby City itityCiby CitytytyyybyCCiy Cittytyyby Ciy Cityy CiititittytyityyyyyyCCby CiitityttytytyytyyyyCiititittitytytyyyyyyyCCiCiitititttyCityyyCbybybyyCCiCiiitittytytyyyyyby CCCiCiCiCbCby Cby ybybybyyyyybbyybybyCouncilncincillCouncilncilincciliiilnciiincilnciciilnnciilnccicilcinncincccicicilncnccciiCCounmber 28, 2018 201000120111, 2222882201,8, 208, 2020118, 201020101118, 2018, 2, 208, 2, 2020208, 20201, 2018202, 2202020200128, 208208, 208, 2002018288 201222200118, 208201222202082001201822202001882201800888028828,888, 2,2,228,,, ,,,,,,,77777777777
ACTIVE LE9CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionDowntown Lake Elsinore, sidewalks are sometimes found in front of individual parcels, but do not run along roadways in a continuous manner. ensure safe, multi-modal travel along these corridors. Currently, a signifi cant number of the City’s roadways lack sidewalks on one or more sides of the street. This pattern of missing sidewalks is consistent throughout the City. In certain locations, particularly in population, region-drawing recreation with the lake and mountains forming 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. The project study area falls within the incorporated boundaries of the City. Interstate 15 traverses the City in a north-south direction, providing the primary interstate access to Lake Elsinore. Further connectivity is provided by several major roadways, including Riverside Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Collier Avenue, Grand Avenue, Central Avenue, Main Street, Machado Street, Railroad Canyon Road, and Mission Trail. While most of these streets are local roadways, portions of Grand Avenue, Riverside Drive, Collier Avenue, and Central Avenue serve as SR-74, and fall under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Each of these roadways provides major connectivity to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffi c, and also support transit routes – this Plan seeks to organize and RiversideMoreno ValleyCoronaLakeElsinoreBeaumontHemetNorcoSan JacintoMenifeeWildomarBanningIrvineCanyon LakeTemeculaMission ViejoRancho SantaMargaritaSan ClementeAlisoViejoDana PointLagunaHillsLagunaWoodsLake ForestAnaheimLagunaNiguelSan JuanCapistranoYorba LindaChino HillsPerrisMurrietaAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity·}74·}74§¨¦1515§¨¦155§¨¦5§¨¦15·}241·}24173·}741·}7491·}91§¨¦15215§¨¦215·}7479·}79·}74RiversideSan DiegoSan BernardinoLos AngelesImperialOrangeLos AngelesVenturaLos Angeles Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 1-1 Regional Context
ACTIVE LE10CHAPTER 1 - Introductionincluded in an Active Transportation Plan. An Active Transportation Plan must comply with the program guidelines as set forth in Section 890-894.2 of the Streets and Highways Code in order to be eligible for ATP grant funds for construction of active transportation facilities. To meet Caltrans requirements, the Active Transportation Plan must include the following elements as identifi ed in Table 1-1, which are followed by notations indicating the location within this Plan where each item is addressed:will connect existing and developing residential areas to destination points for both commuter and recreational bicyclists, as well as connect to the planned active transportation facilities in neighboring Riverside County jurisdictions.1.3 CALTRANS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CHECKLISTThis Plan responds to the provisions of the State of California Active Transportation Program (ATP) administered by Caltrans, which defi nes specifi c requirements to be A segment of Class I multi-use path runs along the water channel in the central portion of the City that connects to the lake. Generally, however, bicyclists primarily utilize existing streets and sidewalks, and lock their bikes around trees, parking meters, fences, or light standards if no rack is available. The City recognizes that, once implemented, an eff ective active transportation network can off er convenience for commuters and recreationalists alike, increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians, enhance personal health, increase tourism, improve quality of life, and reduce the number of vehicles on local roads. The Plan recommendations ItemLocationThe estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.Chapter 6.2The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suff ered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan.Chapter 2.4; Chapter 3A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations.Chapter 1.4, Figure 1-2A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including a description of bicycle facilities that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the fi ve Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of bicycling to school.Chapter 5.2.1, Figure 5-1, Chapter 5.8A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities.Chapter 3, Chapter 5.6, Figure 5-14A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments.Chapter 3A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.Chapter 5.6, Figure 5-14Table 1-1 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Checklist
ACTIVE LE11CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionItemLocationA map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the fi ve Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of walking to school. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings. A description of proposed signage providing wayfi nding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.Chapter 5.2.2, Figure 5-2, Figure 5-3, Chapter 5.7, Appendix CA description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffi c control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.Chapter 6.3A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, eff orts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffi c law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting eff ect on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians.Chapter 5.8A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.Chapter 4A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.Chapter 1.5A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.Chapter 5.3, Chapter 5.4A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future fi nancial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses.Chapter 6.4, Table 6-2A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.Chapter 6A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.To be created at council adoptionTable 1-1 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Checklist
ACTIVE LE12CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionAs presented in Figure 1-2, land uses can generally be described as commercial near major transportation facilities, such as along I-15 and SR-74; and primarily single-family residential uses dispersed around the lake, as well as near Downtown and into the canyons east of I-15.1.4 LAND USELake 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 include a compact, walkable Downtown, midcentury 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. Lake Elsinore has 19 parks within its City limits, as well as a Senior Center, Library, Cultural Center, a Channel Walk which includes a Class I multi-use path along a landscaped park-like water channel, and the recently reopened Launch Pointe RV Destination and Campground. LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVESingle Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialOther ResidentialGeneral OfficeCommercial and ServicesFacilitiesEducationIndustrialTransportation, Communications, and UtilitiesMixed Commercial and IndustrialMixed UrbanOpen Space and RecreationAgricultureVacantWaterUnder Construction010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 1-2 Existing Land Uses (2016)
ACTIVE LE13CHAPTER 1 - Introductionreimagines 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 Down-town to the lake with a realignment of Main Street, Lakeshore Drive, and Library Street.• Create walkable streets, with new side-walks, streetscaping, and quality lighting.• Provide adequate parking.The Specifi c 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. forward, project staff will perform regular check-ins with the progression of the mobility element to ensure that goals, policies, implementation measures, network development, and planned future conditions serve as a well-integrated platform upon which future mobility options are fostered. Downtown Elsinore Specifi c Plan (2018)The Downtown Elsinore Specifi c Plan (Specifi c Plan) provides a vision and strategicframework 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 fulfi ll dreams.” The Specifi c 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, offi ce, retail, service, high density and aff ordable housing, cultural and civic uses. The Specifi c Plan 1.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANSA number of planning documents were researched and referenced to ensure that the Active LE Plan is compatible. Documents include the following: • City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element (Ongoing)• Downtown Elsinore Specifi c Plan (2018)• East Lake Specifi c 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)• SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (2016)• WRCOG and SCAG Sustainability Frame-works (2012, 2016)City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element (Ongoing)The upcoming Lake Elsinore Circulation Element, currently under development, off ers an exciting opportunity to reinforce the Active LE Plan’s multi-modal planning recommendations. As this Plan continues
ACTIVE LE14CHAPTER 1 - Introductionapproximately 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 identifi ed for Cereal Street, Corydon Road, Diamond Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Lucerne Street, Malaga Road, Mission Trail, and Stoneman Street.Within and near the Specifi c 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 connect to the 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 currently adopted 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, off ering additional connections to the other areas of the City.East Lake Specifi c Plan (2017)The East Lake Specifi c Plan, adopted by City Council in November 2017, is a blueprint guide for the development of Specifi c design elements from the Specifi c Plan include:• Pedestrian circulation routes that are clearly defi ned.• Mid-block street crossings to avoid confl icts with the turning movements of vehicles at intersections.• Limited number and width of sidewalk curb cuts, particularly on Main Street, to minimize pedestrian-vehicular confl icts.• Spaces between the sides of buildings should incorporate seating areas for enhanced pedestrian connections where appropriate.• Pedestrian access from residential facil-ities into commercial areas through the use of restricted access pedestrian gates that facilitate access for residents to com-mercial services. • Right-sizing of streets to reduce the num-ber of vehicle travel lanes that a pedestri-an must cross. If infeasible, then land-scaped pedestrian refuge areas provided at mid-crossing.• Bike racks at accessible, safe, well-lighted locations.• Further encouragement for develop-ment 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.
ACTIVE LE15CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionThe Climate Action Plan also identifi es 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 pro-cess, 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 and provide connections to neighborhood activity centers, major destinations, and transit facilities con-tiguous with the project site; implement through conditions of approval.• Measure T-1.3: Street and Sidewalk Main-tenance and Improvements - Continue, through the Pavement Management and Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repair programs, to preserve the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system by annual-ly identifying and scheduling street and sidewalk improvement and maintenance projects.• Set forth procedures to monitor and verify the eff ectiveness of the CAP and require amendments 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 doc-ument for the purposes of CEQA within the City of Lake Elsinore for GHG emis-sions, by which applicable projects will be reviewed.The City has made a considerable eff ort 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:• A reduction to 1990 emissions levels• A performance standard (% reduction) or an effi ciency metric (e.g., emissions per capita or service population) (California Air Pollution Control Offi cers Association [CAPCOA], 2008). In Lake Elsinore, the City selected effi ciency-based targets for the years governed by the General Plan to reduce community-wide emissions by 2020. surrounding regions such as the Cleveland National Forest.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. Specifi cally, 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 identifi ed in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
ACTIVE LE16CHAPTER 1 - Introductionwhether they choose to walk, bike, take transit, or drive. The Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan (ATP) focuses on enhancing 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 benefi t all users of the transportation system by providing more transportation choices. This plan serves as a resource for WRCOG 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 identifi es 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 signifi cantly 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 Western Riverside ATP is to provide guidance to WRCOG and its member Lake Elsinore General Plan District PlansThe City of Lake Elsinore is divided into a total of sixteen distinct districts that form a subset of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. The General Plan recognizes adopted Specifi c 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 sense of place, and provides tailored goals and policies to ensure that larger-scale plans, such as the Active LE Plan, honor 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 • 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 identifi ed 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 Stan-dards - 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).
ACTIVE LE17CHAPTER 1 - Introductiontransportation, 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 sys-tem to give people more alternatives to driving alone,• Expand passenger rail,• Improve highway and arterial capacity,• Manage demands on the transportation system through Transportation Demand Management (TDM),• Optimize the performance of the trans-portation system,• Promote walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation,SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and Sustainability Framework (2016)Approved by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Board of Directors in April 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 governments, 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 agencies in identifying projects, planning for them, and being able to successfully implement them.In this vein, the Western Riverside ATP identifi es several regional facilities within Lake Elsinore and its sphere of infl uence:• Bautista Creek/Mission Trail Route (including regionally-signifi cant on-road facilities along Mission Trail in Lake Elsinore), • Lake Elsinore-Murrieta Creek Route,• Alberhill Ranch-Ramona Expressway Route,• Butterfi eld Overland Trail, and• Lake Elsinore Loop (including region-ally-signifi cant on-road facilities along Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive in Lake Elsinore).
ACTIVE LE18CHAPTER 1 - Introductionand programs will be phased over the life of the plan. Revenues are projected to fl ow 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 refi ne a subregional sustainability plan. SCAG is anticipating it will obtain approximately $556.5 billion in revenue 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 servicing debt. Of the 50% of revenues earmarked for operation and maintenance, approximately 28% of revenue would be utilized for transit operations and maintenance, 12% for highway operation and maintenance, 7% for the operation and maintenance of locally signifi cant roads, and 3% for the operation and maintenance of passenger rail. Because not all revenues will be available at once, transportation projects •Strengthen the regional transportationnetwork for goods movement,•Leverage new advances in technology,•Improve airport access, and•Focus new growth around transitthrough support of High-Quality TransitAreas (HQTAs), promotion of livable corri-dors, and strategies to bolster Neighbor-hood Mobility Areas (NMAs).The Regional Plan includes a transportation network that identifi es a number of public transit, highway, goods movement, bikeway, pedestrian, and supportive program projects to be implemented by 2040. The RTP/SCS includes a fi nancially 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.
ACTIVE LE19CHAPTER 1 - Introductionimprovements, pedestrian network improvements (including crossing treatments), bus stop enhancements, carsharing, transit-oriented development, and placemaking eff orts. The document also identifi es the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center as a primary transit connection point on the RTA system.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 fi rst 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. The Plan’s premise is 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 fall primarily within the “Suburban” typology, which carries a framework of recommendations that include wayfi nding, bicycle network 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,• Defi ne and prioritize short‐term actions that WRCOG can pursue in the interim to begin realizing the Framework’s vision and goals for sustainability, and• Defi ne initial indicators, benchmarks, and targets by which WRCOG can measure the eff ectiveness of eff orts 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 sustain-ability 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
ACTIVE LE20CHAPTER 1 - IntroductionChapter 5 identifi es recommended pedestrian/bikeway networks and support facilities, as well as an overview of a Design Guidelines Document and Toolkit, developed in tandem with this Plan, for use by the City when implementing the features of this Plan.1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANFollowing this introductory chapter, this Plan continues as follows:Chapter 2 presents an overview of Lake Elsinore’s walking, cycling, and transit environments under existing conditions, documented as part of this eff ort. Safety and needs analyses are presented, which were used to direct the improvements recommended in this Plan. Chapter 3 discusses guiding goals, objectives, and policies that establish the high-level vision for the Plan, and ensure a rootedness to other City eff orts and policies preceding this Plan. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the public outreach process that was undertaken in support of this Plan to establish a positive link between the community’s vision, and the infrastructure, programs, and plans set forth in this document.Chapter 6 details implementation factors and ongoing considerations, such as project prioritization, costing, and phasing. This chapter also outlines ongoing maintenance considerations and potential sources for securing funding for implementation of the infrastructure and support facilities outlined in this Plan.
LAKE ELSINORE TODAY2
ACTIVE LE22CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKE ELSINORE TODAYThis chapter describes the process used to understand cycling and pedestrian needs in Lake Elsinore. The core analyses in this chapter focus on identifying areas of high demand and defi ciency in order to understand where proposed improvements are needed most, as well as for developing a baseline against which to measure the potential for improvements in usage and safety.2
ACTIVE LE23CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Today• Grape Street• Lake Street• Lake Street • Lakeshore Drive• Minthorn Street • Mission Trail • Mission Trail • Nichols Road• Railroad Canyon Road• SR-74/Central Avenue• Summerhill Drive• Temescal Canyon RoadFigure 2-2 identifi es 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 traffi c, residential frontage is common along some of these higher speed streets, 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. Roadways with speed limits of 45 miles per hour or above include portions of:• Auto Center Drive • Camino Del Norte • Canyon Hills Road • Collier Avenue • Corydon Road • Dexter Avenue• El Toro Road• Grand Avenue2.1 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENTCurrent sidewalk coverage is most robust near Downtown and in new master-planned developments. A completion of the City’s sidewalk network along all Circulation Element (CE) roadways will provide the City with a major milestone toward achievement of a balanced pedestrian network. A known deterrent to pedestrian mobility is a lack of space for the pedestrian that places him or her at a safe, comfortable distance from passing vehicles. Sidewalk infi ll will become an important step toward building a robust pedestrian mobility network, particularly where land use characteristics or regional draws encourage pedestrian trips.Figure 2-1 displays the location of missing sidewalks along the City’s CE roadways. As shown, a signifi cant 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 are generally not continuous. In these cases, the block was noted as missing sidewalks to identify that a need still remains.
ACTIVE LE24CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityMissing SidewalksCirculation Element RoadwaysLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-1 Missing Sidewalks on Circulation Element Roadways
ACTIVE LE25CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityPosted Speed Limit45 mph to 60 mph40 mph35 mph30 mph25 mph or Not PostedLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-2 Posted Speed Limits
ACTIVE LE26CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Today•Bike lane facilities along Graham Avenue,McVicker Canyon Park Road, Lake Street/Grand Avenue, Lincoln Street, portionsof Lakeshore Drive, Ardenwood Way,Rosetta Canyon Drive, portions ofMission Trail, portions of Railroad CanyonRoad, Canyon Hills Road, Limited Avenue,Diamond Drive, and Lost Road.•Bike route facilities along portions ofLakeshore Drive and Main Street inDowntown Lake Elsinore.As shown, few segments of network currently intersect, and no facility provides connectivity across the entirety of the city limits or around the lakefront. Connectivity is key in enabling utilitarian (non-recreational) trips to be made by bike, as utilitarian riders have a destination in mind when making a trip. To build upon the current bicycle network, citywide connectivity will be placed as a primary focus in future network development. 2.2 BICYCLE ENVIRONMENTAs shown in Table 2-2, Caltrans currently recognizes four classifi cations of bicycle facilities, including Class I multi-use paths, Class II bike lanes, Class III bike routes, and Class IV cycle tracks. Lake Elsinore currently hosts a combination of multi-use path, bike lane, and bike route facilities citywide. A summary of existing mileage per facility type is provided alongside each facility’s respective Caltrans classifi cation, along with an explanatory image. As shown, there are about 31 miles of bicycle facilities citywide. Figure 2-3 displays the location of these existing bicycle facilities within Lake Elsinore. As shown in conjunction with Table 2-2, bike lanes make up the bulk of the network, accounting for approximately 17 of the 31 miles of bikeway in Lake Elsinore. There are approximately 13 miles of multi-use paved path or trails in the City of Lake Elsinore. In all, the City’s major facilities include:•Multi-use path facilities along NicholsRoad, the Lake Elsinore Canal, and alongportions of the lakefront.
ACTIVE LE27CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayTotal Mileage: 28.5 Table 2-2 Bicycle Facility Design Classifi cationsExampleDescriptionCurrentMileageClass 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 crossfl ows 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.12.1Class 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 crossfl ows are permitted. Additional enhancements such as painted buff ers and signage may be applied. The minimum bike lane width is considered to be fi ve-feet.15.2Class III Bike Route – Provides shared use of traffi c lanes with cyclists and motor vehicles, identifi ed 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.1.2Class 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 traffi c. Cycle tracks can provide for one-way or two-way travel. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, fl exible posts, or on-street parking.0.00
ACTIVE LE28CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMIS S ION TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityBikewaysClassExisting Multi-Use PathExisting Bike LaneExisting Bike RouteLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities
ACTIVE LE29CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Todaybenches, and trash cans. Amenities are maintained by RTA, and are located at stops with relatively higher ridership.Currently, all RTA vehicles have bike racks onboard. Since local transit provides accommodation for bicycles, an important corollary focus should be to promote the provision of convenient bicycle parking in all major destinations, allowing a transit/bicycle trip to become seamless and competitive with driving. Bicycle parking is also preferable near transit stops, since on-board bike accommodations often reach capacity. recently-developed portions of the City, such as those generally located around the periphery of the City. Sidewalk connectivity can be a key attractor to or deterrent from using transit, since the majority of transit users arrive on foot. As discussed in the aforementioned Pedestrian Environment section of this Plan, sidewalk infi ll and safe crossings are lacking in many parts of the City, which also hampers transit use. Sidewalk infi ll and crossing upgrades will also bolster transit in Lake Elsinore, along with improving transit stop amenities. Common amenities at transit stops include shelters, 2.3 TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTLake Elsinore is served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which off ers fi xed-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, off ering a combination of local and regional connectivity, as well as transfers to Metrolink, Coaster, and Sprinter regional rail service in neighboring metropolitan areas north and south of the City.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 off ers 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 2-4. As shown, transit coverage encircles the lake, provides access to and between several of the City’s residential communities, and to major roadways that link Lake Elsinore to neighboring jurisdictions, such as Menifee, Meadowbrook, Wildomar, and points north along Interstate 15. There are no transit services in some of the hilly,
ACTIVE LE30CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Today!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION T RLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity!(Transit StopsTransit RoutesLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE8""88""88""88"8"8"9"9"40"40"205"206"205"206"#010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-4 Transit Routes and Stops
ACTIVE LE31CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Todaypedestrian-involved collisions occurred at intersections, whereas approximately one third of pedestrian-involved collisions occurred at midblock locations.Table 2-3 identifi es the locations where multiple pedestrian involved collisions were reported.Table 2-4 reports pedestrian collisions by roadway location, diff erentiating between intersection and midblock locations. As shown, nearly two thirds of 2.4 SAFETYCollision data can be used to identify potential defi ciencies related to pedestrian and bicycle travel. The collision review draws from fi ve years of data (January 2013 – December 2017) obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffi c Records System (SWITRS). The analysis was used to identify trends and patterns related to collision locations, causes, time, party-at-fault and victim age.Pedestrian Collision LocationsA total of 64 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported in Lake Elsinore during the fi ve-year analysis period. Figure 2-5displays 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, are locations of multiple pedestrian-involved collisions. Downtown Lake Elsinore, as well as southeast Lake Elsinore also recorded several collisions in each respective location.RankIntersectionCollisions1Riverside Drive and Joy StreetLakeshore Drive and Terra Cotta Road332Lakeshore Drive and Hursh StreetLincoln Street and Riverside DriveRiverside Drive and Grand AvenueSummerhill Drive and Canyon Estates Drive2222Table 2-3 Multiple Pedestrian Collision Locations (January 2013 – December 2017)Collision LocationCollisionsPercent of TotalIntersection4265.6%Midblock2234.4%Total64100%Table 2-4 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017)
ACTIVE LE32CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Today")")")!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityCollisions Involving People on FootNumber Collisions!(3!(2!(1")Pedestrian Fatality LocationsLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-5 Collisions Involving People Walking (2013-2017)
ACTIVE LE33CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayTable 2-5 identifi es the single location where multiple bicycle involved collisions were reported, at the intersection of Central Avenue and Collier Avenue.Table 2-6 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 infl uence area of major intersections, which likely aff ects collision factors. Note that one collision was not recorded as being at either an intersection or midblock location.Collision Location Collisions Percent of TotalIntersection1545.5%Midblock1751.5%Not Specifi ed13.0%Total64100%RankIntersectionCollisions1Central Avenue and Collier Avenue 2Table 2-5 Multiple Bicycle Collision Locations (January 2013 – December 2017)Table 2-6 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Location (January 2013 – December 2017)
ACTIVE LE34CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Today")!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesBicycle CollisionsNumber of Bicycle Collisions")Bicycle Fatality LocationBikewaysClassExisting Multi-Use PathExisting Bike LaneExisting Bike RouteLake Elsinore Boundary12!(!(Figure 2-6 Collisions Involving People on Bicycles (2013-2017)
ACTIVE LE35CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayAdditional At-Fault ObservationsThe party at-fault is reported for pedestrian-involved and bike-involved collisions in Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, respectively. The driver was reported at fault for the majority of pedestrian-involved collisions, while the bicyclist was reported as the party at-fault for the majority of bicycle-involved collisions. The City is currently commissioning a Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program to further investigate safety trends and identify potential remedies along City roads.Collision Location Collisions Percent of TotalBicyclist2266.7%Driver1030.3%Not Specifi ed13.0%Total64100%RankIntersection CollisionsPedestrian2945.3%Driver3554.7%Total64100%Table 2-7 Pedestrian Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017)Table 2-8 Bicycle Collisions by Party At-Fault (January 2013 – December 2017)
ACTIVE LE36CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Todaypopulation rates of 9% or lower. Distinct clusters, including the northwest portion of the lake, and the eastern border near Canyon Lake, show higher rates of senior populations, including up to 16% and 22.5% senior citizens, respectively.Figure 2-8 displays the distribution of the youth population across the City, also by census block group (2016). Relative to senior populations, youth are more dispersed throughout the City. Though there are areas of slightly higher concentrations of youth populations, such as east of I-15, distinct population clusters do not exist as they do 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 uniformly available for the school trip.When planning new bicycle facilities in particular, it should be acknowledged that riders 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 2-9. 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 ride 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 and ages of users.Figure 2-7 presents the distribution of the senior citizen population within the City of Lake Elsinore by census block group (2016). As shown, a large number of the City’s census block group have senior 2.5 AN EIGHT-TO-EIGHTY APPROACH TO PLANNING 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 ensure a city functions properly and equitably for everyone’s ability. Youth and senior populations have more limited mobility options than the general adult population. As such, they are more vulnerable and reliant on alternative transportation modes and infrastructure. In particular, a young average citywide median age (30.3 years of age in 2018), underscores a need for school-related active travel. Ensuring that safe, comfortable facilities are available for a range of users and abilities requires that facilities include adequate buff er and a balance of on-road with off -road facilities. To enhance the share of utilitarian, or non-recreational cyclists, it is important to ensure that a complete network provides access to popular destinations and schools throughout the City, and that entire trips can be made on facilities that people fi nd comfortable.
ACTIVE LE37CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayExampleDescriptionThe “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 Confi dent” are those who have been attracted to cycling and are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffi c, 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 traffi c. 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.Table 2-9 Bicycle Facility Design Classifi cations
ACTIVE LE38CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMI SSI O N TR LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityPercent of Senior Population (65 & up)16.1% - 22.5%12.1% - 16%9.1% - 12%6.1% - 9%2.4% - 6%up to 2.4%Lake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-7 Lake Elsinore Senior Population
ACTIVE LE39CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISS ION TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityPercent of Youth Population (under 17)35.1% - 41.6%30.1% - 35%25.1% - 30%18.1% - 25%up to 18%Lake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-8 Lake Elsinore Youth Population
ACTIVE LE40CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Todaylikelihood of generating an active transportation trip. Generator input values in the “low” range are understood to generate relatively fewer trips.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.2.6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEMANDA 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 potential active transportation demand across the City of Lake Elsinore.Active Transportation Trip Generators and AttractorsTable 2-10 displays the inputs, thresholds, and multiplier values used to create the active transportation trip generator submodel. Generator input values listed as “high” refl ect conditions with a greater GeneratorHigh4Medium3 2Low1Zero0Population Density (persons per acre)≥ 2015.1 - 20 10.1 - 15 5.1 - 10 < 5Employment Density (jobs per acre)≥ 10 7.1 - 10 4.5 - 7 1.1 – 4 < 1Bicycle 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%Table 2-10 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel Inputs
ACTIVE LE41CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore Todayneighborhoods 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 traffi c volumes, more bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and more travel lanes.Figure 2-9 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. The Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel was created using the input variables displayed in Table 2-11. Each attractor is buff ered 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 on the previous page, particular land uses, in this case hypothetical offi ce 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.Figure 2-10 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 2-11 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 identifi ed in Land Use Attractors WeightsMultiplierWithin ¼ Mile1.5Between ¼ and ½ Mile1.0Between ½ and ¾ Miles0.75Between ¾ and 1 Mile0.5Retail Uses46432Civic Uses34.5 3 2.25 1.5Offi ce Uses232 1.5 1Parks232 1.5 1High, Middle and Elementary Schools1 1.5 1 0.75 0.5Table 2-11 Active Transportation Trip Attractor Submodel Inputs
ACTIVE LE42CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityGeneratorsHighLowLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVET010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-9 Active Transportation Trip Generator Submodel
ACTIVE LE43CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMIS S ION TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityAttractorsHighLowLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVET010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-10 Active Transportation Attractor Submodel
ACTIVE LE44CHAPTER 2 - Lake Elsinore TodayLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityPropensityHighLowLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVET010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 2-11 Active Transportation Propensity Model
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES3
ACTIVE LE46CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesGOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIESActive LE goals, objectives, and policies should be complementary to those set in current planning documents for the City, such as the Lake Elsinore General Plan, subsequent District Plans, and the Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. The framework and intent of those documents are carried forward here to further their ability to be implemented, such as:• Optimize the effi ciency and safety of the transportation system within the City of Lake Elsinore (Goal 6, Lake Elsinore General Plan)• Pedestrian circulation routes that are clearly defi ned (Downtown Specifi c Plan)• 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 (Downtown Specifi c Plan)• Bike racks at accessible, safe, well-lighted locations (Downtown Specifi c Plan)3
ACTIVE LE47CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesPolicy 1.3: Adopt the National Association of City Transportation Offi cials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as a supplement to the California Manual for Uniform Traffi c Control Devices.Policy 1.4: Work to eliminate barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel by ensuring existing and new rights-of-way are clear of obstructions, signage, and comfortable for users. Work to implement traffi c calming measures where speeds are excessive.Policy 1.5: Require the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities, where warranted, as a condition of approval of new development projects, including but not limited to, lighting, vegetation, bicycle racks, and benches, in all infrastructure projects.Policy 1.6: Work with owners of properties adjacent to public walkways to identify beautifi cation opportunities and implement improvements such as landscaping, fencing and/or art installations.GOAL 1: AN EQUITABLE MULTIMODAL NETWORK THAT SERVES ALL USERS Objective: Accommodate multimodal mobility and accessibility when planning, designing, and implementing transportation improvements, improving access and circulation for all users of City streets.Policy 1.1: Prioritize active transportation related projects within the active transportation network and focus area locations. Continually review the active transportation network to ensure it is relevant considering the changing densities of areas throughout the City, and coordinate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements or upgrades with the City’s resurfacing schedule.Policy 1.2: Review capital improvement projects to ensure that needs of non-motorized travelers are considered in planning, programming, design, reconstruction, retrofi t, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development.Goals, objectives, and policies were developed following a review of the documents presented in Chapter 1, as well as under consultation with City staff . Further, the needs identifi ed throughout the community outreach process, as identifi ed in Chapter 4, were reviewed to ensure that that the language of the goals, objectives, and policies are related to the stated needs and desires of community members.Overarching goals are presented in the following section, followed by a delineation of supporting objectives and policies to ensure that they can be successfully implemented. Performance measures are attached to each goal to guide the City’s ongoing monitoring of the Plan’s implementation.
ACTIVE LE48CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and Policies• Successful pursuit of grant funding to aide implementation of Active LE Priority Projects.• Implementation of an active transportation sharing program at the right time.Policy 1.7: Consider implementation of an active transportation share program (e.g. bikeshare/scootershare program).Policy 1.8: Improve mobility and accessibility for travelers of all incomes through a process of equitable public engagement, service delivery and capital investment.Policy 1.9: Utilize the Active LE Plan and priority projects to determine projects of highest need for implementation citywide.Performance Measures:• Increased miles of bicycle and pedestrian network.• Bicycle network linkages between all local civic, retail, and employment hubs. • Increased bicycle and pedestrian amenities throughout the network.• Representative engagement with all population groups within reasonable proximity of each active project during outreach opportunities.
ACTIVE LE49CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesGOAL 2: A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY LAKE ELSINOREObjective:Create a bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment throughout the region for recreational and utilitarian riders through consistent engineering/infrastructure solutions and integration of walking, bicycling and public transit facilities into City roadways as a means of improving regional health, increased road safety, and reduced carbon emissions.Policy 2.1: Expand the existing bicycle network to provide a comprehensive, regional network of Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities that increases connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, schools and recreational resources for a variety of road users.Policy 2.2: Develop a 20-year implementation strategy for the Active LE Plan that will begin to implement the policies and facilities herein.Policy 2.3: Install bicycle facilities adjacent to schools and along the identifi ed network extending to/from schools, and pursue Safe Routes to School funding to implement bicycle infrastructure. Involve local schools, parent-teacher groups, and advocates throughout the Safe Routes to School planning eff orts and pursuit of grants.Policy 2.4: Implement policies and facilities proposed in the Active LE Plan whenever planning new facilities or Capital Improvement Projects that may be related to bicycle or pedestrian improvements.Policy 2.5: Incorporate the proposed policies, facilities and programs from the Active LE Plan in whole or by reference into the City’s Circulation Element upon future General Plan updates.Policy 2.6: Coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions, including Riverside County, on bicycle and pedestrian planning and implementation activities on regional corridors to link the region to neighboring communities.Policy 2.7: Perform reallocation of roadway rights-of-way where appropriate to accommodate bicycle facilities and sidewalk infi ll where needed.Policy 2.8: Develop and adopt Complete Streets policies that generally align with the policy elements defi ned by the National Complete Streets Coalition and require all capital improvements to include Complete Streets improvements in the project design and budget.Policy 2.9: Ensure that all existing and new on-street bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, and off -street bicycle paths are appropriately signed and marked per the Wayfi nding Guidelines herein. Encourage the implementation of consistent wayfi nding or placemaking features for each area location within the network (e.g. similar designs).
ACTIVE LE50CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesPolicy 2.13: Install and support high-quality bicycle parking facilities, including bike corrals, within the public right-of-way and on public property, especially in high demand locations, such as Downtown, commercial centers, entertainment centers, employment centers, schools, colleges and parks. Establish bicycle parking standards for City-owned parking facilities that address the location, design, capacity, and support amenities that should be provided by all City bicycle parking facilities.Performance Measures:• Performance of annual counts of bicycle and pedestrian activity to determine potential growth in activity levels.• Successful pursuit of grant funding to aide implementation of Active LE Priority Projects.Policy 2.10: Provide traffi c calming treatments, streetscape improvements, signage, bicycle parking and support amenities (e.g., repair stations, water fountains, information kiosks, etc.) along City bikeways that increase bicycle utility and convenience for all people bicycling, such as requiring that all Class III bicycle routes have markings (“sharrows”) and/or “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signage, in accordance with the most current edition of the California MUTCD, where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated to be infeasible.Policy 2.11: Implement pedestrian call buttons with countdown signals, as well as bicycle detection as part of all traffi c signal improvements in conformance with the current edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices, to the extent feasible.Policy 2.12: Adopt a bicycle parking ordinance or modify existing sections of the municipal code to require bicycle parking with all new developments (including multi-family housing, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses) or when the size and/or use of existing buildings is signifi cantly altered. GOAL 3: MULTIMODAL MOBILITY THROUGH TRANSIT INTEGRATIONObjective: Further improve access to major employment and activity centers and encourage multi-modal travel for longer trip distances by supporting further transit integration with bicycles and pedestrians.Policy 3.1: Implement bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public transit services.Policy 3.2: Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term and long-term bike parking facilities – racks, on-demand bike lockers, bike corrals, in-station bike storage, and staff ed or automated bicycle parking facilities – at transit stops, stations, and terminals such as the Lake Elsinore Transit Center.Policy 3.3: Provide current and relevant information to the public regarding bike parking and bicycle access located at transit stations through a variety of formats, such as on City websites, wayfi nding signage, and regional bike maps.
ACTIVE LE51CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesPerformance Measures:• Increased bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, stations, and the Lake Elsinore Transit Center.• Increased levels of maintenance for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.• Increased transit ridership within the local and regional sphere.GOAL 4: A SAFE WALKING, BIKING, AND ROADWAY ENVIRONMENT IN LAKE ELSINOREObjective: Create a safer multimodal environment throughout the City for all users of the road and all trip purposes through addressing non-infrastructure means of improving regional health, increased road safety, reduced carbon emissions and an overall increase in multimodalism.Policy 4.1: Establish protection of human life and health as the highest transportation system priorities, and seek to improve safety through the design and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, intersections and crosswalks. Develop and implement programs that encourage safe behavior and reduce aggressive and/or negligent behavior among drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.Policy 4.2: Annually review collision data, including causes, to implement ongoing improvements at the highest-risk intersections and throughout the transportation network.Policy 4.3: Standardize the incorporation of lighting in all active transportation facilities and require private developers to do the same.Policy 4.4: Standardize the incorporation of aesthetically pleasing barriers (e.g. split rail fencing) between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists wherever possible.Policy 4.5: Consider traffi c calming measures in all locations along the active transportation network where the perception of safety has been determined to be a deterrent.Policy 4.6: Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public and City employees.Policy 4.7: Partner with local bike advocacy groups, businesses, or other such organizations to provide safety curricula to the general public and targeted populations, including diverse age, income, and ethnic groups.Policy 4.8: Provide multi-lingual road safety information.
ACTIVE LE52CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesPolicy 4.9: Work with local bike/walk advocacy groups and schools to develop and provide bicycle safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools.Policy 4.10: Support continuous safety education to City staff who are involved in the design or other such decisions that aff ect roadways, such as traffi c engineers, planners, public works engineers, public safety offi cers, and parks and recreation staff .Policy 4.11: Support programs and public service announcements that educate motorists, pedestrians, bicycle riders, and the general public about bicycle operation, cyclists’ rights and responsibilities, and safe road-sharing behavior via the City’s website, local newspapers, and other such publications.Policy 4.12: Work with transit agencies to develop comprehensive ongoing public service announcements promoting bicycling as a healthier, more sustainable mode of transportation.Performance Measures:• Annual review of safety data through SWITRS or similar and update project priority list with incident weight considerations accordingly.• Increased facility amenities such as lighting, aesthetic/actual barriers between vehicular traffi c and pedestrians/bicyclists and install emergency towers.• Increased law enforcement patrol in areas with signifi cant transient and loitering activity.• Increased amenities throughout bicycle network corridors between hubs.• Reduced bicyclist and pedestrian related stress levels.Policy 4.13: As appropriate and feasible, increase enforcement of unsafe behaviors and laws that reduce bicycle and pedestrian-on-motor vehicle collisions and confl icts, and bike lane/crosswalk obstruction. Policy 4.14: Explore opportunities to increase motorist’s awareness of the possibility of the presence of cyclists, especially at locations with a high incidence of bicycle-related collisions.Policy 4.15: Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff ’s Department to increase the frequency of patrols on off -street shared-use paths, especially underneath bridge overcrossings.Policy 4.16: Install emergency phone towers with special emphasis on areas not readily visible (e.g., along the Canal) with LED lighting to illuminate the area for people bicycling and pedestrians. The LED lights should be powered by solar panels to reduce maintenance and electrical costs. Where feasible, attach surveillance cameras to each phone tower to provide law enforcement agencies with real-time footage of the location to help prevent/address any criminal activity.
ACTIVE LE53CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and PoliciesPolicy 6.3: Accompany installation of new bicycle facilities with educational programs for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians – particularly children.Policy 6.4: To complement the City’s Safe Routes to School program, develop a Safe Routes for Seniors program. This program should address pedestrian conditions including pedestrian access to transit. It should be based on the senior community’s identifi ed needs, priorities and barriers to safe nonmotorized travel. The program should include an educational component, capital improvement program, and mobility and safety training program. Senior centers and organizations should be partners in both development and implementation.Performance Measures:• An implemented consistent messaging program for diff erent audiences (e.g. City Council, local business owners, private developers, network users, etc.)• A Safe Routes for Seniors Program.• Increased multimodal mode share among seniors and youths.GOAL 5: EDUCATION ABOUT HEALTH AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKObjective: Share information with the public, residents, and local business owners about how active transportation infrastructure encourages a healthy community and benefi ts the local economy.Policy 6.1: Consistently spread the message about how active transportation is mentally and physically healthy for individuals and the community because it inspires others to get active about their transportation and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Policy 6.2: Consistently spread the message about how pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure encourages more local trips which results in more local shopping and less vacancies. In addition, active transportation infrastructure often results in improved property values.GOAL 6: THOROUGH EVALUATION OF MULTIMODAL ENHANCEMENT EFFORTSObjective: Measure the impact of infrastructure improvements, education, encouragement, and enforcement activities on the rates of bicycling and injuries utilizing the performance measures associated with each of the aforementioned goals, as well as with Goal 6 presented below.Policy 6.1: Work with local advocacy groups and community-based organizations to conduct annual or biennial citywide bicycle and pedestrian counts to track rates of cycling and walking over time.Policy 6.2: Conduct before and after bicycle and pedestrian counts with the implementation of new infrastructure projects, using program and count standards such as those supported by SCAG through their Active Transportation Database at: http://atdb.scag.ca.gov.Policy 6.3: Administer yearly or biennial general community bike and walk surveys to understand the public’s knowledge of the rules of the road, fears, and
ACTIVE LE54CHAPTER 3 - Goals, Objectives, and Policiesbehaviors to inform the development and implementation of education and encouragement programs as well as infrastructure improvements, such as through survey reccomendations in SCAG’s Active Transportation Databse, or by adapting similar tools that are currently used by the National Safe Routes to School Partnership to a general audience.Performance Measures:• Increased cycling and walking rates over time.• Increased cycling and walking rates associated with implementation of new facilities.• Increased awareness and amenability to cycling and walking for all trip purposes.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT4
ACTIVE LE56CHAPTER 4 - Community InvolvementCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTPublic participation was an important component throughout the Active LE Plan development, encompassing a variety of outreach strategies targeting a diverse range of community members and stakeholders. Key outreach strategies included maintaining a project website with an interactive “Wikimap” survey, community surveys, targeted community group outreach, school outreach, and a community meeting. This section describes the various public engagement methods used during this process and how the input shaped the Active LE Plan.4
ACTIVE LE57CHAPTER 4 - Community Involvement4.1 PROJECT WEBSITEA project website (www.lake-elsinore.org/ATP) was established to provide continuous updates on project progress and inform the public of upcoming outreach events, outlined in the sections that follow. Website visitors could view project visuals and learn about project updates. The website also provided a link to a web-based Wikimap survey (detailed in the following section).4.2 WIKIMAP AND TEXT MESSAGE-BASED SURVEYSInput data was solicited in two formats, which included a text message-based survey and a web browser-based “Wikimap” survey. The text message-based survey allowed users to submit input by answering questions with numerical responses via text message exchange with automatic replies to the user. Questions prompted responders to identify factors such as user behaviors, willingness to make additional trips via foot or bike if proposed improvements were made, and the optimal location of said improvements.The web browser-based Wikimap survey allowed users to place discreet data points at locations where they wished to identify an area that should receive particular attention, either due to need, demand, or other concern. Together, these two inputs garnered a total of 116 individual responses over the course of the project, and were incorporated into the network development process to ensure that identifi ed network improvements also refl ected the stated needs of community members.Both of these community input methods were promoted though the project website, as well as by pocket-sized cards that were distributed at each community event. These cards were also available at community-oriented destinations such as City Hall and the Lake Elsinore Senior Center throughout the Plan development.
ACTIVE LE58CHAPTER 4 - Community Involvement4.3 POP-UP EVENTSA total of fi ve pop-up style outreach events were attended by members of the project team. Pop-up events corresponded with larger community-drawing functions, and included attendance at events that spanned a cross-section of language, geographic, and demographic factors. The purpose of these pop-up events was to increase awareness of the ongoing development of the Plan and collect input from community members through direct comment on project boards and other materials, which were present at each Pop-up event. Pop-up events were held in conjunction with the following community events:• Dia de los Muertos (October 2018)• Winterfest (December 2018)• Amazing Outlet Race (March 2019)• Unity in the Community (April 2019)• Eggapalooza (April 2019)All pop-up events were staff ed by bilingual English/Spanish speakers. As discussed in Section 4.2, cards with instructions on how community members could participate further by taking a text-based or “Wikimap” 4.4 SCHOOL OUTREACHOutreach to schools occurred in partnership with the Riverside University Health System’s Safe Routes to School eff orts in Lake Elsinore. Parent events at Elsinore Elementary and Elsinore Middle schools in Winter 2019 were attended by staff representing both concurrent eff orts, and performed school walk audits with parents. During the walk audits, parents identifi ed safety challenges, obstacles, and issues encountered during school drop-off and pick up, as well as barriers that prevented some parents from choosing to allow their children to walk to school. The events were used to drive 4.5 PROJECT DESIGN TEAM (PDT)The Active LE Plan included the formation of a Project Design Team (PDT), which consisted of 24 stakeholders who volunteered to meet at recurring intervals over the course of the plan development process to provide focused direction on project deliverables. A total of 4 meetings were held: • The fi rst meeting, held in October 2018, allowed members to provide comment on overarching principles of the Plan, form goals, and provide direction. • The second meeting, held in January 2019, presented the team with a review of existing conditions fi ndings. The team also performed a walk audit around Downtown Lake Elsinore to view oppor-tunity areas. • The third meeting, held in April 2019, presented a draft network and included a bus tour of several preliminary project sites to gather feedback, as well as to preview and solicit feedback on wayfi nd-ing concepts.survey were distributed. Tablets were also available for users who preferred to participate with these media in person.participation in the text message-based and “Wikimap” surveys, which garnered additional datapoints around schools for use in the refi nement of proposed network improvements.
ACTIVE LE59CHAPTER 4 - Community Involvement4.7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM OUTREACHSurvey Results SummaryA total of 116 discreet responses were received over the course of the project’s outreach. Of the respondents, 16 indicated that they currently walk, bike, use transit, or another non-vehicular means of transportation to work or school on a regular basis. The majority of respondents indicated that they felt it was somewhat or very diffi cult to walk and bike in Lake Elsinore, with 76 respondents indicating it was somewhat or very diffi cult to walk, and 65 respondents indicating it was somewhat or very diffi cult to bike. By contrast, only 10 respondents found it somewhat or very easy to walk in Lake Elsinore, and only 9 found it somewhat or very easy to bike. The top community-identifi ed issues found in the survey consisted of the following:• Lack of cross-town bicycle connectivity• Few dedicated bicycle facilities near schools and parks• Many intersections with poor crossing facilities• Few mobility options for accessing retail/recreation aside from driving4.6 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPThe community workshop will be held in August of 2019, after which this section will be updated as part of the Final Active LE Plan.• The fourth meeting, held in July 2019, al-lowed the team to view priority projects, and fi nished with a second bus tour to three of the City’s highest priority project locations to view and discuss before/af-ter photo simulations.• Long block lengths that make it diffi cult to safely cross the street• Need for pedestrian safety treatments near schools• Desire to leverage Lake Elsinore’s recre-ational facilities and improve access• Need to ensure all modes are balanced Comment DistributionFigure 4-1 presents a graphic representation of the comments received relative to the location in Lake Elsinore in which they reference a need or defi ciency. As shown, the comments are clustered with highest frequency around Downtown, with secondary comment clusters located around Nichols Road and Collier Avenue, along the eastern lakefront, along Railroad Canyon Road, and along the northeast shore of the lake. The comments were used to facilitate network development, as well as to ensure that project prioritization eff orts refl ect defi ciencies and issues in these areas.
ACTIVE LE60CHAPTER 4 - Community Involvement!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMIS SION TR
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity!(CommentsLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 4-1 Lake Elsinore Comment Distribution
LAKE ELSINORE TOMORROW5
ACTIVE LE62CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLAKE ELSINORE TOMORROWBuilding upon the key issues identifi ed through the existing conditions analysis and community engagement process, this chapter identifi es specifi c recommendations to improve walking and bicycling. Ten Priority Projects are recommended, including two multi-use path projects, three bicycle projects and fi ve pedestrian-focused improvements, bolstered by Design Guidelines and Wayfi nding recommendations that were developed in tandem with the Active LE Plan. These documents are designed to provide complimentary approaches and standards for the City to use in the implementation and ongoing maintenance of these projects.5
ACTIVE LE63CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrowlandscaping and street trees), trails, bicycle infrastructure, and future shared active transportation elements, such as potential bikeshare or scootershare.The City of Lake Elsinore Design Guidelines document is available in its entirety as Appendix A.5.2 PLANNED NETWORKSThis section of the Plan presents complete networks for bicycle and pedestrian travel. These networks address the existing and future needs of community members and will provide for safe, comfortable and convenient travel to and from the retail hubs, civic center, transit center, neighborhood connections, parks, and recreational facilities by bike and foot in the City of Lake Elsinore.5.2.1 The Planned Bicycle NetworkLake Elsinore and its sphere of infl uence currently has 28.5 miles of bicycle facilities as presented in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3, including Class I multi-use paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes. This Plan makes recommendations for an additional 69 miles of facility, focusing on closing critical gaps within Lake Elsinore City limits and enhancing portions of 5.1 DESIGN GUIDELINES APPROACHThe City of Lake Elsinore Design Guidelines, developed alongside the Active LE Plan as a companion document, establishes best practices techniques and examples of all types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities recommended as part of this Plan. The Guidelines are tailored to the Lake Elsinore community in several ways such as: • Providing guidance for future development projects of all scales to ensure they support multi-modal travel and result in safe, effi cient, and enjoyable routes for walking and bicycling• Best practice treatments to enhance Lake Elsinore’s existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and• General guidelines for trails (including equestrian and shared-use trails). The Design Guidelines focuses on cutting-edge practices and recent trends in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure design that are appropriate for the development patterns and community needs of Lake Elsinore. Focus is placed upon roadway crossings (at controlled and uncontrolled intersections, corner treatments, signals, and sidewalks), pedestrian amenities (street furniture, lighting standards,
ACTIVE LE64CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrowuncomfortable, or LTS 4 conditions, primarily due to having a high-speed limit or large number of traffi c lanes. However, the majority of the City exhibits low-stress conditions under the proposed Plan conditions (LTS 1 or 2).Relative to existing conditions, level of traffi c stress is improved along roadways providing major connectivity opportunities, such as Lake Street, Lakeshore Drive, Riverside Drive along the lakefront, Railroad Canyon Road, Mission Trail, and Corydon Street. The complete existing conditions level of traffi c stress analysis is presented in the Existing Conditions Report, found in Appendix B.Bicycling and Network Connectivity. LTS classifi es the street network into categories according to the level of stress it causes cyclists, taking into consideration a cyclist’s physical separation from vehicular traffi c, vehicular traffi c speeds along the roadway segment, number of travel lanes, and factors related to intersection approaches with dedicated right-turn lanes and unsignalized crossings.Table 5-2 identifi es the four LTS categories and provides a description of the traffi c 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 diff erent populations may fi nd suitable for riding on, considering their stress tolerance. Each LTS classifi cation is associated with a cyclist traffi c tolerance category as identifi ed by Portland Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller and documented in a Portland Bureau of Transportation memo titled Four Types of Cyclists.Figure 5-2 displays the bicycle Level of Traffi c Stress results for all roadways and paths where cyclists are permitted under Plan conditions. As shown, certain major auto-serving roadways exhibit bicycle network in the unincorporated Riverside County that fall within Lake Elsinore’s sphere of infl uence. The proposed bicycle network also includes planned facilities gleaned from the documents reviewed in Chapter 1 to establish a 97.5-mile network that includes:• 6.0 miles of Class I multi-use paths• 48.9 miles of Class II bike lanes• 6.5 miles of Class III bike routes• 6.1 miles of Class IV cycle tracksFigure 5-1 shows the proposed Complete Bicycle Network, which includes both Priority Projects and additional network improvements. The planned bicycle network is presented in Table 5-1, including mileage of facility, and indicating where existing facilities as presented earlier in this document will be bolstered or built further. 5.2.2 Level of Traffi c Stress (LTS)The planned bicycle network was assessed using the bicycle Level of Traffi c Stress (LTS) methodology for characterizing cycling environments, as developed by Mekuria, et al. (2012) of the Mineta Transportation Institute and reported in Low-Stress
ACTIVE LE65CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMIS SION TR
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityExisting Multi-Use PathProposed Multi-Use PathExisting Bike LaneProposed Bike LaneExisting Bike RouteProposed Bike RouteProposed Protected BikewayExisting Regional FacilitiesProposed Regional FacilitiesLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 5-1 Planned Bicycle Network
ACTIVE LE66CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageClass I Multi-Use Path36.0Front St/Darby StClinton Keith Rd Gruwell StExisting1.9Levee TrailDiamond Cir Palomar StExisting3.6W Lakeshore DrS Lowell StS Poe StExisting0.2Newport RdNormandy RdGoetz RdExisting1.2Canyon Lake Dr NNormandy RdGoetz RdExisting0.9Downtown CanalW Lakeshore Dr Riverside Dr/Hwy 74 Existing2.8Nichols RdLake StTerra Cotta RdExisting0.7Temescal Canyon RdMayhew Rd El Hermano RdExisting0.8Palomar StHarwood Ln Timothy LnPlanned3.0Mission TrailTimothy LnEthen RdPlanned1.1Corydon RdUnion StGrand AvePlanned0.3Skylark DrPalomar StLevee TrailPlanned0.1Old Coach RdLevee TrailCorydon RdPlanned0.6Stoneman StPalomar StGrand AvePlanned0.5Levee (Palomar St)Old Coach Rd Stoneman StPlanned0.5Palmoar StStoneman St Levee TrailPlanned0.4Corydon RdUnion StMission TrailPlanned1.3Mission TrailCorydon RdEthen RdPlanned0.3Mission TrailCorydon RdMalaga RdPlanned1.4E Lakeshore DrCampbell StShort StPlanned1.6Lakeshore DrMohr StTerra Cotta RdPlanned1.7Baker StPierce StRiverside DrPlanned1.3Lake StMountain StNichols RdPlanned1.0Temescal Canyon RdEl Hermano Rd Bernard StPlanned4.0Mission TrailCampbell St Railroad Canyon Rd Planned0.3
ACTIVE LE67CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageTemescal Canyon RdBernard StNichols RdPlanned1.8Nichols RdTerra Cotta RdPierce StPlanned0.7Nichols RdLake StTerra Cotta RdPlanned0.0W Lakeshore DrS Spring StShort StPlanned0.2W Lakeshore DrLake StTerra Cotta RdPlanned0.5E Lakeshore DrCampbell StShort StPlanned0.3Lakeshore DrMohr StTerra Cotta RdPlanned1.1Class II Bike Lanes48.9Grand AveClinton Keith Rd Nyiri WayExisting3.4Grand AveNyiri WayCorydon RdExisting0.3Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.1Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.5Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.6Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.1Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.3Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.2Summerly Development Future Road Planned0.4Malaga RdLucerne St Diamond CirExisting0.7Malaga RdDiamond Cir Diamond DrExisting0.2
ACTIVE LE68CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageLost RdCanyon Hills Rd Flowerhill DrExisting0.4Canyon Hills RdLost RdPiedmont DrExisting1.6Grand AveEl Contento Dr Serena WayExisting0.4Canyon Hills RdRailroad Canyon Rd Lost RdExisting0.8Graham AveChestnut StLewis StExisting0.6W Lakeshore DrGraham AveS Lowell StExisting0.3Lincoln StMachado StGrand AveExisting0.9Grand AveMcVicker Canyon Patrick CtExisting0.2McVicker CanyonGrand AveGateway DrExisting1.2Grand AveMcVicker Canyon Lincoln StExisting0.1Grand Ave / Lake StLincoln StMountain StExisting0.9Grand AveRiverside Dr El Contento DrExisting0.1Malaga RdDiamond Dr Mission TrailExisting0.3Clinton Keith RdGrand AveGeorge AveExisting1.3Grand AveScales WayCorydon StPlanned3.2Antelope RdKeller RdJoan Dunn LnPlanned0.6Stoneman StPalomar StCereal StPlanned0.7Cereal StE Lakeshore Dr Corydon StPlanned3.0Lemon StMission TrlGrape StPlanned0.8Olive StMission TrlGrape StPlanned0.5Grape StOlive StLemon StPlanned0.6Grand AvePepper DrMarie DrPlanned0.2Grand AvePepper DrHwy 74Planned0.2Grand AveHwy 74Serena WayPlanned0.1Grape StOlive StCity BoundaryPlanned1.0
ACTIVE LE69CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageLimited AveS Lowell StS Main StPlanned0.5Pottery StLewis StMain StPlanned0.6E Flint StN Main StCanalPlanned0.2Collier / Minthorn StCentral Ave (end) Main StPlanned1.3Summerhill DrLa Strada (end) Railroad Canyon Rd Planned2.2Machado StJoy StLakeside HSPlanned1.1Lincoln StDale CtGrand AvePlanned0.9Collier AveCentral Ave Riverside DrPlanned0.5Bradley Rd / Haun RdRio Vista DrKeller RdPlanned5.2Cetral AveCambern Ave I-15 SB On-Ramp Planned0.4Riverside DrCollier Ave W Lakeshore DrPlanned1.5Collier AveNichols RdRiverside DrPlanned1.2Nichols RdPierce StCity BoundaryPlanned1.2Grand AveMachado St Riverside DrPlanned0.5Grape StMalaga Rd Railroad Canyon Rd Planned0.7GardenCorydon Rd Mission TrailPlanned0.3Grand AveOntario Way Scales WayPlanned0.1Grand AveRussell StTurner StPlanned0.0Grand AveRussell StOntario WayPlanned1.2Short StLimited Ave W Lakeshore DrPlanned0.2Central AveCollier Ave I-15 SB On-Ramp Planned0.1Mahado StJoy StLakeshore DrPlanned0.4Keller RdHoward Way Antelope RdPlanned0.3
ACTIVE LE70CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageClass III Bike Routes6.5Lakeshore DrS Spring StS Poe StExisting0.1Main StLimited AveSulphur StExisting0.1Main StSulphur StGraham AveExisting0.1Graham AveS Main StChestnut StExisting0.1Main StGraham Ave Sumner AveExisting0.3Sumner AveRiley StMain StExisting0.2Main StSumner Ave I-15 SB On-RampExisting0.4Skylark DrCity Boundary Grand AvePlanned0.2Diamond CircleLevee Segment E Lakeshore DrPlanned0.4Machado StGrand AveLakeside HSPlanned0.2Mohr StPottery StGraham AvePlanned0.4Main St / MinthornI-15 SB On-Ramp Weber StPlanned0.8Lincoln StRobin DrRiverside DrPlanned0.1Lincoln StMachado StRobin DrPlanned0.4Gunnerson StLakeshore Dr Riverside DrPlanned1.2Mountain StLake StRice CanyonPlanned0.5Skylark DrCity Boundary Palomar StPlanned0.2Graham AveLakeshore DrSilver StPlanned0.1Lewis StPottery StGraham AvePlanned0.4Pottery StLewis StMohr StPlanned0.2W Lakeshore DrSilver StLewis StPlanned0.1Lakeshore DrS Spring StS Poe StExisting0.1
ACTIVE LE71CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle NetworkLocation From ToExisting/PlannedMileageClass IV Cycle Tracks6.1Diamond DrMalaga Rd Lakeshore DrPlanned0.5Diamond DrGrape St I-15 SB On-Ramp Planned0.2Railroad Canyon RdCanyon Hills Rd Grape StPlanned2.3Riverside DrGrand Ave Lakeshore DrPlanned1.7Collier AveNichols RdRiverside DrPlanned1.2Railroad Canyon RdCanyon Hills Rd City BoundaryPlanned0.2Diamond DrLakeshore Dr I-15 SB On-Ramp Planned0.1Total: 97.5
ACTIVE LE72CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMIS S ION T RLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityBicycle Level of Traffic StressLTS 1 or 2LTS 3LTS 4Lake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesFigure 5-2 Bicycle Level of Traffi c Stress Results
ACTIVE LE73CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow•Pedestrian countdown signals when newsignal heads are installed or old headsare replaced.The proposed pedestrian network is depicted in Figure 5-3, while the pedestrian treatments discussed above are presented with greater detail and photographic representation in Figure 5-4.A full list of intersections to receive upgraded treatments is presented in Table 5-3, while sidewalk infi ll locations arepresented in Table 5-4.High-quality intersection treatments are also targeted at key signalized intersections serving Class I facilities and key pedestrian links, including:•Adoption of high-visibility crossings andADA-compliant curb ramps as the Citystandard for new or restriped crosswalks,including at intersections wherecrosswalks do not currently exist.•Lead pedestrian intervals and/orno-right-on-red prohibitions at high-pedestrian volume locations, withrecommendation for implementationwhen signal timing adjustments occur.5.2.3 The Planned Pedestrian NetworkThe pedestrian network was formed to complete the currently discontinuous sidewalk infrastructure found throughout the City, as well as to ensure that crossings are upgraded to safe, comfortable facilities that can serve destinations, transit, or connections to additional pedestrian facilities. Sidewalk infi ll is proposed where fi eld review revealed missing or discontinuous sidewalk infrastructure within the identifi ed key active transportation network. Proposed pedestrian recommendations also include the following improvements to midblock locations:•Seven (7) new protected midblockcrossings with bulb-outs servinglocations where existing and plannedClass I facilities cross surface streets
ACTIVE LE74CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsExisting Multi-Use Path Proposed Multi-Use Path!(Proposed Midblock Crossings!(Proposed Intersection ImprovementsStreetscape Improvements Through Successful GrantsSidewalk InfillLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan Associates
ACTIVE LE75CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowFigure 5-4 Pedestrian Treatment TypesHigh-Visibility Crossings improve crosswalk visibility and reinforce where drivers should stop.Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) give pedestrians a 3 – 7 second head start when entering an intersection, reinforcing their right-of-way and priority turning vehicles.Pedestrian Countdown Signals indicate to pedestrians how many seconds remain in the pedestrian phase, providing the information needed to judge whether or not there is adequate time to cross.Curb Bulb-Outs/Extensions shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, improve their visibility, and force drivers to make turns at slower speeds.No “Right on Red” prohibitions are useful for intersections in areas with high walking and bicycling levels. Other applications include at signalized intersections where a designated school crosswalk and school crossing guard are present, or locations with unusual pedestrian movements or geometries.A HAWK beacon (High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacon) is a traffi c control device used to stop road traffi c and allow pedestrians to cross safely. The purpose of a HAWK beacon is to allow protected pedestrian crossings, stopping road traffi c only as needed.ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps provide visual and tactile feedback for people with visual impairments.Sidewalk Infi ll increases pedestrian safety, walkability, and accessibility for all users, particularly
ACTIVE LE76CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-3 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – IntersectionsIntersection Improvement Type(s)Summerhill Drive/Grape Street and Railroad Canyon RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and Flint StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Flint StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and Limited AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsChaney Street and Strickland AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsRiverside Drive and Collier AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Minthorn Street/Collier AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsChaney Street and Lakeshore DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsPoe Street and Lakeshore DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsGrand Avenue and Riverside DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsPoe Street and Graham AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsPoe Street and Heald AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and I-15 SB RampsHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSummerhill Drive and Canyon Estates DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsChaney Street and Sumner StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsPoe Street and Limited StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Limited StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsChaney Street and Heald AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsGrand Avenue and Alverado StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMohr Street and Lakeshore Drive/Graham AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLimited Street and Lakeshore DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsFranklin Street/Grunder Drive and Canyon Estates DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsCorydon Road and Grand AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsTemescal Canyon Road and Lake StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and I-15 NB RampsHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMachado Street and Alverado StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian Countdowns
ACTIVE LE77CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-3 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – IntersectionsIntersection Improvement Type(s)Mission Trail and Corydon RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsRiverside Drive and Gunnerson StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMachado Street and Grand AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsGunnerson Street and Lakeshore DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian Countdowns2nd Street/Camino Del Norte and Dexter AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLincoln Street and Grand AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and Minthorn Street/Camino Del NorteHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsRailroad Canyon Drive and Canyon Hills RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsGrand Avenue and Skylark DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsHorsethief Road and Temescal Canyon RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsI-15 NB Ramps and Indian Truck TrailHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsGrand Avenue and Stoneman StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLost Road and Canyon Hills RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsI-15 SB Ramps and Indian Truck TrailHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsCorydon Road and Palomar StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsPalomar Street and Skylark DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLake Street and I-15 SB RampsHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsHorsethief Canyon Road and DePalma RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsCottonwood Canyon Road and Canyon Hills RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Sumner AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Heald AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Peck StreetHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsMain Street and Sumner AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsSpring Street and Graham AvenueHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsAuto Center Drive and Franklin Street/Grunder DriveHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsI-15 NB Ramps and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian Countdowns
ACTIVE LE78CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTable 5-3 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – IntersectionsIntersection Improvement Type(s)I-15 SB Ramps and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsEl Toro Road and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsCollier Avenue and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsAlberhill Ranch Road and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLake Street and Alberhill Ranch RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLake Street and Aberhill Ranch RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLake Street and Nichols RoadHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsLake Street and I-15 NB RampsHigh-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsHorsethief Canyon Road and Mountain Road (N)High-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian CountdownsHorsethief Canyon Road and Mountain Road (S)High-Visibility Crossings, ADA Compliance, Pedestrian Countdowns
ACTIVE LE79CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLocationFromToLength (mi)Lakeshore DriveChaney StreetDiamond Drive 3.37Riverside DriveGrand AvenueCollier Avenue 3.21Railroad Canyon RoadCanyon Hills Road I-15 SB Ramps 2.52Minthorn Street/Collier AvenueCentral AvenueSpring Street 1.70Main Street/Short StreetLimited StreetLakeshore Drive 0.09Machado StreetGrand AvenueJoy Street1.35Limited StreetLakeshore DriveMain Street0.50Chaney StreetLakeshore DriveStrickland Avenue 0.47SR-74/Central AvenueCollier RoadCity Limits1.23Strickland AvenueRiverside DriveChaney Street 1.16Main StreetCamino Del Norte I-15 NB Ramps 0.06Grand AvenueCorydon StreetMachado Street 5.60Mission TrailMalaga RoadCorydon Street 1.40Lakeshore DriveMachado StreetGunnerson Street 0.33Dexter AvenueSR-74/Central Avenue El Toro Road0.80Nichols RoadEl Toro RoadLake Street2.55Malaga RoadCasino DriveMission Trail0.25Camino Del NorteMain Street2nd Street/Dexter Avenue0.72Langstaff StreetGraham StreetLimited Avenue 0.13SR-74/Ortega HwyGrand AvenueCity Limits0.26Gunnerson StreetLakeshore DriveRiverside Drive 1.20Table 5-4 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalk Infi ll
ACTIVE LE80CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLocationFromToLength (mi)Summerhill DriveEndCanyon Estates Drive 1.91Corydon StreetMission TrailGrand Avenue 1.48Cambern Avneue10th StreetCentral Avenue 0.26Rostrata Street/Conrad AvenueSR-74/Central Avenue Mermack Avenue 0.84Temescal Canyon RoadLake StreetE Hermano Road 4.62De Palma RoadHorsethief Canyon Road Indian Truck Trail 1.86Horsethief Canyon RoadMountain RoadDe Palma Road 2.34Skylark DrivePalomar StreetGrand Avenue 0.50Stoneman StreetEndGrand Avenue 0.50Campbell Ranch RoadIndian Truck TrailMayhew Canyon Road 0.33Spring StreetHeald AvenueSumner Avenue 0.13Franklin StreetCanyon Estates Drive Auto Center Drive 0.26Lake StreetAlberhill Ranch Road I-15 NB Ramps 2.00El Toro Road/Lindell RoadNorthDexter Avenue 3.47Flint StreetCanal (end)Spring Street 0.08Table 5-4 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalk Infi ll
ACTIVE LE81CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowUnder buildout of the Plan conditions, seven new midblock crossings are proposed to serve the Lake Elsinore Canal multi-use path at locations intersecting with roadways, for a total of eight midblock crossings citywide, when added to the existing mid-block crossing along Main Street in Downtown. These crossings will exbibit “high” quality characteristics.As with the bicycle LTS analysis presented in Chapter 5.2.1, PEQE performed under existing conditions is presented in the Existing Conditions Report as Appendix C. Figure 5-5 displays the results of the PEQE roadway and intersection analyses along Circulation Element roadways under future buildout of the proposed pedestrian network.Relative to existing conditions, whereby the majority of the City exhibited “low” pedestrian segment quality, the sidewalk infi ll proposed through this Plan improves the Citywide pedestrian environment quality to “medium” under future conditions. Note that sidewalk infi ll projects, as a conservative estimate, do not assume large-scale right-of-way acquisition for landscaped buff ers. To the extent that this is possible, the pedestrian environment will improve in those locations, likely to a “high” quality pedestrian environment. Increasing landscaped buff ers between the walkway and travel or parking lanes has a strong, positive eff ect on the pedestrian environment.Intersections, which previously had “low” quality pedestrian envioronments due to few locations with high-visibility striping or other safety-enhancing pedestrian accommodations, likewise improve to “medium” quality under Plan conditions due to the treatment enhancements discussed in Chapter 5.2.3.5.2.4 Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation (PEQE)All Circulation Element roadways in Lake Elsinore were evaluated under Proposed Network conditions 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 buff er, 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 traffi c control. Additionally, mid-block crossings are scored based upon visibility, crossing distance, ADA features, and type of traffi c 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 5-5 displays the attributes infl uencing the segment scores and, scoring evaluation.Table 5-6 displays the three possible ranks and a description of the environmental characteristics pertaining to each, while
ACTIVE LE82CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowFacility TypeMeasureDescription/FeatureScoringSegment between two intersections1. Horizontal Buff erBetween the edge of auto travel way and the edge of clear pedestrian zone0 point: < 6 feet1 point: 6 - 14 feet2 points: > 14 feet or vertical buff er2. Lighting0 point: below standard/requirement1 point: meet standard/requirement2 points: exceed standard/requirement3. Clear Pedestrian Zone 5’ minimum0 point: has obstructions2 points: no obstruction4. Posted Speed Limit0 point: > 40 mph1 point: 30 - 40 mph2 points: < 30 mphMaximum 8 pointsTable 5-5 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System
ACTIVE LE83CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowFacility TypeMeasureDescription/FeatureScoringIntersection by Leg1. Physical Feature• Enhanced/High Visibility Crosswalk • Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table • Advanced Stop Bar • Bulb out/Curb Extension0 point: < 1 feature per ped crossing1 point: 1 – 2 features per ped crossing2 points: > 2 features per ped crossing 2. Operational Feature• Pedestrian Countdown Signal• Pedestrian Lead Interval• No-Turn On Red Sign/Signal• Additional Pedestrian Signage0 point: < 1 feature per ped crossing1 point: 1 – 2 features per ped crossing2 points: > 2 features per ped crossing 3. ADA Curb Ramp0 point: no ramps and no truncated tomes1 point: ramps only, no truncated domes2 points: meet standard/requirement4. Traffi c Control0 point: no control1 point: stop sign controlled2 points: signal/roundabout/traffi c circleMaximum 8 pointsTable 5-5 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System
ACTIVE LE84CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowFacility TypeMeasureDescription/FeatureScoringMid-block Crossing1. Visibility0 point: w/o high visibility crosswalk2 points: with high visibility crosswalk2. Crossing Distance0 point: no treatment2 points: with bulb out or median pedestrian refuge3. ADA0 point: no ramps and no truncated tomes1 point: ramps only, no truncated domes2 points: meet standard/requirement4. Traffi c Control0 point: no control1 point: fl ashing beacon (In-pavement, RRFB, etc.)2 points: signal/pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK)Maximum 8 pointsTable 5-5 Pedestrian Environment Quality Ranking System
ACTIVE LE85CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowPEQE Rank Point RankingCharacteristicsLow< 4 pointsFacility has fewer than one example of each feature type on average, or is generally below standard.Segments may lack a horizontal buff er, 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 traffi c 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 traffi c control.Medium4 – 6 pointsFacility is generally adequate and most features are to standard.Segments generally have some horizontal buff er, 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. Traffi c controls are present.Mid-block crossings generally have some pedestrian-friendly features, such as a high visibility crosswalk or fl ashing beacon, but often do not have full ADA compliance and/or traffi c control features.Table 5-6 PEQE Classifi cations and Descriptions
ACTIVE LE86CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowHigh> 6 pointsFacility generally exceeds standards and is fully ADA compliantSegments generally have ample horizontal buff er, 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. Traffi c 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 com-pliance, and traffi c control features are present to enhance pedestrian crossing safety.
ACTIVE LE87CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowLAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION
T
R
LCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STLAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVEMAIN STLAKESHORE DRCHANEY STLake Elsinore§¨¦15Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesPEQE ScoresHighMediumLowLake Elsinore BoundaryPEQE Score by Intersection Leg Figure 5-5 Pedestrian Environmental Quality Evaluation (PEQE)See inset
ACTIVE LE88CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow5.3 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESSThe proposed projects as presented in the preceding section comprise a total of 98 pedestrian projects, 38 bicycle projects, and 19 shared bicycle/pedestrian projects (including the proposed Class I facilities and related midblock crossings). To determine project priority, each project was ranked against a set of criteria, which included such factors as land use considerations, grant competitiveness to aide funding pursuit, safety, demographics, input from community members, as gathered during the public outreach portion of the project, and City staff input.Table 5-7 displays the criteria used to assign prioritization scores to each of the projects. TypeCriteriaLand Use CriteriaParks Density Score: Identifying the number of parks located within ¾ mile of the project, as well as per mile (along corridor projects), is useful in weighing a project’s ability to deliver connectivity to recreational facilities.Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesSchool Density Score: Identifying the number of schools located within ¾ mile of the project, as well as per mile (along corridor projects), is useful in weighing a project’s ability to deliver connectivity to City schools.Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesTransit Stop Density Score: Identifying the number of transit stops located within ¾ mile of the project/corridor is useful in weighing a project’s ability to deliver fi rst/last mile connectivity to transit.Source: Riverside Transit AuthorityGrant Competitiveness CriteriaCalEnviroScreen (CES) Percentile of Improvement Area: CalEnviroScreen (CES) is a measure of environmental, health, and socioeconomic factors, and can be helpful in gauging grant competitiveness. A percentile score is presented.Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0Safety CriteriaActive Transportation Collisions Density Score: The number of collisions of each type, including on a total and per-mile basis, that occurred within ¾ mile of a proposed project was noted.Source: SWITRSActive Transportation Collisions Fatality Score: The number of fatal bicycle or pedestrian collisions that occurred within ¾ mile of a proposed project was noted.Source: SWITRSAdditional CriteriaPopulation Density Score: The number of people that live within a half-mile of the proposed project.Source: 2017 American Community SurveyEmployment Density Score: The number of people that live within a half-mile of the proposed project.Source: 2017 American Community SurveyTable 5-7 Project Prioritization Criteria
ACTIVE LE89CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowTypeCriteriaAdditional CriteriaRelevant Public Comments Score: The number of public comments (within a ¾ mile distance from the improvement area) was noted, which can be used for providing additional weight to a project that received a large degree of community-held interest or priority.Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesStaff Input Score: Lake Elsinore City Staff have unique knowledge of the project area. It is recommended that City staff review the proposed projects and provide insight as to whether or not each project should receive additional points based upon City goals and objectives.Source: City Staff 5.4 PRIORITY PROJECTSTable 5-8 displays a comprehensive prioritization scoring and phasing for each of the projects displayed in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Pedestrian and bicycle projects wereprioritized together using the same criteria,so that the highest-ranking projects wouldemerge unaff ected by project type, andequal consideration could be placed uponbicycle and pedestrian priority.Projects were grouped into three phases or tiers based on their prioritization scores, to assist the City in determining an appropriate implementation schedule. Tier 1 consists of the top ten priority projects. Tier 2 consists of all projects with a total score of 10 or above, totalling 28 projects between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 3 consists of the remaining unbuilt and unfunded projects. Note that Table 5-8 also highlights 32 projects have received funding and are scheduled for implementation in the near future.Table 5-7 Project Prioritization Criteria
ACTIVE LE90CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowThe reminder of this Chapter is intended to guide the implementation of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks and supporting features. Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-16 present individual project sheets pertaining to the aforementioned Together, the Tier 1 projects include the following ten bicycle and pedestrian projects:• 1: Lakeshore Drive Sidewalk and Class I multi-use path• 2: Mission Trail Class I multi-use path• 3: Collier Avenue/Minthorn Street Class II bike lanes/Class IV cycle track• 4: Riverside Drive Sidewalk, Class II bike lanes/Class IV cycle track• 5: Diamond Drive/Railroad Canyon Road Class IV cycle track• 6: Minthorn Street/Collier Avenue sidewalk completion• 7: Main Street/Short Street Class II bike lanes• 8: Limited Street sidewalk completion• 9: Railroad Canyon Road sidewalk completion• 10: Chaney Street sidewalk completionPrioritization of projects by tier are presented in Figure 5-6.project prioritization and cost estimation, focusing on the Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian projects.
ACTIVE LE91CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORETier 1Lakeshore DriveRiverside DriveMission TrailClass I, Sidewalk46% 61% 5% 4% 90% 6% 67% 59% 87% 4 14.13Mission Trail/Palomar StreetW Lakeshore DrCity of WildomarClass I 22% 23% 10% 9% 93% 12% 67% 47% 92% 4 13.20Collier Avenue/Minthorn StreetNichols Rd Main St Class II 36% 83% 2% 3% 97% 4% 67% 71% 69% 3 13.20Riverside DriveGrand AvenueCollier AvenueSidewalk, Class II, Class IV87% 87% 0% 2% 87% 5% 0% 69% 100% 4 12.96Diamond Drive/Railroad Canyon RoadMalaga Rd City LimitsSidewalk, Class IV48% 30% 1% 1% 68% 2% 67% 51% 92% 4 12.69Minthorn Street/Collier AvenueCentral AvenueSpring StreetSidewalk, Class II29% 75% 3% 6% 99% 6% 67% 65% 38% 3 12.39Main Street/ Short StreetLimited AveW Lakeshore DrSidewalk, Class II22% 22% 52% 14% 97% 38% 33% 24% 31% 4 11.78Machado StreetGrand AvenueJoy Street Sidewalk 97% 19% 4% 16% 88% 18% 12% 37% 46% 4 11.45Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE92CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORELimited StreetLakeshore DriveMain Street Sidewalk 31% 36% 19% 10% 99% 14% 33% 33% 38% 4 11.45Chaney StreetLakeshore DriveStrickland AvenueSidewalk16% 51% 2% 21% 98% 6% 67% 37% 31% 3 11.36Tier 2Pottery St Lewis St Main StClass II41% 61% 13% 15% 99% 11% 67% 41% 31% 2 11.31Limited Ave Lowell St Main StClass II31% 36% 19% 10% 99% 14% 33% 33% 31% 4 11.31SR-74/Central AvenueCollier Road City LimitsSidewalk18% 59% 1% 4% 100% 4% 33% 45% 31% 4 11.10Central AveI-15 SB RampsCollier AveClass II8% 33% 0% 36% 99% 29% 33% 35% 15% 4 11.03Riverside DrLakeshore DrCollier AveClass II29% 77% 1% 3% 99% 8% 0% 39% 62% 4 11.00Strickland AvenueRiverside DriveChaney StreetSidewalk22% 97% 1% 9% 99% 6% 67% 53% 54% 1 10.91Main StreetCamino Del NorteI-15 NB RampsSidewalk16% 17% 78% 45% 65% 82% 33% 22% 0% 3 10.87Pottery St Mohr St Lewis StClass III21% 54% 32% 49% 99% 35% 67% 43% 23% 1 10.86Lakeshore DrRiverside Dr Mohr StClass I 40% 82% 4% 4% 70%8% 33% 49% 54% 3 10.77Lewis StGraham Ave Pottery StClass III25% 53% 20% 26% 99% 20% 67% 39% 8% 2 10.77Lakeshore DrGrand Ave Riverside DrClass I72% 41% 3% 3% 81% 8% 0% 33% 69% 4 10.71Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE93CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREFlint StCanal Main StClass II25% 30% 48% 48% 99% 48% 67% 35% 8% 1 10.64Graham Ave Mohr St Lewis StClass III22% 37% 37% 24% 91% 32% 33% 31% 23% 3 10.60Machado StLakeshore DrLakeside HS Stadium WyClass II100% 26% 1% 3% 76% 10% 0% 37% 54% 4 10.59Central AveCambern AveDexter AveClass II9% 21% 5% 25% 91% 20% 33% 35% 23% 4 10.38La Strada/Summerhill DrEndRailroad Canyon RdClass II37% 16% 2% 3% 65% 2% 33% 27% 69% 4 10.11Tier 3Riverside Dr Grand AveLakeshore DrClass IV 76% 36% 1% 1% 64% 8% 0% 49% 54% 4 9.98Grand AvenueCorydon StreetMachado StreetSidewalk 67% 12% 0% 1% 66% 1% 0% 100% 69% 4 9.98Mission TrailMalaga RoadCorydon StreetSidewalk 34% 29% 1% 2% 57% 3% 33% 57% 46% 4 9.92Lakeshore DriveMachado StreetGunnerson StreetSidewalk 30% 33% 3% 8% 94% 30% 0% 29% 23% 4 9.83Grape StRailroad Canyon RdLemon St Class II 52% 37% 1% 4% 70% 3% 67% 51% 77% 1 9.75Grand Ave Lime StCity of WildomarClass II 60% 11% 0% 1% 61% 1% 0% 98% 69% 4 9.65Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE94CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREDexter AvenueSR-74/Central AvenueEl Toro RoadSidewalk 12% 32% 0% 9% 94% 6% 33% 41% 46% 3 9.64Mohr StLakeshore DrPottery St Class III 19% 48% 14% 26% 98% 12% 67% 39% 23% 1 9.57Summerhill Drive/Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road-- Intersection 11% 7% 0% 0% 70% 0% 33% 27% 62% 4 9.30Pottery Bridge --Class I25% 32% 0% 0% 99% 0% 67% 24% 8% 2 9.18Main Street and Flint Street-- Intersection 21% 22% 0% 0% 99% 0% 67% 24% 8% 2 8.90Nichols Road El Toro Road Lake Street Sidewalk 22% 17% 1% 1% 88% 0% 0% 6% 69% 4 8.88Spring Street and Flint Street-- Intersection 20% 26% 0% 0% 99% 0% 67% 24% 0% 2 8.80Main Street and Limited Avenue-- Intersection 21% 21% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 20% 23% 3 8.62Chaney Street and Strickland Avenue-- Intersection 13% 43% 0% 0% 99% 0% 67% 37% 23% 1 8.58Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE95CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORERiverside Drive and Collier Avenue-- Intersection 6% 22% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 18% 38% 4 8.48Malaga Road Casino DriveMission TrailSidewalk 17% 17% 9% 0% 71% 20% 67% 33% 46% 1 8.43Collier Ave Nichols Rd Riverside Dr Class IV 10% 30% 0% 2% 94% 3% 0% 24% 69% 3 8.35Grand Ave Patrick Ct Riverside DrRegional Facility37% 6% 2% 1% 79% 3% 0% 20% 38% 4 8.33Nichols Rd/El Toro RdCity Limit Hwy 74Regional Facility14% 21% 1% 2% 98% 0% 0% 12% 69% 3 8.18Machado StLakeside HS Stadium WyGrand Ave Class III 21% 1% 0% 0% 80% 17% 0% 12% 31% 4 8.09Riverwalk & Chaney St--Midblock Crossing23% 26% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.02Levee Trail & Diamond Circle--Midblock Crossing2% 5% 0% 0% 93% 0% 0% 14% 46% 4 7.99Nichols RdTerra Cotta RdBaker St Class I 9% 5% 3% 0% 94% 0% 0% 4% 38% 4 7.95Spring Street and Minthorn Street/Collier Avenue-- Intersection 14% 23% 0% 0% 99% 0% 67% 33% 0% 1 7.70Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE96CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREChaney Street and Lakeshore Drive-- Intersection 11% 26% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 18% 31% 2 7.64Poe Street and Lakeshore Drive-- Intersection 21% 25% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 29% 15% 2 7.62Lincoln St Machado St Riverside Dr Class III 69% 13% 4% 5% 78% 22% 0% 33% 23% 2 7.53Camino Del NorteMain Street2nd Street/Dexter AvenueSidewalk 21% 35% 5% 10% 65% 9% 33% 37% 15% 2 7.51Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive-- Intersection 14% 2% 0% 0% 78% 0% 0% 20% 31% 4 7.47Railroad Canyon RdCity LimitsUninc. Riverside CountyRegional Facility69% 26% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 35% 15% 4 7.36Corydon St Grand Ave Palomar St Class I 28% 11% 1% 3% 43% 1% 0% 45% 31% 4 7.22Langstaff Street Graham Limited Ave Sidewalk 24% 29% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 1 7.12Diamond Dr/Railroad Canyon RdStoneman StCereal St Class II 3% 6% 8% 0% 93% 19% 33% 16% 0% 2 7.11Poe Street and Graham Avenue-- Intersection 25% 33% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 33% 15% 1 7.11Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE97CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREPoe Street and Heald Avenue- - Intersection 27% 38% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 35% 8% 1 7.10Minthorn St Main St End Class III 27% 23% 6% 6% 67% 8% 33% 24% 8% 2 7.10Cereal StLakeshore DriveMission TrailClass II 12% 21% 1% 2% 93% 0% 0% 37% 62% 2 7.09Main Street and I-15 SB Ramps-- Intersection 17% 19% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 24% 0% 2 7.07SR-74/Ortega HwyGrand AvenueCity Limits Sidewalk 4% 2% 0% 10% 64% 8% 0% 22% 23% 4 7.07Summerhill Drive and Canyon Estates Drive-- Intersection 10% 5% 0% 0% 65% 0% 33% 22% 62% 2 7.05Gunnerson StreetLakeshore DriveRiverside DriveSidewalk 34% 61% 1% 2% 98% 8% 0% 33% 31% 1 7.04Gunnerson St Riverside DrLakeshore DrClass III 31% 60% 1% 2% 100% 8% 0% 33% 31% 1 7.04Chaney Street and Sumner Street-- Intersection 11% 33% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 22% 31% 1 7.03Lincoln StEnd Grand Ave Class II 89% 14% 6% 5% 56% 12% 0% 20% 31% 2 7.02Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE98CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORESummerhill DriveEndCanyon Estates DriveSidewalk 34% 13% 2% 4% 65% 2% 33% 22% 69% 1 6.97Poe Street and Limited Street-- Intersection 23% 28% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 15% 1 6.91Spring Street and Limited Street-- Intersection 22% 23% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 24% 23% 1 6.91Chaney Street and Heald Avenue-- Intersection 11% 28% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 18% 31% 1 6.87Olive St Mission Trail Grape St Class II 17% 17% 0% 5% 70% 3% 33% 24% 15% 2 6.82Grand Avenue and Alverado Street-- Intersection 9% 2% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4 6.79Mohr Street and Lakeshore Drive/Graham Avenue-- Intersection 16% 28% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 29% 23% 1 6.74Limited Street and Lakeshore Drive-- Intersection 22% 29% 0% 0% 93% 0% 33% 31% 15% 1 6.74Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE99CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREFranklin Street/Grunder Drive and Canyon Estates Drive-- Intersection 9% 4% 0% 0% 65% 0% 0% 16% 62% 3 6.62Corydon Road and Grand Avenue-- Intersection 8% 2% 0% 0% 64% 0% 0% 16% 15% 4 6.61Riverwalk & W Sumner Ave--Midblock Crossing6% 31% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 16% 23% 2 6.33Hwy 74El Toro RdUninc. Riverside CountyClass III 9% 5% 2% 0% 62% 0% 0% 14% 38% 3 6.08Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street-- Intersection 3% 2% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3 6.07Main Street and I-15 NB Ramps-- Intersection 14% 16% 0% 0% 65% 0% 33% 12% 0% 2 6.02Corydon Street Mission TrailGrand AvenueSidewalk 28% 11% 1% 3% 34% 1% 0% 45% 31% 3 5.95Cambern Avneue10th StreetCentral AvenueSidewalk 9% 17% 4% 10% 94% 13% 0% 27% 38% 1 5.93Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE100CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREMachado Street and Alverado Street-- Intersection 30% 4% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 18% 31% 2 5.89Mission Trail and Corydon Road-- Intersection 9% 5% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 24% 15% 4 5.82Mission Trail and Corydon Road-- Intersection 9% 5% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 24% 15% 4 5.82Rostrata Street/Conrad AvenueSR-74/Central AvenueMermack AvenueSidewalk 13% 21% 1% 3% 94% 2% 0% 18% 38% 1 5.56Riverside Drive and Gunnerson Street-- Intersection 6% 36% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 14% 23% 1 5.41Machado Street and Grand Avenue-- Intersection 13% 1% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 8% 31% 2 5.37Gunnerson Street and Lakeshore Drive-- Intersection 26% 23% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 20% 15% 1 5.302nd Street/Camino Del Norte and Dexter Avenue-- Intersection 8% 15% 0% 0% 65% 0% 33% 22% 15% 1 5.30Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE101CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORELincoln Street and Grand Avenue- - Intersection 25% 4% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 5.24Temescal Canyon RoadLake StreetE Hermano RoadSidewalk 20% 8% 0% 1% 82% 0% 0% 0% 8% 2 5.18Main Street and Minthorn Street/Camino Del Norte- - Intersection 14% 15% 0% 0% 65% 0% 33% 8% 0% 1 4.96Railroad Canyon Drive and Canyon Hills Road- - Intersection 9% 4% 0% 0% 70% 0% 0% 12% 15% 2 4.80Temescal Canyon RdNorthern BoundarryLake St Class I 6% 3% 0% 0% 42% 1% 0% 0% 8% 3 4.61Grand Avenue and Skylark Drive- - Intersection 10% 1% 0% 0% 64% 0% 0% 22% 8% 2 4.52De Palma RoadHorsethief Canyon RoadIndian Truck TrailSidewalk 10% 4% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 4.02Horsethief Road and Temescal Canyon Road- - Intersection 4% 1% 0% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 4.00Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE102CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREI-15 NB Ramps and Indian Truck Trail- - Intersection 1% 1% 0% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 3.94Mountain St End Lake St Class III 29% 5% 4% 5% 56% 5% 0% 0% 15% 1 3.91Horsethief Canyon RoadMountain RoadDe Palma RoadSidewalk 22% 4% 0% 1% 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 3.86Grand Avenue and Stoneman Street-- Intersection 10% 1% 0% 0% 64% 0% 0% 22% 8% 1 3.52Lemon St Mission Trail Grape St Class II 21% 9% 0% 7% 37% 1% 0% 24% 15% 1 3.37Lost Road and Canyon Hills Road-- Intersection 6% 4% 0% 0% 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 3.32Skylark Dr Levee Trail Grand Ave Class III 18% 3% 3% 6% 34% 4% 0% 22% 8% 1 3.00Skylark DrivePalomar StreetGrand AvenueSidewalk 19% 3% 2% 5% 33% 3% 0% 22% 8% 1 2.98Stoneman StreetEndGrand AvenueSidewalk 19% 3% 2% 0% 33% 2% 0% 22% 8% 1 2.90Stoneman St Levee Trail Grand Ave Class I 19% 3% 2% 0% 33% 2% 0% 22% 8% 1 2.90Campbell Ranch RoadIndian Truck TrailMayhew Canyon RoadSidewalk 2% 2% 0% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.89Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE103CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREI-15 SB Ramps and Indian Truck Trail- - Intersection 2% 1% 0% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.87Corydon Road and Palomar Street- - Intersection 15% 5% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 24% 8% 1 2.78Corydon Road and Palomar Street- - Intersection 15% 5% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 24% 8% 1 2.78Palomar Street and Skylark Drive- - Intersection 17% 3% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 20% 8% 1 2.75Lake Street and I-15 SB Ramps- - Intersection 3% 2% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 8% 1 2.50Horsethief Canyon Road and DePalma Road- - Intersection 7% 1% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.42Cottonwood Canyon Road and Canyon Hills Road- - Intersection 6% 3% 0% 0% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.33Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE104CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCOREProjects that are Funded and Scheduled for ImplementationSpring StreetHeald AvenueSumner AvenueSidewalk 31% 34% 75% 39% 99% 55% 33% 29% 23% 2 11.12Nichols Rd Baker St City Limit Class II 33% 37% 3% 4% 86% 4% 33% 41% 92% 3 10.75Riverwalk & Riverside Dr--Midblock Crossing28% 33% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 4 10.27Riverwalk & W Graham Ave--Midblock Crossing29% 35% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 3 9.33Diamond CirW Lakeshore DrPete Lehr DrClass III 10% 10% 9% 14% 93% 16% 33% 37% 62% 2 8.82Spring Street and Sumner Avenue-- Intersection 29% 32% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.25Spring Street and Heald Avenue-- Intersection 28% 31% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.22Spring Street and Peck Street-- Intersection 27% 29% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.16Riverwalk & Limited Ave--Midblock Crossing26% 30% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.16Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE105CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORERiverwalk & W Heald Ave--Midblock Crossing9% 43% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 35% 23% 2 8.15Main Street and Sumner Avenue- - Intersection 27% 27% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.14Spring Street and Graham Avenue- - Intersection 25% 27% 0% 0% 99% 0% 33% 29% 23% 2 8.09Lake St Mountain StLakeshore DrClass II 33% 5% 13% 10% 56% 12% 0% 0% 15% 4 7.31Lake StNichols RdMountain StClass I 37% 7% 4% 2% 50% 2% 0% 0% 31% 4 7.12Auto Center Drive and Franklin Street/Grunder Drive-- Intersection 8% 5% 0% 0% 65% 0% 0% 18% 77% 3 6.95I-15 NB Ramps and Nichols Road-- Intersection 3% 4% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 6% 38% 3 6.78I-15 SB Ramps and Nichols Road-- Intersection 3% 4% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 6% 38% 3 6.77El Toro Road and Nichols Road-- Intersection 4% 8% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 2% 31% 3 6.69Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE106CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORECollier Avenue and Nichols Road-- Intersection 3% 4% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 6% 31% 3 6.62Franklin StreetCanyon Estates DriveAuto Center DriveSidewalk 11% 6% 4% 20% 66% 10% 0% 20% 77% 2 6.59Lake StTemescal Canyon RdNichols Rd Class I 13% 5% 2% 0% 61% 0% 0% 0% 15% 4 6.54Baker St Nichols Rd Riverside Dr Class I 11% 40% 0% 2% 95% 2% 0% 20% 69% 1 6.52Alberhill Ranch Road and Nichols Road-- Intersection 9% 2% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 0% 23% 3 6.49Lake StreetAlberhill Ranch RoadI-15 NB RampsSidewalk 29% 8% 1% 0% 62% 1% 0% 0% 23% 3 6.10Stoneman St Cereal St Levee Trail Class II 18% 8% 1% 0% 73% 1% 0% 18% 8% 3 6.10El Toro Road/Lindell RoadNorthDexter AvenueSidewalk 13% 24% 0% 1% 101% 0% 0% 14% 46% 1 5.82Lake Street and Alberhill Ranch Road-- Intersection 19% 3% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3 5.26Lake Street and Nichols Road-- Intersection 8% 2% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3 4.62Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE107CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow LocationFrom ToImprovement TypePopulation Density PercentileEmployment Density PercentileParks Density PercentileSchool Density PercentileCal Enviro- Screen PercentileActive Transportation Collision Density PercentileActive Transportation Fatality PercentileTransit Stop Density PercentilePublic Comment PercentileStaff Input ScoreTOTAL SCORELake Street and I-15 NB Ramps--Intersection 2% 1% 0% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0% 8% 1 4.11HorsethiefCanyon Roadand MountainRoad (N)-- Intersection 5% 2% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.40Horsethief Canyon Road and Mountain Road (S)-- Intersection 5% 2% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2.40Flint Street Canal (end)Spring StreetSidewalk 22% 30% 100% 100% 99% 100% 67% 35% 0% 1 1.45Source: Chen Ryan Associates (2019)Table 5-8 Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE108CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSIO N TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunity·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan AssociatesLake Elsinore Boundary!(Tier 3 Improvement Projects(Intersection/Midblock Crossings)Tier 1 Improvement ProjectsTier 2 Improvement ProjectsTier 3 Improvement ProjectsFigure 5-6 Improvement Project Prioritization
ACTIVE LE109CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 1: Lakeshore Drive (Riverside Drive to Diamond Drive)Project Area DescriptionThis project spans the northeastern shore of Lake Elsinore, connecting the communities of Lakeside Village, Downtown Lake Elsinore and East Lake. Lakeshore Drive is primarily a 2-Lane undivided roadway with a 40-mph posted speed limit. There are no existing sidewalks along most of the corridor.The project is part of a larger vision of completing a fully separated bicycle facility system around Lake Elsinore, and will include a Class I multi-use path along Lakeshore Drive. This project will also provide sidewalks between the Canal (in Downtown Lake Elsinore) and Diamond Drive (East Lake).Improvements & Cost3.48 miles of Class I Multi-Use Path3.37 miles of SidewalkCost of Class I Multi-Use Path: $10,436,009.86Cost of sidewalk infi ll: $7,044,489.37Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 46%Employment Density: 61%Parks Density: 5%Schools Density: 4%CalEnviroScreen Score: 90%Collision Density: 6%Collision Fatality Score: 67%Transit Stop Density: 59%Public Comment Score: 87%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 15.31 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²W Lakeshore DrRiverside DrPasadena StGunnerson StLincoln StMachado StGraham AveLimited AvePottery StSumner AveFlint StMain StLewis StMohr StE Lakeshore DrDiamond CirDiamond DrMalaga RdMission TrlGrape StCollier AveProposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewayExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathExisting Class III Bike RouteProject ExtentsSidewalk Infill
ACTIVE LE110CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowPROJECT 1: LAKESHORE DRIVE (RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO DIAMOND DRIVE) – Page 2 of 2 PROJECT 1: LAKESHORE DRIVE (RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO DIAMOND DRIVE) – Page 2 of 2 Project 1: Lakeshore Drive (Riverside Drive to Diamond Drive)BeforeAfter
ACTIVE LE111CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 2: Mission Trail (Diamond Drive to Malaga Road)Project Area DescriptionThis 0.6-mile project will include a multi-use path alongside Mission Trail, a high-traffi c volume 4-Lane arterial with a 45-mph posted speed limit. Mission Trail within these project extents is primarily fronted by commercial and retail land uses. In the vicinity is Lake Elsinore Diamond, a major civic attraction. In the future, the area surrounding this project is expected to absorb a substantial amount of residential growth by way of infi ll development.While there are existing bike lanes within a portion of the project extents (from Campbell Road to Malaga Road), the high volumes and travel speeds along Mission Trail do not make bike lanes an ideal ultimate facility classifi cation.This project is a part of a larger vision of completing a fully separated bicycle facility system around Lake Elsinore.Improvements & Cost0.6 miles of Class I Multi-Use PathCost: $1,800,000Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 22%Employment Density: 23%Parks Density: 10%Schools Density: 9%CalEnviroScreen Score: 93%Collision Density: 12%Collision Fatality Score: 67%Transit Stop Density: 47%Public Comment Score: 92%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 13.2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²W Lakeshore DrRiverside DrPasadena StGunnerson StLincoln StMachado StGraham AveLimited AvePottery StSumner AveFlint StMain StLewis StMohr StE Lakeshore DrDiamond CirDiamond DrMalaga RdMission TrlGrape StCollier AveProposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewayExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathExisting Class III Bike RouteProject ExtentsSidewalk Infill
ACTIVE LE112CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowPROJECT 2: MISSION TRAIL (DIAMOND DRIVE TO MALAGA ROAD) – Page 2 of 2 PROJECT 2: MISSION TRAIL (DIAMOND DRIVE TO MALAGA ROAD) – Page 2 of 2 Project 2: Mission Trail (Diamond Drive to Malaga Road)BeforeAfter
ACTIVE LE113CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 3: Collier Avenue / Minthorn Street (Nichols Road to Riverside Drive)Project Area DescriptionThis project will include a continuous Class IV cycle track between the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center and Riverside Drive. It will connect to proposed bike lanes along Collier Avenue between Riverside Drive and Spring Street (see Project 6). Collier Avenue is a high-speed roadway that runs parallel with Interstate 15. Between Nichols Road and Riverside Drive, Collier Avenue is a 4-Lane roadway with a 50-mph posted speed limit. Along the southern extent of the project, Collier Avenue narrows to a 2-Lane undivided roadway with a 45-mph posted speed limit.Improvements & Cost1.2 miles of Class IV Cycle TrackCost: $1,395,319Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 36%Employment Density: 83%Parks Density: 2%Schools Density: 3%CalEnviroScreen Score: 97%Collision Density: 4%Collision Fatality Score: 67%Transit Stop Density: 71%Public Comment Score: 69%City Staff Input Score: 3Total Prioritization Score: 13.2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²Proposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewayProject ExtentsExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathExisting Class III Bike RouteRiverside DrPasadena StPottery StMain St
Collier AveBaker StNichols RdCentral Ave
ACTIVE LE114CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowPROJECT 3: COLLIER AVENUE / MINTHORN STREET (NICHOLS ROAD TO MAIN STREET) – Page 2 of 2 PROJECT 3: COLLIER AVENUE / MINTHORN STREET (NICHOLS ROAD TO MAIN STREET) – Page 2 of 2 Project 3: Collier Avenue / Minthorn Street (Nichols Road to Riverside Drive)BeforeAfter
ACTIVE LE115CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 4: Riverside Drive (Grand Avenue to Collier Avenue)• • • • Project Area DescriptionThis project spans 3.2 miles on the west side of Lake Elsinore, and once completed, will include continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities between the Lake Elsinore Outlets, commercial uses near I-15, and the Lakeside Village community. Riverside Drive currently has sidewalks along portions of the roadway between Grand Avenue and Lakeshore Drive, but facilities are discontinuous, and no pedestrian connectivity is present between Lakeshore Drive and Collier Avenue. This project will complete sidewalks, and also include one-way class IV cycle tracks along the south side of Riverside Drive, transitioning to Class II bike lanes between Lakeshore Drive and Collier Avenue.This roadway is a part of California State Route 74, which connects Southern Orange County with Western Riverside via the Santa Ana Mountains.Improvements & Cost3.2 miles of sidewalk infi ll/reconstruction (6.4 miles total)1.7 miles of one-way Class IV cycle track1.5 miles of Class II bike lanesCost for sidewalk infi ll:$6,710,000Cost for Class IV cycle track: $1,692,805.20Cost for Class II bike lane: $99,000Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 87%Employment Density: 87%Parks Density: 0%Schools Density: 2%CalEnviroScreen Score: 87%Collision Density: 5%Collision Fatality Score: 0%Transit Stop Density: 69%Public Comment Score: 100%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 12.96W La kes h o r e D r PasadenaStRiverside DrGunnerson StLincoln StMachado StCollier AveGrand AveRiverside DrI-15SWilson St Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, UAeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²Proposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewaySidewalk InfillExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathProject Extents
ACTIVE LE116CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 5: Diamond Drive / Railroad Canyon Road (Malaga Road to City Limit) Project Area DescriptionThis project in eastern Lake Elsinore spans 3.2 miles, and will include 3.2 miles of cycle track and 2.5 miles of sidewalk infi ll, along both sides of the roadway, It will connect residential developments with several freeway interchange- catering commercial centers along the project corridor, and connect the East Lake neighborhood in the vicinity of Lake Elsinore Diamond with the Canyon Hills neighborhood in eastern Lake Elsinore (crossing under Interstate 15). In the vicinity of Interstate 15, there are several freeway interchange-catering commercial centers along the project corridor. Railroad Canyon Road currently is the only route option for inter-community travel, thus requiring any cyclists to travel on a 50-mph roadway heavily utilized by automobiles. East of Inter-state 15, Railroad Canyon Road becomes a 50-mph prime arterial with very few fronting land uses.Improvements & Cost3.2 miles of one-way Class IV cycle track2.5 miles of sidewalk infi llCost for sidewalk infi ll: $5,274,229.72Cost for Class IV cycle track: $3,113,491.20Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 48%Employment Density: 30%Parks Density: 1%Schools Density: 1%CalEnviroScreen Score: 68%Collision Density: 2%Collision Fatality Score: 67%Transit Stop Density:51%Public Comment Score: 92%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 12.69MalagaRdMission TrlVillagePkwyGrape St RailroadCanyonRdE Lakeshore DrSummerhillDrDiamond DrDiamond CirCanyon H illsR d
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²Proposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewaySidewalk InfillExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathProject Extents
ACTIVE LE117CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 6:Minthorn Street/Collier Avenue (Riverside Drive to Spring Street) Project Area DescriptionThis project will connect Downtown to the commercial uses in the north-ern portion of Lake Elsinore with Class II bike lanes, running along either side of Minthorn Street, which transitions to become Collier Avenue. The roadway currently is 2-lanes and 3rd Street, widening to 3-lanes, with 2 southeast bound lanes and 1 northwest bound lane, between 3rd Street and Central Avenue. The roadway is a critical connection point for traffi c connecting between downtown and the northwest portion of the City.Improvements & Cost1.23 miles of Class II bike lanes1.23 miles of sidewalk infi llCost for Class II bike lanes: $270,600.00Cost for sidewalk infi ll:$2,571,132.96Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 29%Employment Density: 75%Parks Density: 3%Schools Density: 6%CalEnviroScreen Score: 99%Collision Density: 3%Collision Fatality Score: 37%Transit Stop Density: 65%Public Comment Score: 38%City Staff Input Score: 3Total Prioritization Score: 12.39PasadenaStCentral AveBaker StSpring
S
t
Main St
Nichols RdCollier AveRiverside Dr Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community§¨¦15²Proposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewaySidewalk InfillExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use PathProject Extents
ACTIVE LE118CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 7: Main Street (Limited Avenue to W Lakeshore Drive)Project Area DescriptionThis project will include Class II bike lanes and Sidewalk Completion, con-necting the proposed Class I multi-use path along Lakeshore Drive (see Project Sheet I), and existing Class II and II facilities that serve Downtown. This 0.2 mile segment of roadway currently has 2-lanes and asphalt side-walks along the west side of the road, and is the key connector between Lakeshore Drive and Downtown. Improvements & Cost0.2 miles of Class II bike lanes0.2 miles of sidewalk infi llCost for Class II bike lanes: $13,200Cost for sidewalk infi ll: $194,911.32Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 22%Employment Density: 22%Parks Density: 52%Schools Density: 14%CalEnviroScreen Score: 97%Collision Density: 38%Collision Fatality Score: 33%Transit Stop Density: 24%Public Comment Score: 31%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 11.78 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar GeogAeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community²Main StLimited AveW Lakeshore DrGraham AveProposed Class II Bike LaneExisting Class III Bike LaneProposed Class I Multi-Use PathSidewalk InfillProject Extents
ACTIVE LE119CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 8: Machado Street (Grand Avenue To Joy Street) Project Area DescriptionThe project will include 1.35 miles of sidewalk infi ll to ensure a continu-ous sidewalk along this corridor.Machado Street is a 2-lane road between Grand Avenue and Joy Street, with discontinuous sidewalk. The roadway’s proximity to Lakeside High School, Machado Elementary School, and Machado park create a strong need for continuous sidewalks along this road, due to the backbone it delivers in connecting the communities along the northwest shore of the lake to these community-serving facilities.Improvements & Cost1.35 miles of sidewalk infi llCost: $2,823,375.69Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 97%Employment Density: 19%Parks Density: 4%Schools Density: 16%CalEnviroScreen Score: 88%Collision Density: 18%Collision Fatality Score: 12%Transit Stop Density: 37%Public Comment Score: 46%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 11.45Riverside Dr Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community²Machado StGrand Ave
Lin coln St
W Lakeshore DrProposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteProposed Class IV Protected BikewaySidewalk InfillExisting Class II Bike LaneProposed Class I Multi-Use PathProject Extents
ACTIVE LE120CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 9: Limited Avenue (Lakeshore Drive to Main Street) Project Area DescriptionThis project will include 0.5 miles of sidewalk infi ll to ensure pedestrian connectivity along Limited Avenue, which currently has discontinuous sidewalk coverage along the segment between Main Street and Lake-shore Drive. The 2-lane roadway off ers key connectivity between the lakeshore, park facilities such as Swick and Matich Park, and Downtown.The 25 mph speed limit off ers an ideal, calmed environment for pedes-trian traffi c, and this sidewalk infi ll will complement semi-protected bike lanes along Limited Avenue to position the road as a comfortable multi-modal connector.Improvements & Cost0.5 miles of sidewalk infi llCost: $1,053,343.06Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 31%Employment Density: 36%Parks Density: 19%Schools Density: 10%CalEnviroScreen Score: 99%Collision Density: 14%Collision Fatality Score: 33%Transit Stop Density: 33%Public Comment Score: 38%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 11.45Graham Ave Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community²W Lakeshore DrLimited AveMain StProposed Class II Bike LaneProposed Class III Bike RouteSidewalk InfillProject ExtentsExisting Class II Bike LaneExisting Class I Multi-Use PathProposed Class I Multi-Use Path
ACTIVE LE121CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowProject 10: Chaney Street (Lakeshore Drive to Strickland Avenue)Project Area DescriptionThe project includes Sidewall infi ll to close a critical gap serving other high-quality active transportation facilities, as well as portions of the City with few connectors due to natural topography. Chaney street is a 2-lane road that off ers a major connection between the commercial portion of Lake Elsinore west of I-15 and the lakefront. Currently, pedestrians connecting from portions of town close to I-15, or connecting from the Lake Elsinore Canal to the lakefront must walk along the shoulder of this wide, 35mph road. The road is also intersected by the Lake Elsinore Canal, which is poised to receive additional foot and bicycle traffi c. Improvements & Cost3.48 miles of Class I Multi-Use Path3.37 miles of SidewalkCost of Class I Multi-Use Path: $10,436,009.86Cost of sidewalk infi ll: $7,044,489.37Priority Score (Percentile)Population Density: 46%Employment Density: 61%Parks Density: 5%Schools Density: 4%CalEnviroScreen Score: 90%Collision Density: 6%Collision Fatality Score: 67%Transit Stop Density: 59%Public Comment Score: 87%City Staff Input Score: 4Total Prioritization Score: 15.31 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community²W Lakes
h
o
r
e
D
rChaney StMohr StPasadena StS t r i c k l a n d AveProposed Class III Bike LaneExisting Class I Bike LaneProposed Class I Multi-Use PathSidewalk InfillProject Extents
ACTIVE LE
122
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Infrastructure Description
Multi Use Path Class I $3,000,000 Mile
Bicycle Lane Class II
(each direction)$33,000 Mile
Signed Bicycle Route Class III
(each direction)$16,500 Mile
Signed Bicycle Route with
Roadway Improvements
Class IV
(One-Way)$486,483 Mile
Sidewalk
Assumes 2 sides, 6-foot
width, & Curb/Gutter
Construction
$2,090,352 Mile
Midblock Crossing w/
Beacon and Bulb-outs HAWK Beacon & Bulb-outs $314,500 Per Crossing
Pedestrian Countdown
Signal Assumes 4 legs $148,000 Per Intersection
High Visibility Crosswalk
Assumes 4 legs, 6-lane-per-
leg intersection w/ left-
turn pockets
$27,000 Per Intersection
ADA-Compliant Curb
Ramp Assumes 4 legs $111,000 Per Intersection
5.5 PROJECT COSTS
Table 5-9 presents a list of typical costs
for implementation based on the type of
bicycle facility or pedestrian infrastructure.
The cost estimates are planning-level in
nature. They include an industry-standard
85% escalation as an assumption for design
costs, construction costs, and construction
management. These costs were taken from
recent, similar efforts completed in the City
and nearby jurisdictions.
In the future, costs should be adjusted
based on more current rates, perhaps
by applying a conservative 3% inflation
estimate to these costs. These costs may
be used to determine the approximate
cost to construct a route or segment.
Preliminary engineering will provide a
more definitive cost estimate.
Table 5-9 Facility Design Cost Estimates
Implementation costs for each route are based on typical construction costs. Table 5-10 lists each project, classification or other identifying
feature, and estimated cost for implementation. Based upon the criteria identified in Table 5-5, the total estimate to complete all projects in
the Plan is $167,984,832.49.
Note that costs do not include potential right-of-way acquisition that may be required to implement certain network features. Further,
relocation of utilities or the removal of drainage ditches cannot be known that this level. These costs would be estimated on a case by case
basis and would be additional to the costs provided herein.
Cost Cost Unit
ACTIVE LE
123
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Collier Ave/
Minthorn St Nichols Rd Main St Bike II 4.10 $33,000.00 $270,600.00
Main St Limited Ave
W
Lakeshore
Dr
Bike II 0.20 $33,000.00 $13,200.00
Nichols Rd Baker St City Limit Bike II 1.20 $33,000.00 $79,200.00
Pottery St Lewis St Main St Bike II 0.64 $33,000.00 $42,240.00
Limited Ave Lowell St Main St Bike II 0.50 $33,000.00 $32,883.77
Central Ave I-15 SB Ramps Collier Ave Bike II 0.10 $33,000.00 $6,600.00
Riverside Dr Lakeshore Dr Collier Ave Bike II 1.50 $33,000.00 $99,000.00
Flint St Canal Main St Bike II 2.00 $33,000.00 $132,000.00
Machado St Lakeshore Dr Lakeside HS
Stadium Wy Bike II 1.50 $33,000.00 $99,000.00
Central Ave Cambern Ave Dexter Ave Bike II 0.40 $33,000.00 $26,400.00
La Strada/
Summerhill Dr End Railroad
Canyon Rd Bike II 2.20 $33,000.00 $145,200.00
Grape St Railroad
Canyon Rd Lemon St Bike II 2.34 $33,000.00 $154,155.54
Grand Ave Lime St City of
Wildomar Bike II 5.68 $33,000.00 $374,866.80
Lake St Mountain St Lakeshore
Dr Bike II 0.25 $33,000.00 $16,500.20
Diamond Dr/
Railroad Canyon
Rd
Stoneman St Cereal St Bike II 0.13 $33,000.00 $8,536.97
Cereal St Lakeshore
Drive
Mission
Trail Bike II 2.61 $33,000.00 $172,328.65
Lincoln St End Grand Ave Bike II 0.91 $33,000.00 $60,386.96
Olive St Mission Trail Grape St Bike II 0.49 $33,000.00 $32,452.79
Table 5-10 Estimated Project Costs
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
124
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Stoneman St Cereal St Levee Trail Bike II 0.73 $33,000.00 $47,946.10
Lemon St Mission Trail Grape St Bike II 0.75 $33,000.00 $49,556.49
Pottery St Mohr St Lewis St Bike III 0.20 $16,500.00 $6,710.48
Graham Ave Mohr St Lewis St Bike III 0.20 $16,500.00 $6,600.00
Lewis St Graham Ave Pottery St Bike III 0.40 $16,500.00 $13,200.00
Mohr St Lakeshore Dr Pottery St Bike III 0.38 $16,500.00 $12,517.89
Diamond Cir W Lakeshore
Dr
Pete Lehr
Dr Bike III 0.35 $16,500.00 $11,653.88
Machado St Lakeside HS
Stadium Wy Grand Ave Bike III 0.24 $16,500.00 $7,875.45
Lincoln St Machado St Riverside Dr Bike III 0.49 $16,500.00 $16,327.08
Minthorn St Main St End Bike III 0.83 $16,500.00 $27,438.87
Gunnerson St Riverside Dr Lakeshore
Dr Bike III 1.18 $16,500.00 $38,828.79
Hwy 74 El Toro Rd
Uninc.
Riverside
County
Bike III 0.64 $16,500.00 $21,100.99
Mountain St End Lake St Bike III 0.50 $16,500.00 $16,647.08
Skylark Dr Levee Trail Grand Ave Bike III 0.42 $16,500.00 $13,887.79
Diamond Dr/
Railroad Canyon
Rd
Malaga Rd City Limits Bike IV 3.20 $486,483.00 $3,113,491.20
Riverside Dr Grand Ave Lakeshore
Dr Bike IV 1.74 $486,483.00 $1,692,805.20
Collier Ave Nichols Rd Riverside Dr Bike IV 1.16 $486,483.00 $1,124,719.49
W Lakeshore Dr End Mission
Trail Both I 1.78 $3,000,000.00 $5,336,009.86
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
125
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Mission Trail/
Palomar St
W Lakeshore
Dr
City of
Wildomar Both I 0.60 $3,000,000.00 $1,800,000.00
Lakeshore Dr Riverside Dr Mohr St Both I 1.70 $3,000,000.00 $5,100,000.00
Lakeshore Dr Grand Ave Riverside Dr Both I 1.60 $3,000,000.00 $4,800,000.00
Nichols Rd Terra Cotta Rd Baker St Both I 0.62 $3,000,000.00 $1,865,567.92
Corydon St Grand Ave Palomar St Both I 1.49 $3,000,000.00 $4,476,150.16
Lake St Nichols Rd Mountain
St Both I 1.01 $3,000,000.00 $3,015,209.91
Lake St Temescal
Canyon Rd Nichols Rd Both I 1.15 $3,000,000.00 $3,450,239.90
Baker St Nichols Rd Riverside Dr Both I 1.27 $3,000,000.00 $3,813,990.00
Temescal Canyon
Rd
Northern
Boundarry Lake St Both I 0.62 $3,000,000.00 $1,871,672.99
Stoneman St Levee Trail Grand Ave Both I 0.50 $3,000,000.00 $1,506,188.93
Canal & Riverside
Dr --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Canal & W Graham
Ave --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Canal & Limited
Ave --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Canal & W Heald
Ave --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Canal & Chaney St --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Canal & W Sumner
Ave --Both midblock 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Diamond Drive
and I-15 SB Ramps --Ped intersection - $286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit CostCost
ACTIVE LE
126
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Summerhill Drive/
Grape Street and
Railroad Canyon
Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
Flint Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Flint Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
Limited Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Chaney Street and
Strickland Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Riverside Drive
and Collier Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Sumner Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Heald Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Peck Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
Sumner Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Graham Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Minthorn Street/
Collier Avenue
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Chaney Street and
Lakeshore Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
127
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Poe Street and
Lakeshore Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Grand Avenue and
Riverside Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Poe Street and
Graham Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Poe Street and
Heald Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
I-15 SB Ramps --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Summerhill Drive
and Canyon
Estates Drive
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Chaney Street and
Sumner Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Auto Center Drive
and Franklin
Street/Grunder
Drive
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Poe Street and
Limited Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Spring Street and
Limited Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Chaney Street and
Heald Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Grand Avenue and
Alverado Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
I-15 NB Ramps and
Nichols Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit CostCost
ACTIVE LE
128
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
I-15 SB Ramps and
Nichols Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Mohr Street and
Lakeshore Drive/
Graham Avenue
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Limited Street and
Lakeshore Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
El Toro Road and
Nichols Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Franklin Street/
Grunder Drive and
Canyon Estates
Drive
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Collier Avenue and
Nichols Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Corydon Road and
Grand Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Alberhill Ranch
Road and Nichols
Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Temescal Canyon
Road and Lake
Street
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
I-15 NB Ramps --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Machado Street
and Alverado
Street
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Mission Trail and
Corydon Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
129
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Mission Trail and
Corydon Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Riverside Drive
and Gunnerson
Street
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Machado Street
and Grand Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Gunnerson Street
and Lakeshore
Drive
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
2nd Street/Camino
Del Norte and
Dexter Avenue
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lake Street and
Alberhill Ranch
Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lincoln Street and
Grand Avenue --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Main Street and
Minthorn Street/
Camino Del Norte
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Railroad Canyon
Drive and Canyon
Hills Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lake Street and
Nichols Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Grand Avenue and
Skylark Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lake Street and
I-15 NB Ramps --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit CostCost
ACTIVE LE
130
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Horsethief Road
and Temescal
Canyon Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
I-15 NB Ramps and
Indian Truck Trail --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Grand Avenue and
Stoneman Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lost Road and
Canyon Hills Road --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
I-15 SB Ramps and
Indian Truck Trail --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Corydon Road and
Palomar Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Corydon Road and
Palomar Street --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Palomar Street and
Skylark Drive --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Lake Street and
I-15 SB Ramps --Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Horsethief Canyon
Road and DePalma
Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Horsethief
Canyon Road and
Mountain Road (N)
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Horsethief
Canyon Road and
Mountain Road (S)
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Cottonwood
Canyon Road and
Canyon Hills Road
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
131
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
SR-74/Central
Avenue and I-15
NB/SB Ramps
--Ped intersection -$286,000.00 $286,000.00
Langstaff Green
Street Graham Limited Ave Both Sidewalk 1.00 $314,500.00 $314,500.00
Lakeshore Drive Canal (end)Diamond
Drive Ped Sidewalk 2.47 $2,090,352.00 $5,163,169.44
Lakeshore Drive Chaney St Poe Street/
Canal (end)Ped Sidewalk 0.9 $2,090,352.00 $1,881,319.93
Riverside Drive Grand Avenue Collier
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 3.21 $2,090,352.00 $6,710,029.92
Minthorn Street/
Collier Avenue
Central
Avenue
Spring
Street Ped Sidewalk 1.23 $2,090,352.00 $2,571,132.9
Limited Street Lakeshore
Drive Main Street Ped Sidewalk 0.50 $2,090,352.00 $1,053,343.06
Railroad Canyon
Road
Canyon Hills
Road
I-15 SB
Ramps Ped Sidewalk 2.52 $2,090,352.00 $5,274,229.72
Chaney Street Lakeshore
Drive
Strickland
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.47 $2,090,352.00 $981,809.07
Spring Street Heald Avenue Sumner
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.13 $2,090,352.00 $269,116.09
SR-74/Central
Avenue Collier Road City Limits Ped Sidewalk 1.23 $2,090,352.00 $2,571,885.55
Strickland Avenue Riverside
Drive
Chaney
Street Ped Sidewalk 1.16 $2,090,352.00 $2,421,923.63
Main Street Camino Del
Norte
I-15 NB
Ramps Ped Sidewalk 0.06 $2,090,352.00 $115,273.92
Machado Street Grand Avenue Joy Street Ped Sidewalk 1.35 $2,090,352.00 $2,823,375.69
Main Street / Short
Street Limited Street Lakeshore
Drive Ped Sidewalk 0.09 $2,090,352.00 $194,911.32
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit CostCost
ACTIVE LE
132
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Grand Avenue Corydon
Street
Machado
Street Ped Sidewalk 5.60 $2,090,352.00 $11,711,803.03
Mission Trail Malaga Road Corydon
Street Ped Sidewalk 1.40 $2,090,352.00 $2,932,345.71
Lakeshore Drive Machado
Street
Gunnerson
Street Ped Sidewalk 0.33 $2,090,352.00 $698,294.61
Dexter Avenue SR-74/Central
Avenue
El Toro
Road Ped Sidewalk 0.80 $2,090,352.00 $1,676,460.16
Nichols Road El Toro Road Lake Street Ped Sidewalk 2.55 $2,090,352.00 $5,339,218.80
Malaga Road Casino Drive Mission
Trail Ped Sidewalk 0.25 $2,090,352.00 $513,430.17
Camino Del Norte Main Street
2nd Street/
Dexter
Avenue
Ped Sidewalk 0.72 $2,090,352.00 $1,497,254.37
SR-74/Ortega Hwy Grand Avenue City Limits Ped Sidewalk 0.26 $2,090,352.00 $541,986.46
Gunnerson Street Lakeshore
Drive
Riverside
Drive Ped Sidewalk 1.20 $2,090,352.00 $2,511,139.91
Summerhill Drive End
Canyon
Estates
Drive
Ped Sidewalk 1.91 $2,090,352.00 $4,000,578.46
Franklin Street Canyon
Estates Drive
Auto Center
Drive Ped Sidewalk 0.26 $2,090,352.00 $534,216.61
Lake Street Alberhill
Ranch Road
I-15 NB
Ramps Ped Sidewalk 2.00 $2,090,352.00 $4,182,020.72
Corydon Street Mission Trail Grand
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 1.48 $2,090,352.00 $3,085,108.77
Cambern Avneue 10th Street Central
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.26 $2,090,352.00 $543,848.96
El Toro Road/
Lindell Road North Dexter
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 3.47 $2,090,352.00 $7,243,968.58
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit Cost
ACTIVE LE
133
CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow
Road
Rostrata Street/
Conrad Avenue
SR-74/Central
Avenue
Mermack
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.84 $2,090,352.00 $1,765,070.28
Temescal Canyon
Road Lake Street E Hermano
Road Ped Sidewalk 4.62 $2,090,352.00 $9,648,019.60
De Palma Road Horsethief
Canyon Road
Indian Truck
Trail Ped Sidewalk 1.86 $2,090,352.00 $3,892,778.88
Horsethief Canyon
Road
Mountain
Road
De Palma
Road Ped Sidewalk 2.34 $2,090,352.00 $4,882,456.17
Flint Street Canal (end)Spring
Street Ped Sidewalk 0.08 $2,090,352.00 $157,299.61
Skylark Drive Palomar
Street
Grand
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.50 $2,090,352.00 $1,050,031.83
Stoneman Street End Grand
Avenue Ped Sidewalk 0.50 $2,090,352.00 $1,049,960.81
Campbell Ranch
Road
Indian Truck
Trail
Mayhew
Canyon
Road
Ped Sidewalk 0.33 $2,090,352.00 $682,631.62
Total $167,984,832.49
From To Mode Class/Type Miles CostPer Unit CostCost
ACTIVE LE134CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow• Visual observation - observation of locations where bikes are illegally parked due to lack of bicycle racks.• User Input - asking bicyclists and bike groups.• Land use criteria - targeting areas where people gather such as coff ee shops, bookstores, recreation centers.• Zoning code - requiring new commercial development and change in business to install bike parking proportionate to car parking requirements. Bike racks should be located at each school and at shopping areas in excess of 50,000 square feet, or where it is evident that there is high cycling use.Racks should be installed in the public right-of-way, at schools and parks, or at commercial and industrial sites in conformance with setback requirements. Bike racks should be located based on the following:• Visibility - Cyclists should be able to easily spot bicycle racks from the street.• Access - Bicycle racks should be convenient to building entrances and street access. Whenever possible, racks should be placed within 50 feet of building entrances.A lack of bike racks and other facilities is a frequently-mentioned reason why bicyclists or would-be bicyclists don't ride, or ride less often. Bicycle racks are currently only located at some City parks, private developments, and civic facilities. At a minimum, the City should install bike racks at all City parks and high-volume transit facilities, and encourage installation at major employment areas, as the fear of bicycle theft is a signifi cant deterrent to bicycle use.To further encourage bicycling, the City should adopt bicycle-parking standards for future commercial and industrial development. Typical standards are one bicycle rack per 40-60 elementary and junior high school students, per 100-120 high school students, and per 100-120 employees. The number of racks needed at each location can be determined when the existing rack begins to exceed 80% capacity.Siting ConsiderationsHeavy bicycle use is another reason for locating bicycle racks. Standard locations are schools and parks. Other determinants for siting bike parking are:5.6 ADDITIONAL NETWORK IMPROVEMENTSSupport facilities and programs are an important part of the Active LE Plan and future updates. Support facilities may include bicycle parking (bike racks or lockers), showers for commuters, and staging areas.Bicycle ParkingBicycle parking may be separated into two categories: short-term parking and long-term parking. Short-term bicycle parking is usually defi ned as being two hours or less and consists of a bicycle rack or a series of bicycle racks, whereas long-term parking suggests that bicyclists may leave the bike all day, overnight, or for a longer duration. Long-term parking options include:• Lockers, for one or two bicycles• Racks in an enclosed, lockable room or fenced area• Racks in an area monitored by security (cameras, guards, or other personnel)• Racks or lockers in an area always visible to employees.
ACTIVE LE135CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowShower FacilitiesCyclists may be more apt to commute by bicycle to their place of employment, if shower facilities are off ered or readily available at nearby fi tness centers or gymnasiums. Some employers typically off er shower facilities, such as fi re stations or police stations. The City should encourage new major employers to provide shower facilities for their employees.Staging AreasAs part of Lake Elsinore’s “Dream Extreme” motto, encouraging riding along many of the region’s trails and exploring the rugged, natural beauty of western Riverside County is a City priority. To this end, it is important to serve staging areas where high usage is anticipated or where facilities are located a long distance from the start of a bike ride. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the bicycle network refl ected a need to ensure that bike facilities reached staging areas to encourage entire trips are made by bicycle instead of driving and parking at trailheads. • All types of size of bicycles, including various types of and sizes of frames, wheel sizes, and tire widths.Three common ways of providing secure long-term bicycle parking are 1) fully enclosed lockers accessible only by the user, 2) a continuously-monitored facility, and 3) restricted access to facilities where only owners of bicycles are permitted access to the area. Bicycle lockers are intended for long-term parking and to protect against theft of the entire bicycle and its components and accessories.Bicycle storage lockers may be considered at transit stations or major employment locations where the lockers are internal and are maintained by the employer. Bicycle lockers are typically rented to bicyclists for daily use over a period of time. Rental costs vary from one agency to another. A survey conducted by Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center revealed a low rental of $2.00 per month (Tucson, AZ), to a mid-range of $5.00 per month (Santa Cruz, CA and Caltrain), to a high-end rental of $10.00 per month in Portland, Oregon.• Security - Locate parking within view of passers-by, retail activity, offi ce windows, or within a fenced area for long-term parking such as at a school.• Lighting - To avoid theft, bicycle-parking areas should be well lit or located within a well-lighted area.• Weather protection - Whenever possible, protect bicycle parking area from weather by siting under an existing overhead or covered walkway.• Avoid confl ict with pedestrians or vehicles - Locate racks so that parked bicycles do not block walkways or near vehicle parking.The design of the rack should be based upon accommodating the following:• Supporting the bike frame at two locations (not just the wheel).• Allowing both the frame and at least one wheel to be locked to the rack (without requiring that the lock be placed near the bicycle chain).• Allowing the use of either a cable or "U-type" lock.• Bicycles which are equipped with water bottle cages.• Bicycle which are not equipped with kickstands.
ACTIVE LE136CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore TomorrowStaging areas in Lake Elsinore also include local parks, and a combination of private and public land uses. The goals and policies framework, as presented in Chapter 3 of this Plan, guides the implementation of facilities such as bike racks, lockers, or forms of storage, as well as shower or hydration facilities that may come about from development or redevelopment of private land uses. The City should also ensure that public staging areas, parks or activity centers such as the Lake Elsinore Senior Center and Cultural Center have bicycle parking available at a minimum.An inventory was performed at each of the City’s public activity centers for the presence of bicycle parking. The current availability, as well as locations where future bicycle support facilities may be targeted, is presented in Figure 5-17. Further support to staging areas may include a number of other amenities, including:• Bike racks• Shade shelters• Benches and/or picnic tables• Signage (interpretative and directional)• Lighting• Trash receptacles• Emergency telephones• Restrooms or portable restrooms• Water fountains (with bottle spouts and dog basins)
ACTIVE LE137CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(LAKESHOREDRLINCOLNSTNICHOLSRDRAILROADCYNRDTEMESCALCANYONRDGRAND AVECORYDON STRIVERSIDE DRMISSION TRLCANYONHILLSRD PALOMAR STI 215LAKESTMenifeeWildomarCanyon LakePerrisMurrietaGood HopeLakelandVillageMeadowbrookTemescalValleyWarm SpringsAirbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS UserCommunityExisting Spaces Available!(5!(9!(12!(16!(18!(Proposed Bike ParkingLake Elsinore Boundary·}74§¨¦15§¨¦15·}74MAINSTE.LAKESHOREDRCOLLIERAVE010.5 Miles²Source: Chen Ryan Associates!(!(!(Figure 5-17 Existing and Project Bicycle Support Facilities
ACTIVE LE138CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow• Programs & CoordinationCoordinating with internal City departments and surrounding jurisdictions is important to increase the utility and viability of infrastructure projects.Education & Outreach When a new or unfamiliar intersection treatment or other piece of infrastructure is implemented in the City, consider a parallel education eff ort targeted toward the user group(s) most likely to be impacted. General education on the intended function and appropriate behavior around the new infrastructure should be the primary focus of the campaign. A secondary focus could be related to the benefi ts of the new infrastructure and how it helps the City to fulfi ll broader public safety, mobility and/or sustainability goals. Education campaigns promote safe driving behaviors and collaboration between motorists and active transportation users. For Lake Elsinore, one such campaign could be on education regarding the “Three Feet for Safety Act” (CVC 21760) to promote safe motorist behavior along Class III bike routes, such as along Main Street. The “Three Feet for Safety Act” requires drivers to maintain a minimum 3-foot buff er 5.7 WAYFINDINGA set of wayfi nding concepts was developed in tandem with the Active LE eff ort to provide a coherent branding statement for wayfi nding in the City, incorporating the City of Lake Elsinore’s design language, “dream extreme” motto, and vision. This will allow the Active LE program to maintain visibility as a living component of the City’s overarching programs and eff orts, as this Plan is implemented, maintained, and updated in the future. The wayfi nding concepts were developed with feedback from City staff and the Project Design Team. The wayfi nding concepts are presented in Appendix C. 5.8 PROGRAMMATIC IMPROVEMENTSThis section presents recommendations for complementary, but essential education and encouragement programs in support of active transportation. Paired with physical infrastructure improvements as guided earlier in this chapter, these programmatic improvements will encourage a culture of safe, enjoyable riding and walking for utilitarian and recreational purposes, and position the City to enjoy the maximum benefi t of its active transportation networks. The programmatic recommendations fall into the following broad categories:• Education & OutreachEducation is a critical element for a complete and balanced approach to improving both bicycling and walking safety for all road users.• Pedestrian & Bicycle EventsLocal and regional events provide opportunities to promote walking and biking, by showing both new and existing users the benefi ts and enjoyment that active mobility provides, in a friendly setting.• EnforcementEnforcement of traffi c laws for all modes of travel creates safer environments for everyone.Directional SignDirectional/Information Sign(Pedestrian)If outside of pathway - 7’ clearance is not requiredLEACTIVE Downtown1.5 mi1.6 mi1.0 miLakefrontPottery St0.1mi 2 mins0.2mi 4 minsMain StreetRiverwalkLEACTIVE7’0” top of sign5’0” top of sign
ACTIVE LE139CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrow• General Public OutreachDistribute brochures advertising Lake Elsinore’s multimodal travel options, such as new bike infrastructure, or the use of RTA services. Pedestrian & Bicycle Events Throughout the year, the City should continue to look for opportunities to promote walking and bicycling at local and regional events, such as the following: • Bike to Work Day/MonthThe City should promote and participate in Bike to Work Day/Month, a regional event sponsored by SCAG and regional agencies during the month of May. This is a good opportunity to give away safety equipment, raise the visibility of cycling in the City, and partner with local community groups and businesses to create a bike advocacy community. • National Night Out The City should continue to have a presence at National Night Out, typically held in the month of August. The City could pass out pedestrian and safety education materials and/or equipment at the neighborhood block parties during National Night Out, typically held in the month of August. • VideosTo be shown before Council Meetings on public access TV, and uploaded to YouTube to promote the priority projects and explain new design concepts for Lake Elsinore’s streets (i.e., new bike lanes). • Billboards/Bus SheltersWorking with RTA or utilizing billboards such as the electronic marquee at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall, feature simple, large print ads to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and/or explain new design treatments in the public right of way (i.e. fl ashing pedestrian beacons). • Social MediaTo promote and provide updates on projects via major social media outlets, such as Facebook, Flickr, Instagram. • Staff /Agency TrainingTo provide City staff and enforcement staff with training on new design treatments in the right-of-way. • Safety Device GiveawayTo provide community members with safety equipment (i.e., bicycle bells, bike helmets, bike lights, walking/jogging refl ectors). These giveaways could be coordinated with major events. • Safe Night OutTo encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity by organizing public safety walks along commercial streets and hand out safety information and/or giveaways. when passing cyclists, and when sharing a road with bicycles, either with or without dedicated facilities. The campaign uses media outlets including street banners, billboards, commercials and press releases to increase the brand awareness of Street Smarts. Campaigns may use community events, schools and sponsorships to educate the community about safe driving. Implementation of the priority projects will require a concurrent educational campaign to inform community members of the goals and benefi ts of the projects as they are implemented, as well as how to properly use the new facilities. The following educational strategies should be considered: • Project WebsiteTo provide an overview of and updates on implementation of major projects and their related goals, design features, schedule of approval, design and construction, or impacts to the neighborhood. • Flyers/PostcardsTo be distributed to residents and businesses along the streets impacted by projects, and made available at public buildings, public meetings, and other major activity centers.
ACTIVE LE140CHAPTER 5 - Lake Elsinore Tomorrowsuch as additional bike racks on buses and bikeshare program. • Bike Racks/Parking in the Right-of-way Continue to work with local businesses and land development projects to identify locations for bike parking along the public right-of-way. • Walking Route ProgramIdentify and establish walking routes in the City. During public outreach, participants expressed a lack of clearly defi ned, safe walking routes, particularly around schools. Residential streets with tree cover, low traffi c volumes, and absence of bicyclists on sidewalks make good candidate routes. Walking routes could be connected to one or multiple parks within the City. Routes could be supported by sidewalk and landscaping improvements, signage, educational pamphlets and/or scheduled walking programs. Enforcement Enforcement tools have demonstrated eff ectiveness in improving safety for road users. Allocate associated resources for Riverside County Sherriff staff time to enforce the rules of the road related to: • Pedestrian Crossing Behavior • Motorist Behavior• Safe Walking, Riding, and Driving in School Zones• Riding Against Traffi c • Failure to Yield at CrosswalksPrograms & Coordination Coordinating with internal City departments and surrounding jurisdictions is important to increase the utility and viability of projects. • Bike Network ConnectionsOrganize quarterly check-in meetings with neighboring jurisdictions to update on network connections and facilities. • Multimodal Connections Coordinate with RTA on placement of bus stops and transit enhancements, • Pop-up Neighborhood EventDuring the design development phase, the City could host a “pop-up” event, such as those facilitated during the creation of this Plan, with temporary in-street installations at the site of proposed improvements. These events allow community members to try out, touch, and see the potential improvements in their future location. The event helps residents understand the benefi ts of unusual or non-traditional neighborhood greenway treatments, such as traffi c diverters or unique pavement markings and signage.• GoHuman EventsThe GoHuman campaign, led by SCAG, partners with cities throughout the region to host open streets events focusing on encouraging people to walk and bike more by inviting the community to interact with city streets, free of automobile traffi c. The event furthers goals of reducing traffi c collisions in Southern California, and creating safer, healthier cities. Lake Elsinore held a successful GoHuman event in October of 2018. An identifi ed next step from the GoHuman Event Summary that followed this event is continued coordination with Community Services and the Riverside County Sherriff ’s Department to host additional bicycle education events throughout the community.
NEXT STEPS6
ACTIVE LE142CHAPTER 6 - Next StepsNEXT STEPSImplementation of the Active LE Plan is ultimately based upon several factors, such as the availability of funding, successful pursuit thereof, or immediate safety concerns that may present new project needs at a later date. Further factors that determine implementation include changes in availability of funding at the federal, state, or regional level, or local capital improvement projects such as road widening and traffi c control lights at intersections.The following chapter is intended to guide ongoing implementation of the networks presented and prioritized in Chapter 5, as well as the Active LE plan as a whole, including cost and maintenance6
ACTIVE LE143CHAPTER 6 - Next Stepswhen it is assumed that the active transportation network has been built out.Estimations were made based upon the number of daily walking and biking trips currently occurring, factoring for non-commute trips or walking and biking trips to transit, which are not captured by Census data, applying estimated citywide growth expected to occur by the year 2040 according to SCAG modeling forecasts, and adding a conservative growth factor of 1.3% to account for the eff ect that a more complete walking and biking network will have on attracting new users.As shown, current daily bike and pedestrian trip estimates are about 7,100 daily trips, while forecast future active trips are about 13,000 daily trips, assuming build out of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks.Details underlying the fi gures found in Table 6-1 are presented in Appendix D.6.1 PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATEOnce adopted, City staff should review and update the plan every four years, as is required by Caltrans for competitiveness in grant programs. A fresh assessment based upon the successes of completed facilities, a reappraisal of cost estimates, and identifi cation of changes in the proposed system to meet future increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and new development should accompany any update. It should be noted that any major changes in future Plan updates may be subject to further environmental review. Once approved by the City Council, this and any updated Plan document should be forwarded to Caltrans for approval6.2 ESTIMATED NEW USERSWhile Census data provides insight to mode choice for work commute trips, understanding the varied number of reasons why one chooses to make a trip, as well as the mode chosen for all trip purposes, is more diffi cult to ascertain. The following analysis is intended to extrapolate a conservative estimate of the number of trips taken when other factors are included, such as:• Walking and biking trips to transit• Walking and biking trips for work-from-home employees• Trip chaining and round-trip eff ects on facility use levelsTable 6-1 uses the latest available 2017 American Community Survey Census commute and demographic data, population growth factors per SCAG, rates of current walking and cycling in Lake Elsinore, and generally accepted marginal rates of additional bicycle use adoption based upon the creation of new facilities to provide a summary of the estimated number of new users expected in the future as projects are implemented. Scenarios include Year 2017 American Community Survey data, Year 2020 conditions, at which time it is assumed that no priority projects are constructed, and Year 2040 conditions (the current SCAG planning horizon year), Table 6-1 Existing and Future Daily Cyclist and Pedestrian VolumesYearScenario2017American Community Survey Estimate2020Assumes no Completed Projects2040Assumes Network BuildoutEstimated Daily Users(Cyclists/Pedestrians)7,092(1,026 / 6,066)8,034(1,162 / 6,872)12,860(1,861 / 11,000)
ACTIVE LE144CHAPTER 6 - Next Steps• Assembling and storing accident data, facility usage data, and other statistical data that may be used for grant funding applications.• Maintaining a log of maintenance tasks, costs, and scheduled bikeway improvements.• Serving as a clearinghouse for fi ltering community concerns, education materials and for coordinating volunteer groups.• Reviewing and providing an update of this Plan to the City Council at a minimum of every four years and forward to Caltrans for review and approval.coordinating with the Public Works or other City departments to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and updating the Plan as appropriate and discussed earlier in this chapter. A typical set of tasks for the active transportation coordinator may include:• Pursuing grants for pedestrian and bikeway projects and programs.• Participating in Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) bicycle committees and other regional transportation groups involved in funding programs or transportation planning, such as Riverside County, RTA, or the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG).• Coordinating and promoting active transportation education, incentives, and awareness programs and events.• Serving as the contact person for active travel-related questions and concerns.• Reviewing the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Survey (RTP-SCS), including maintaining an awareness of future update processes, to ensure consistency with local and regional bikeways.• Participating with SCAG in the developing the RTP-SCS as it relates to the regional bikeway network.6.3 MAINTENANCEBicycle and pedestrian facilities must be maintained in an appropriate manner to ensure they continue to serve users well, so an ongoing maintenance program should be established. Well-maintained active transportation facilities increase safety, encourage use of the facilities, and increase longevity of the facilities. The maintenance program should include a periodic review of the condition of all signs, pavement markings, barriers, and surface condition of facilities. Roadway dirt, debris, and potholes aff ect pedestrians and cyclists to a greater extent than cars. It is therefore recommended that routine surveys of the City’s active transportation network are conducted by City staff to ensure timely removal of glass and other debris, as well as to conduct routine restriping and sign replacement.It is also recommended that the City designate a staff person to serve as active transportation coordinator, or appoint a local organization on their behalf. This allows local residents to know who to contact when there are maintenance, connectivity, or general concerns. This person would have the primary responsibility to implement the Plan by leading pursuit of grant funds,
ACTIVE LE
145
CHAPTER 6 - Next Steps
6.4 FUNDING
Planning efforts are constrained by
concerns over limited implementation
resources. Projects that are part of
comprehensive plans often have a
competitive edge over stand alone projects.
Indeed, there are many different ways to
combine funding and other resources.
Commonly-used funding sources are
provided in Table 6-2 below. As shown,
there are multiple avenues to secure
funding for different aspects of bikeway
and pedestrian planning, engineering,
and construction. It should be noted,
however, that grant funds are competitive,
and State and Federal authorities receive
more applications for funding each year
than there are funding dollars available.
Therefore, it is recommended that a City
staff member, such as a potential active
transportation coordinator, be allocated to
pursue potential funding sources.
ACTIVE LE146CHAPTER 6 - Next StepsThis table indicates potential eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle projects under US Department of Transportation surface transportation funding programs. Abbreviations used are noted in the matrix that follows the table. Additional restrictions may apply. See notes and basic program requirements below and see program guidance for detailed requirements. Project sponsors should fully integrate nonmotorized accommodation into surface transportation projects. Section 1404 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act modifi ed 23 U.S.C. 109 to require federally-funded projects on the National Highway System to consider access for other modes of transportation and provides greater design fl exibility to do so.Activity or Project Type SB1 TI-GERTI-FIAFTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA - 402NHTSA - 405FLTTPCrosswalks (new or retrofi t) $ $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $Curb cuts and ramps $ $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $Counting equipment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $* $Data collection and moni-toring for pedestrians and bicyclists$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $* $Historic preservation (pedes-trian and bicycle and transit facilities)$$$$ $ $ $Landscaping, streetscaping (pedestrian and/or bicycle route; transit access); related amenities (benches, water fountains); generally as a apart of a larger project$~$~$$$ $ $ $ $Table 6-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding OpportunitiesKey:$ = Funds may be used for this activity (restrictions may apply).$* = See program - specifi c notes for restrictions.~$ = Eligible, but not competitive unless part of a larger project.
ACTIVE LE147CHAPTER 6 - Next StepsActivity or Project Type SB1 TI-GERTI-FIAFTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA - 402NHTSA - 405FLTTPLighting (pedestrian and bi-cyclist scale associated with pedestrian/bicyclist project)$$$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $Maps (for pedestrians and/or bicyclists)$$$ $ $ $ $*Paved shoulders for pedes-trian and bicycle use$$ $* $$ $ $ $ $Pedestrian plans $ $ $ $ $Recreational trails $ ~$ ~$ $ $ $ $Road diets (pedestrian and bicycle portions)$$$ $$ $ $ $Road Safety Assessment for pedestrians and bicycles$$$ $ $Safety education and aware-ness activities and programs to inform pedestrians, bicy-clists, and motorists on ped/bike safety$ $SRTS $SRTS $ $* $* $*Safety education positions $SRTS $SRTS $ $*Safety enforcement (includ-ing police patrols)$ $SRTS $SRTS $ $* $*Table 6-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities
ACTIVE LE148CHAPTER 6 - Next StepsActivity or Project Type SB1 TI-GERTI-FIAFTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA - 402NHTSA - 405FLTTPSafety program technical assessment (for peds/bicy-clists)$SRTS $SRTS $ $* $Separated bicycle lanes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Shared use paths / transpor-tation trails$$$$$$* $$ $ $ $$ $Sidewalks (new or retrofi t)$$$$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $Signs / signals / signal im-provements$$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $Signed pedestrian or bicycle routes$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $Spot improvement pro-grams$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $Stormwater impacts related to pedestrian and bicycle projects$$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $Traffi c calming$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$Trail bridges$ $ $$* $ $ $ $ $ $$Trail construction and main-tenance equipment$$RTP $RTP $Table 6-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities
ACTIVE LE149CHAPTER 6 - Next StepsActivity or Project Type SB1 TI-GERTI-FIAFTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA - 402NHTSA - 405FLTTPTrail/highway intersections $ $$* $ $ $ $ $ $$Trailside and trailhead facili-ties (includes restrooms and water, but not general park amenities; see guidance)~$* ~$*$* $* $*$Training$ $$ $ $ $ $* $*Training for law enforcement on ped/bicyclist safety laws$$SRTS $SRTS $$*Tunnels / undercrossings for pedestrians and/or bicyclists$$$$$$* $$ $ $ $$$Abbreviations:• ADA/504: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 / Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973• SB1: Senate Bill 1 Transportation Investment bill which allocates funds to transit, bike and pedestrian projects• TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant Program• TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (loans)• FTA: Federal Transportation Administration Capital Funds• ATI: Associated Transit Improvement (1 percent set-aside of FTA)• CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program• HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program• NHPP: National Highway Performance Program• STBG: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program• TA: Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (formerly Transportation Alternatives Program)• RTP: Recreational Trails Program• SRTS: Safe Routes to School Program/Activities• PLAN: Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) or Metropolitan Planning Funds• NHTSA 402: State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program• NHTSA 405: National Priority Safety Programs (Nonmotorized safety)• FLTTP: Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs (Federal Lands Access Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, Tribal Transportation Program, Nationally Signifi cant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects)Table 6-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities