Barstow City Council
January 20, 2026

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)

ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 1
City of Barstow

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
OCTOBER 2025
Prepared for:

City of Barstow
Engineering Services Division
220 East Mountain View Street
Barstow, CA 92311
Prepared By:
333 S Anita Drive, Suite 800
Orange, CA 92868
T: 714.573.0317
www.hwlochner.com
22887
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE I
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Prominent Collision Patterns.............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Safety Measures.................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Vision, Mission, and Goals.................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 LRSP Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 City of Barstow ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 LRSP Development Process............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Existing Policies and Programs......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.1 Collision Data Sources........................................................................................................................................................14

3.2 Stakeholder Outreach........................................................................................................................................................14

3.3 Identifying Locations for Engineering Countermeasures.........................................................................................15

3.4 Proposing Engineering Countermeasures....................................................................................................................16

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS...................................................17

4.1 Total Collisions and KSI Collisions ..................................................................................................................................17

4.2 Collisions by Facility Type................................................................................................................................................ 27

4.3 City of Barstow – San Bernardino County Comparison ...........................................................................................30

4.4 City of Barstow VS. Cities of Similar Size.....................................................................................................................33

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS.........................................................................................36

5.1 Pedestrian Safety................................................................................................................................................................36

5.4 Motorcycle Safety..............................................................................................................................................................39

5.5 Bicyclist Driver Safety ........................................................................................................................................................41

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES ...........................................................................................................43

6.1 Existing Projects and Context..........................................................................................................................................43

6.1 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety .......................................................................................................................................44

6.2 Unsafe Speeds ....................................................................................................................................................................46

6.3 Intersection Safety.............................................................................................................................................................49

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES....................................................................................................54

7.1 Pedestrian Safety................................................................................................................................................................54

7.2 Unsafe Speeds.....................................................................................................................................................................54

7.3 Intersection Safety.............................................................................................................................................................55 CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE III

7.4 Motorcycle Safety..............................................................................................................................................................56

7.1 Bicycle Education SAfety................................................................................................................................................... 57

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS.............................................................................................................................................58

8.1 Project Scopes and Benefit Calculations ......................................................................................................................58

8.2 Benefit/Cost Ratio..............................................................................................................................................................59

8.3 Showcase Locations...........................................................................................................................................................59

8.4 General Citywide Improvements ...................................................................................................................................68

8.5 List of Potential Traffic Signal Implementation Locations ......................................................................................69

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................70

9.1 Evaluation and Update Timeframe ................................................................................................................................ 70

9.2 Oversight Committee........................................................................................................................................................ 70

9.3 Funding Sources................................................................................................................................................................. 70 APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................................................74 APPENDIX B...............................................................................................................................................................75 CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE IV

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: City of Barstow LRSP Study Area, East of Highway 58..............................................................................................5 Figure 2.2: City of Barstow LRSP Study Area, West of Highway 58............................................................................................6 Figure 2.3: Barstow Citywide Collision Heat Map (2019-2023), East of Highway 58...........................................................7 Figure 2.4: Barstow Citywide Collision Heat Map (2019-2023), West of Highway 58.........................................................8 Figure 2.5: Proposed Bicycle Network in Barstow ......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4.1: Total Collisions by Year...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4.2: Automobile-Only Collisions by Year............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 4.3: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Truck Collisions by Year..................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4.4: Annual Collisions by Severity........................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4.5: Collisions by Travel Mode, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions ........................................................................... 22 Figure 4.6: Collision Share by Type, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions ................................................................................ 23 Figure 4.7: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor.......................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4.8: Top Collision Types and Primary Collision Factors.................................................................................................. 26 Figure 4.9: Collisions by Lighting Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 5.1: Pedestrian Collision Distribution, East of Highway 58........................................................................................... 37 Figure 5.2: Pedestrian Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58......................................................................................... 38 Figure 5.3: Motorcycle Collision Distribution, East of Highway 58.......................................................................................... 39 Figure 5.4: Motorcycle Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58........................................................................................ 40 Figure 5.5: Bicycle Collisions Distribution, East of Highway 58................................................................................................. 41 Figure 5.6: Bicycle Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58................................................................................................. 42 CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE V

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Collision Values and EPDO Score .................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type........................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 4.3: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type ...................................................................................................................... 29 Table 4.4: Street Lighting and Facility Type...................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 4.6: Total Collision Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County......................................................... 31 Table 4.7: KSI Collision Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County............................................................. 31 Table 4.8: Collision Type Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County ......................................................... 32 Table 4.9: PCF Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County.............................................................................. 33 Table 4.10: OTS Collision Categories Comparison, City of Barstow vs. Cities of Similar Size........................................ 35 Table 6.1: Recommended Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures............................................................................................... 44 Table 6.2: Recommended Unsafe Speed Countermeasures...................................................................................................... 46 Table 6.3: Recommended Intersection Safety Countermeasures ............................................................................................ 50 Table 7.1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources.................................................................................................... 54 Table 7.2: Unsafe Speed Program Funding Sources..................................................................................................................... 55 Table 7.3: Intersection Safety Program Funding Sources ........................................................................................................... 56 Table 7.1: Motorcycle Program Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................... 57 Table 7.1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources.................................................................................................... 57 Table 8.1: Collision Values and EPDO Score .................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 9.1: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary.................................................................................................... 72

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Barstow has developed this Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to serve as a proactive framework for improving transportation safety across its local roadway network. The plan is guided by the principles of the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe System Approach (SSA), as required under California Senate Bill 932, which emphasizes the elimination of fatal and severe injury collisions through roadway design and operations that anticipate human error, account for human physical limits, and provide multiple layers of protection.

The LRSP also aligns with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), integrating statewide safety priorities with Barstow’s local context and needs. By focusing on systemic safety strategies rather than only historic collision hotspots, the plan enables the City to identify risk factors in advance, target improvements where they will have the greatest impact, and support applications for funding opportunities.

1.1 OVERVIEW
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) analyzes collision data, evaluates roadway system conditions, and identifies citywide strategies to improve traffic safety. This document supports the City of Barstow’s ongoing efforts to enhance roadway safety through a systematic, data-driven process. The LRSP framework was established by the State to help local agencies develop safety projects eligible for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP funding eligibility requires an LRSP or equivalent safety plan such as a Vision Zero Plan or Systemic Safety Analysis Report.

This report was prepared in accordance with Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), Version 1.7 (April 2024). The general content of this LRSP includes:
 Collision Data Sources and Analysis: Review of Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).  Collision Trends: Identify highest-occurring collision types and contributing roadway characteristics.  Traffic Safety Analysis: Comparative analysis using Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data  Systemic Strategies: Potential countermeasures to address common collision types across the network The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
 Identify the most frequent collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to them  Pinpoint corridors and intersections with disproportionately high collision frequencies.  Propose safety countermeasures to address identified issues.

1.2 PROMINENT COLLISION PATTERNS
Five years of collision records were utilized from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023, adhering to the maximum period permitted by the HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding. The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (PCF), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (intersection and mid-block locations). A total of 1,001 collisions were recorded citywide. The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
 The most common collision types were identified in the SWITRS data as broadside, hit object, and rear end.
 The most common PCFs were identified in the SWITRS data as unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right of way.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 2
o Unsafe speed is evaluated in both the context of posted speed limits and the speed that is considered acceptable for the conditions present. Section 6.2 elaborates on this definition.  Pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle collisions collectively account for 12% of total crashes but 44% of fatal and sever injury (KSI) crashes citywide

1.3 SAFETY MEASURES
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:
 Pedestrian Safety
 Motorcycle Safety
 Bicycle Safety
The LRSP recommends engineering and non-engineering countermeasures that address the emphasis areas derived from the City’s collision patterns. Concerns and recommended modifications were discussed with City staff and key stakeholders, including the Barstow Police Department, Barstow Fire Protection District, Barstow Unified School District, and Caltrans District 8.

Some of the engineering countermeasures recommended include:
 Modernizing signal hardware to include back-plates with retroreflective borders, near-side signals, and updated timing or phasing such as protected left-turns and Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs).  Installing raised pavement markers and refreshed striping through intersections to improve visibility and delineation.
 Constructing new ADA-compliant curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons at signalized and nonsignalized crossings.  Installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWKs) at key pedestrian corridors and school crossings.
 Upgrading or extending guardrails and end treatments to meet current standards and reduce roadside severity.
 Implementing systemic stop-control improvements, speed feedback signs, and other roadway visibility enhancements citywide.

Additionally, engineering analysis recommended other safety countermeasures to address high-collision locations throughout the City, listed by safety emphasis area. Funding for engineering countermeasures listed in the LRSP are available from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which supports signal upgrades, ADA ramps, signage, and systemic intersection safety improvements.

In addition to the infrastructure modifications mentioned above, non-engineering safety measures address traffic safety concerns through education, encouragement, and enforcement. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for non-engineering roadway safety projects, as shown below:
 USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All
 Highway Safety Improvement Program
 Active Transportation Program
 Sustainable Communities Grant Program
 Office of Traffic Safety Grants
 Caltrans District Partnership and Local Assistance Programs

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Barstow has developed this Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to systematically evaluate and enhance roadway safety through a data-driven framework. Aligned with the California Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the LRSP prioritizes both engineering and non-engineering strategies to reduce fatalities and severe injuries. By adopting a proactive, systemic approach that examines network-wide crash patterns and risk factors—rather than focusing solely on high-collision locations, the plan enables costeffective safety improvements across broader geographic areas. The LRSP integrates multimodal safety strategies and the Safe System Approach to advance safety for all roadway users, with particular attention to vulnerable populations and equitable implementation of countermeasures.

2.1 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS
The LRSP embraces the Vision Zero policy framework, committing to the elimination of traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries in Barstow while ensuring safe mobility for all roadway users and transportation modes. The mission of the LRSP is to identify, analyze and prioritize safety improvements that reduce collisions through systemic changes to infrastructure and policy. The plan’s core goals are to eliminate safety disparities for vulnerable road users through targeted corridor improvements; and apply the Safe System Approach to roadway design, ensuring the system accounts for human error and reduces the severity of collisions when they occur.

2.1.1 SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
The LRSP employs the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe System Approach, as required by Senate Bill 932 (Section 65302(b)(2)(B)(i)). This approach shifts the focus from preventing all collisions to preventing fatal and severe injury outcomes by designing a transportation system that anticipates human error and accommodates human limitations. The Safe System Approach incorporates multiple, overlapping layers of protection—such as speed management and vehicle safety technologies—to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. In doing so, the LRSP supports California’s broader multimodal safety goals while tailoring its strategies to Barstow’s local conditions through data-informed, engineering-driven solutions.

2.2 LRSP PROCESS
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes roadway safety problems to develop targeted improvements through a collaborative process involving City departments and key stakeholders. The results of the LRSP are summarized with a prioritized list of countermeasures. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety needs in Barstow.

The LRSP not only focuses on engineering improvements to reduce the likelihood of collisions but also addresses safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, education, and emergency services.

Making roadways safer requires the Four E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services). Working together with the Four E’s at the city level will help make city roads safer.

Additionally, Federal and State agencies have also considered Emerging Technologies and Equity as additional E’s to improve traffic safety. For instance, considering the use of emerging technologies such as “smart” traffic signal equipment can serve to connect vehicles and traffic control systems to enhance traffic safety. Also, investing in safety projects in neighborhoods that have higher rates of fatal and severe collisions relative to the rest of the city will ensure that safety planning and implementation is equitably distributed across the agency’s jurisdiction.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 4

2.2.1 FREQUENTLY USED TERMS
The LRSP analysis is based largely on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Collisions are entered into this database and classified by severity, Primary Collision Factor, and collision type.

Collision severity types, in order of least severe to most severe, are Property Damage Only (PDO), Complaint of Pain, Visible Injury, Severe Injury, and Fatality. Collision severity is classified by the most severe outcome of anyone involved in the collision; for example, if six people are involved in a collision, with five experiencing a complaint of pain but with one experiencing a severe injury, the collision would be classified as a Severe Injury collision.

Primary Collision Factor (PCF) is the factor deemed to be most responsible for the collision. Although collisions often have multiple contributing factors, a collision reported in SWITRS will only have one PCF. Examples of PCFs include unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way violation, and improper turning. A full glossary of PCF terms is included as Appendix A.

Collision type refers to the manner in which the vehicles collided. Examples include rear end, sideswipe, and broadside.

SWITRS data also includes other information such as movements preceding collision, time of day, lighting/weather conditions, and whether the collision was a hit-and-run incident.

2.3 CITY OF BARSTOW
Barstow is an incorporated city in San Bernardino County, California. According to the 2020 US Census, Barstow had a population of 25,415. Based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023, a total of 1,729 collisions occurred in the City of Barstow, inclusive of both City streets and State highways within the City. Out of these collisions, 69 resulted in fatal or severe injuries. For this LRSP, collisions on State Routes 58 (SR-58) and 247 (SR-247), as well as Interstates 15 (I-15) and 40 (I-40) were excluded as they are not in the immediate jurisdiction of the City of Barstow. Collisions occurring on city roadways at state highway on/off ramp locations were included in the analysis. Once highway collisions are excluded, the resulting total number of collisions is reduced to 1,001. However, the number of collisions resulting in fatal or severe injuries remains unchanged, revealing that 100% of fatal and severe collisions that occurred during the analysis period happened on local streets and not on state or interstate highways.

The City of Barstow has made significant investments in recent years towards improving roadway safety for travelers within the City. In addition to regular maintenance and repaving of existing streets, a number of new projects have taken place, with more currently underway. These efforts include enhanced crosswalks with Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), improved bicycle facilities, pedestrian gap closures, and traffic signal improvements.

2.4 LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The following sections include a brief description of the tasks associated with the development of this LRSP, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document. Figure 2.1 and Figure

2.2 illustrate the City of Barstow boundaries and study area for this LRSP.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 5
Figure 2.1: City of Barstow LRSP Study Area, East of Highway 58

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 6
Figure 2.2: City of Barstow LRSP Study Area, West of Highway 58

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 7

2.4.1 DATA COLLECTION
A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data:
 Five years (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2023) of collision data collected via the SWITRS collision database  City of Barstow Jurisdiction boundaries
An overview of collision density within the City is shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.3: Barstow Citywide Collision Heat Map (2019-2023), East of Highway 58

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 8
Figure 2.4: Barstow Citywide Collision Heat Map (2019-2023), West of Highway 58

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 9

2.4.2 SAFETY DATA ANALYSIS
Following collection of spatial and contextual data, the collision data was analyzed for Barstow. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas as defined in the California SHSP. The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 4 of this document. The transportation emphasis areas are identified based on the collision data analysis and are discussed in Section 5 of this document.

2.4.3 IDENTIFY SAFETY MEASURES
In coordination with City staff, a list of engineering-related safety countermeasures and non-engineering safety measures were developed for use as recommendations in this LRSP. These countermeasures are discussed in Section 6 and Section 7 of this document.

2.4.4 CALCULATE BENEFIT/COST RATIOS
To better contextualize and prioritize the recommended countermeasures, potential collision reduction benefit totals were calculated for each countermeasure based on citywide collision data. This information would be used to help prioritize recommended countermeasures, as well as to support a Benefit/Cost Ratio component of a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding application. These safety projects are discussed in Section 8 of this document.

2.5 EXISTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
As part of the preparation for this LRSP, existing planning documents for the City of Barstow were evaluated to determine how existing City policy addresses roadway safety.

2.5.1 CITY OF BARSTOW GENERAL PLAN (2015)
The City of Barstow General Plan establishes goals and policies consistent with the City’s vision and defines specific actions to achieve the community’s objectives. The defining principle of the General Plan Vision Statement is focused on protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods, as well as establishing newly developed land uses designated to better serve current residents, attract new residents to the community, and provide a wider range of employment opportunities.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Circulation Element provides a comprehensive overview of the transportation infrastructure and trends within the City of Barstow, while also informing strategic transportation planning efforts. The Element mentions high rates of bicycling and walking being present throughout the City, suggesting the need for infrastructure supporting active transportation. Strategies for addressing this need include connecting discontinuous sidewalks and installing a network of bicycle routes, including at least one segment of Class I bikeway. The following policies covering non-motorized transportation are included in the Circulation Element:
 Policy 3.A: Encourage pedestrian travel by improving the means by which residents and visitors may walk throughout the community.
o Strategy 3.A.1: An inventory of discontinuous sidewalks on all qualifying roadways shall be compiled and individual improvement projects shall be funded through the Capital Improvement Program to connect these sidewalks.
o Strategy 3.A.2: Install pedestrian enhancements along and in the vicinity of the route of the Old Spanish Trail.
 Policy 3.B: Establish a network of bicycle routes.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 10
o Strategy 3.B.1: Endeavor to designate and install at least one segment of Class 1 bikeway (i.e. separate pathway running parallel to existing roadway) within the 2015 – 2020 time horizon of the General Plan.
o Strategy 3.B.2: Provide striping of Class 2 bikeways. o Strategy 3.B.3: Install signage along routes designated as Class 3 bikeways.

LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element establishes the vision of Barstow for its long‐term land development. It mentions how most expected growth during the General Plan timeline (2015-2020) will consist of infill development already served by existing roadways, with pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways integrated into developments designated as residential. At the same time, the Element also includes the following guideline regarding possible annexation of unincorporated lands:
 Strategy 6.A.2: Expand circulation and public utilities infrastructure to enhance the feasibility of annexation of the remainder of Barstow Heights at the earliest feasible date beyond the 2020 General Plan horizon date.

2.5.2 BARSTOW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP) (2018)
The Barstow Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted in 2018 to improve the overall walking and bicycling environment of the City. Goals of the Plan include expanding the safety and efficiency of the current circulation network, improving traffic flow and air quality by implementing facilities designed to encourage non-motorized transportation, and outlining the community-wide benefits of active transportation through education and outreach.

EDUCATIONAL SAFETY PROGRAMS
The Plan includes a supplemental Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan, which aims to make improvements regarding the safety, well-being, and health of youth by making walking or bicycling to school more accessible.

School-based educational programs recommended by the SRTS Plan include bicycle rodeos, walk/bike to school days, and enforcement campaigns. Beyond children’s education, the Plan recommends a pedestrian education campaign where posters/signs related to speeding and yielding to pedestrians can be placed around the community, as well as bicycle safety and repair training for all ages. Educating law enforcement officers on new regulations that impact walking and biking is also encouraged.

IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING FACILITIES
The Plan identifies a ranked list of corridors throughout the City that require improvements to their active transportation-related infrastructure. These corridors were ranked by greatest improvement need and were judged on criteria such as number of schools present, number of residents who walk/bike to work, and number of bike/pedestrian-related collisions. It is the goal of the Plan that these corridors link together to form a complete network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Figure 2.5 illustrates the proposed bicycle facilities identified in the Barstow ATP.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 11
Figure 2.5: Proposed Bicycle Network in Barstow
Source: Barstow Active Transportation Plan (2018)

COUNTERMEASURES
The Plan cites a number of potential infrastructure improvements that can improve pedestrian and cyclist safety on the corridors identified in Figure 2.5. These include the following:
 Class I-IV Bike Lanes
 Bike Signal Heads
 ADA Curb Ramps
 High-Visibility Crosswalks
 Mid-Block Crossings
 Speed Feedback Signs
 Curb Extensions
 Traffic Circle
 Road Diets

2.5.3 SBCTA NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2011)
The SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) outlines a cohesive, integrated vision to guide the development and management of a safe, interconnected walking and cycling system throughout San Bernardino County. The Plan proposes a series of goals including increasing bicycle and pedestrian access,

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 12
increasing travel by cycling and walking, promoting the accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians in land use/transportation planning decisions, and improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

IMPLEMENTATION GOALS AND EXAMPLES
The following implementation goals are considered a priority by the Plan:
 Deliver a Class I backbone bicycle system
 Develop better bicycle connectivity between cities and suburban areas of the County  Increase connectivity in Class II and Class III bicycle facilities  Develop a better “sense of a system” through improved signage, markings, and wayfinding for both cyclists and pedestrians
 Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking accommodations with the State’s Complete Streets requirements
 Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking access accommodations to and from transit stations
Additionally, the following implementation examples are recommended by the Plan:
 Class I-IV Bicycle Facilities
 Bicycle route signage/markings
 Bicycle Boxes
 Rumble Strips
 Shoulder Widening
 Street Narrowing
 Raised Intersections
 Corner and Mid-block bulb-outs

2.5.4 OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AND CULTURAL DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (2016) The Downtown Business and Cultural District Specific Plan aims to reenergize historic Route 66 through Barstow, also known as Main Street, between State Route 58 (SR-58) and Interstate 40 (I-40). Specially designated “pedestrian zones” are included at key locations along the route, and feature wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and street medians.

The following policies/strategies included in the Plan are relevant to the goals of the LRSP:
 Policy 1-B: Complete the Bicycle Network as described in the General Plan.  Strategy 3.B.3: Promote pedestrian-oriented uses, compact and walkable development patterns and intact building frontages throughout the district.

SPANISH TRAIL SPECIFIC PLAN (2010)
The Spanish Trail Specific Plan provides for the creation of a mixed-use commercial center serving both residents and travelers arriving via Interstates 15 (I-15) and 40 (I-40). The Plan encourages the minimization of intra-area motor travel and the use of carpool and alternative fuel vehicles, while also promoting pedestrian,

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 13
bicycle, and public transportation travel. Proposed implementations include the creation of a Class I bicycle pathway along the east side of Spanish Trail Parkway connecting to the citywide bicycle network, as well as designating the proposed axis of the internal roadway network, Armijo Drive, as a Class III bicycle route. City sidewalks within the specific plan area will additionally be augmented by an interpretive pathway approximately one-quarter mile in length that intersects with a linear pedestrian pathway on the eastern periphery of the project area.

BARSTOW INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY PROJECT
The Barstow International Gateway Project calls for the construction of a master-planned integrated rail facility on the west side of the City of Barstow. This facility will allow shipping containers arriving to/from the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles via the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline to be processed and shipped either east or west more efficiently. The intended goal of the Project is reducing the need for inefficient truck trips, which can positively impact Barstow residents by removing large trucks from the roadway and minimizing the risk of collisions with non-vehicular road users. The proposed Project area, located west of the City’s main downtown area on undeveloped land, was similarly chosen to reduce the risk of collisions between trucks and residents.

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 14

3.0 METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology involved in collision analysis and countermeasure recommendation.

3.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
Collision data was collected for all citywide collision trends between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), which tracks safety trends statewide, contributed collision summaries for the years 2020 through 2022 for Barstow and cities in California with a similar population.

3.1.1 SWITRS
The California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS collects and processes data on reported collisions throughout the State of California. The online SWITRS application provides geographically and temporally targeted collision reports in an electronic format. SWITRS was used to evaluate data on collisions in the City of Barstow between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, both in aggregate and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and mid-block locations).

The SWITRS dataset is hierarchical, and is composed of three tables, Collision, Party, and Victim. The Collisions table contains information on each collision, with only one entry per collision. The Party tables contain information from all parties involved in the collision, one line per party. Parties are the major players in traffic collisions - drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and parked vehicles. The information includes personal descriptors and vehicle descriptors. The Victim table contains information about the people associated with each party. For example, a collision where both a driver and their passenger were injured will have separate entries for each victim in the Victim table. Injury severity is included in the Collision and Victim tables.

Collision analysis for the LRSP includes information primarily from the Collision and Party tables. If there is a specific need, information from the Victim tables will be aggregated to the Party or Collision level as required.

3.1.2 OTS
The OTS Safety Rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in California with similar populations, with a focus on the number of collisions where people are killed or seriously injured (KSI). Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they are improving traffic safety outcomes, and where they can make improvements. It is important to note that the OTS Safety Rankings use a count of collisions, not individual people, when creating their rankings. Unless specifically noted, this report will use the same approach, referring to the number of collisions that have occurred.

3.2 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
In addition to using analytical methods to identify locations for treatments and make recommendations, the LRSP also focuses on partnerships with the community to give input into this process and provide feedback on areas that the LRSP should focus on. Stakeholders were contacted after completing the initial collision analysis but before selecting emphasis areas or specific infrastructure improvements or programs. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback about traffic safety issues they have observed through their work and possible approaches to resolving these issues. For the Barstow LRSP, feedback was provided by Barstow Police Department (BPD), Barstow Street Committee (BSC), Barstow Unified School District (BUSD), Caltrans (District 8), Barstow Fire Protection District (BFPD), Barstow Community College (BCC), and Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA). This outreach group served as an advisory committee to inform the LRSP team about other

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 15
roadway safety issues they were aware of but did not necessarily arise from collision data analysis alone.

3.3 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Collision data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the SWITRS collision database. The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, collision type, collision severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any of the parties suffer an injury or fatality. Traffic collisions that had little or no property damage and no apparent injuries are often not reported; even though they do occur, they are not entered into SWITRS and are not reflected in the analysis.

Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Version 1.7, April 2024 (LRSM) encourages a pro-active, rather than reactive, approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent collisions, specific collision concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. A pro-active approach is preferred, according to the LRSM, because with traditional methods, “collision concentrations and collision trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort.” A proactive approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any of the following three factors:
 An extensive collision history at high-collision frequency locations providing insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of collisions.  Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to address identified safety issues.
 Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with roadway characteristics associated with similar types of collisions regardless of their collision history.

Locations that conform to one or more of the three factors above can be considered "high-risk" for the purposes of the LRSP's analysis; “risk” is assessed within the context of all locations within Barstow. This does not discount the fact that other individual behaviors of a roadway can also contribute to increased risk when driving, riding or walking. The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent collision data. Five years-worth of collision data from January 2019 to December 2023 was reviewed for the Barstow LRSP. Five years of collision data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

3.3.1 RANKING FUNCTION
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Three ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments: Average Collision Frequency, Collision Rate, and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

3.3.2 AVERAGE COLLISION FREQUENCY
Average Collision Frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 16
numbers of collisions at each location in the roadway network, both in aggregate and by a category of interest (e.g. level of severity, collision type, and others). The analysis then ranks intersections or roadway segments based on the collisions’ frequency.

3.3.3 COLLISION RATE
The Collision Rate method goes a step beyond average collision frequency, normalizing facilities’ collision frequency by the amount of vehicle traffic or travel. This method divides the number of collisions (or collisions in a particular category) by the quantity of Million Entering Vehicles (for intersections) or 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (for roadway segments). While the Collision Rate method accounts for differences in facilities’ length and traffic volume, it may instead unduly favor low-volume and low-collision roadways where countermeasures produce the lowest net benefit for the largest number of roadway users. Collision rates are typically normalized using automobile traffic volumes or VMT; bicycle and pedestrian volumes (or accurate estimates) are often not available across the majority of intersections in most cities.

3.4 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking intersections and roadway segments based on collision frequency and severity, the following steps were taken to identify and propose appropriate engineering countermeasures:
 Develop citywide collision maps to visualize concentrations of broadside, rear-end, pedestrian, bicycle, and unsafe speed-related collisions. Locations with high crash density by type are prioritized for further evaluation.
 Analyze collision records, including movement prior to collision, primary collision factor (PCF), lighting conditions, and involved parties. Special attention was given to nighttime crashes, vulnerable road user incidents, and crashes involving visibility or turning conflicts.  Reviewed fatal and severe injury collisions through available SWITRS data, including reviewing narratives and details where accessible to assess contributing roadway or behavioral factors.  Conduct field visits to high-collision locations to assess traffic control devices, signal visibility, crosswalk placement, intersection geometry, and driveway access.
 Review current conditions and recent historical conditions via Google Map Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years.
 Use the CMF Clearinghouse and Safe System principles to screen and match countermeasures with observed collision patterns and roadway configurations.  Compared lower-volume intersections that share geometric or operational characteristics with highcrash sites to identify proactive locations for systemic countermeasures.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 17

3.3.4 EPDO SCORES
EPDO scores assign weighting factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The weight generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the cost of fatal/severe injury collisions and non-severe injury collisions. The weights by collision severity come from the 2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual.

Table 3.1: Collision Values and EPDO Score
Collision Severity Location Type Collision Cost EPDO Score Value Fatality (K) and Severe Injury (A)
Signalized Intersection $2,162,000 119.93
Non-Signalized Intersection $3,440,000 190.81
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,978,000 165.17
Evident Injury - Other Visible (B) $193,000 10.73
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) $110,000 6.10
Property Damage Only (O) $18,000 1.00
Source: Appendix D of the Caltrans LRSM, 2024
EPDO scores are useful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location’s EPDO score could be inflated by a fatal or severe collision caused by Driving Under the Influence (DUI), which may not be related to the collision location's safety risk factors (i.e. high-speed arterial or blind curve), traffic safety infrastructure or other contributing factors in the collision.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS Collision data from the California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS database was reviewed to evaluate the City of Barstow’s collision trends for a five-year period between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. Additionally, the California OTS data from 2017 to 2022 was reviewed.

4.1 TOTAL COLLISIONS AND KSI COLLISIONS
The collision trend analysis draws from five years of data obtained from the SWITRS database. From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023, a total of 1,729 collisions occurred within the City of Barstow, including both City streets and state highways. However, for this analysis, the collisions are only reported for local streets, as state highways fall outside the City’s immediate jurisdiction. When excluding collisions on SR-58, SR-247, I-15, and I40, a total of 1,001 collisions occurred on local streets, 69 of which resulted in fatal or severe injuries.

Overall, collision totals remained relatively consistent between 2019 and 2023 as illustrated in Figure 4.1 Starting in 2022, collisions declined to a larger degree, by 34%, and again increased slightly in 2023 by 3%.

Over this period, automobile collisions showed variability, with an increase in 2021 of 14%, followed by a notable decrease in 2022, as shown in Figure 4.2.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 18
Figure 4.1: Total Collisions by Year
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
231
210
239
158 163
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Collisions
Year
Total Collisions in Barstow

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 19
Figure 4.2: Automobile-Only Collisions by Year
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Collision data for 2020 may have been affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, between December 2019 and December 2020, travel in California dropped by nearly 66%.1 Furthermore, collisions resulting in injury or fatality dropped 42% statewide when comparing March 2019 to March 2020 after restrictions were enacted.2 Due to this, there is less emphasis placed on time-series analysis of the data, and a reduction in collisions should not be wholly attributed to recently implemented countermeasures alone, especially for 2020.

1 U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Mobility over Time: California. https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/covidrelated/mobility-over-time-national-or-state 2 UC Davis Road Ecology Center. Special Report: Impact of COVID-19 on California Traffic Accidents. https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk8611/files/files/COVID_CHIPs_Impacts_updated.pdf 206 201
221
146 142
0 50
100
150
200
250
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Collisions
Year
Total Automobile Collisions

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 20
Figure 4.3 highlights pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, and truck-involved collisions per year. Pedestrian collisions exhibited variability, with a significant decrease between 2019 and 2020 (a decline of 60%), followed by a sharp increase in 2023, which reached a five-year high. Bicycle collisions trended downward, with no reported incidents in 2023, marking a 100% decrease compared to 2019. Motorcycle collisions remained relatively steady, with minor fluctuations, showing a slight increase between 2019 and 2021, followed by stable figures in 2022 and 2023. Lastly, Truck collisions followed a general decline over the five-year period, decreasing by 85% from 2019 to 2023.

Figure 4.3: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Truck Collisions by Year Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
20 8
18 8
21 5
1 1
4 0
4 7
8 7
8 13
7 5
2 2
0 5
10 15
20 25
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Collisions
Year
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Truck

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 21
Figure 4.4 illustrates the total number of traffic injuries and deaths over the five-year period. The number of injuries showed variability rather than a steady decline, with visible injuries remaining consistent between 12 and 16 collisions annually. However, complaints of pain dropped significantly from 28 collisions in 2019 to 12 in 2023, representing a 57% decrease. Property damage-only collisions also experienced a decline, dropping from 177 incidents in 2019 to 121 in 2023, a 32% reduction. In comparison, the number of deaths and severe injuries over the same period were less predictable. Fatal collisions fluctuated, with only three collisions in 2020, but peaked in 2023 at six collisions.

Figure 4.4: Annual Collisions by Severity
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
5 3
4 5
6 9
8 13
7 9
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
0 50
100
150
200
250
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
KSI Collisions
Non-KSI Collisions
Year
Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Fatal Sever Injury

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 22
Figure 4.5 illustrates the percentage of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions relative to the share of all collisions by mode, illustrating that more vulnerable road users – such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists – are disproportionately represented in severe and fatal collisions compared to their overall collisions rate. Pedestrians account for 7% of all collisions but 41% of KSI collisions, while bicyclists represent 1% of all collisions and 3% of KSI collisions. Motorcyclists make up 3% of all collisions and 12% of KSI collisions, whereas automobiles comprise 85% of all collisions and 45% of KSI collisions. While automobile collisions dominate the overall crash data, their lower proportional share of KSI incidents suggests that vehicle occupants benefit from greater protection. These results highlight the disproportionate severity of collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists compared to other road users.

Figure 4.5: Collisions by Travel Mode, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
7%
1% 3% 3%
85%
41%
3%
12%
0%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Pedestrain Bicycle Motorcycle Truck Auto
Share of Collisions
Transportation Mode
All Collisions KSI Collisions

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 23
Figure 4.6 summarizes all collisions by type, as well as each collision type’s share of KSI collisions. Even though broadside collisions are the most frequent collision type, accounting for approximately 32% of the total collisions, it represents only a 5% share of the KSI collisions. Hit object collisions follow closely, making up 27% of total collisions, but also only 5% of KSI collisions. Rear-end (22%) and Sideswipe (18%) collisions, although have similar frequency in overall collisions, both have a rate of 1% KSI, suggesting less severe outcomes.

Collision types with a higher share of KSI collisions include head-on (10% KSI), vehicle/pedestrian (32% KSI), and overturned (22% KSI) collisions. Most notably, vehicle/pedestrian collisions, which account for only 10% of total collisions, contribute to 32% of all KSI collisions, making them the most severe crash type. Overturned crashes also show a significant disparity, with only 2% of total crashes but 22% of KSI collisions.

Figure 4.6: Collision Share by Type, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
5% 5%
1% 1%
10%
32%
9%
11%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Share of Collisions
Collisions
Collision Type
Total Collisions KSI Collisions

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 24
Figure 4.7 summarizes all collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), as well as each factor’s share of KSI collisions. PCF is the one element or driving action that best describes the primary or main cause of the collision, based on the conclusion of the responding officer after completing the investigation and preparing the report. Among all collisions, Unsafe Speed (29%), Improper Turning (17%), Automobile Right-of-Way (14%), and Traffic Signal and Signs (8%) were the top four primary collision factors.

However, when comparing the share of total collisions to the share of collisions where a person was killed or severely injured (KSI), several concerns stand out. If the level of risk for all roadway users was equal, it would be expected that the share of KSI collisions would be equal for various PCFs, regardless of mode. However, since non-automotive roadway users are more vulnerable to injury and death than those in vehicles (due to the presence of multiple safety systems in most vehicles, including seatbelts, airbags, and the vehicle frame and body which absorb impact forces), some PCFs will carry a higher share of KSI collisions versus all collisions.

Pedestrian violation collisions comprise only 4% of all collisions, but are 23% of KSI collisions, indicating that there is a higher risk of injury or death for people walking. This is worth noting because pedestrian collisions only occur when they come into conflict with vehicles within the roadway. Vehicle paths of travel are entirely within the roadway, where they primarily conflict with other automobiles, motorcycles, or bicycles.

Other factors such as driving or bicycling under the influence (7% of total crashes, 1% of KSI crashes), traffic signal and sign violations (8% of total crashes, 6% of KSI crashes), and unsafe starting or backing (3% of total crashes, 1% of KSI crashes) appear to have relatively lower risks of severe outcomes.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 25
Figure 4.7: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
4%
1%
0%
3%
1%
4%
23%
7%
1%
6%
13%
7%
28%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
4%
5%
7%
8%
14%
17%
29%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Wrong side of the road
Other Improper Driving
Unsafe Lane Change
Pedestrian ROW
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Not Stated
Pedestrian Violation
Unknown
Driving/Bicycling under the
influence
Traffic Signal and Signs
Autombile ROW
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Share of Collisions
Collision Factor
All Collisions
KSI

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 26
Of the top four collision types (broadside, hit-object, rear-end, and sideswipe), the main causes of these types of collisions are summarized in Figure 4.8. The leading primary collision factor (PCF) overall is Unsafe Speed, accounting for 29% of all crashes, particularly dominant in rear-end (53%) and hit-object (40%) collisions.

Improper Turning is the second most common PCF, contributing to 17% of all crashes and playing a key role in sideswipe (32%) and broadside (17%) collisions. Automobile Right-of-Way violations make up 14% of all collisions and are the primary cause of broadside crashes (38%). Driving or bicycling under the influence appears in 7% of all collisions and is consistently present across all four top collision types, reinforcing its ongoing role in traffic incidents. Traffic Signal and Sign violations account for 8% of all crashes and are a significant factor in broadside collisions (23%), suggesting a need for improved intersection control measures.

Additionally, right-of-way violations and improper turning movements appear across multiple collision types, highlighting the need for targeted interventions such as improved signage, striping, and enforcement strategies. In Figure 4.8, PCF categories highlighted in color are present across multiple collision types, indicating common behaviors that may require countermeasure approaches focusing on driver decisionmaking.

Figure 4.8: Top Collision Types and Primary Collision Factors Source: SWITRS, 2017-2023
7%
8%
14%
18%
32%
4%
5%
10%
11%
53%
4%
7%
9%
21%
40%
3%
9%
17%
23%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Unsafe Lane Change
Driving/Bicycling Under Influence
Automobile ROW
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown
Improper Turning
Driving/Bicycling Under Influence
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown
Driving/Bicycling Under Influence
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Driving/Bicycling Under Influence
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Automobile ROW
Sideswipe Rear-End Hit Object Broadside

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 27
Figure 4.9 assesses lighting conditions for all collisions and KSI collisions. Most collisions occur during daylight (560 collisions); however, only 4% of these result in KSI collisions. Collisions that occur in dark conditions with streetlights (324 collisions) have a higher likelihood of being severe, with 14% resulting in KSI collisions.

Similarly, collisions in dark conditions without streetlights (64 collisions) account for 7% of KSI collisions.

Dusk/dawn conditions (42 collisions) also show a 4% KSI rate. Notably, there were no reported KSI collisions in areas where streetlights were not functioning or where lighting conditions were not stated. The data suggests that while the highest number of collisions occur in daylight, the risk of severe injury or fatality is elevated in dark conditions, particularly in areas with streetlights.

Figure 4.9: Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023

4.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
Collision patterns by facility type (intersections vs. mid-block locations) were analyzed by using SWITRS data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. This analysis was used to determine the effect of access control and intersection geometry on collision frequency. Intersections are defined as crossing points involving streets, alleyways, or signalized commercial driveways. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:
 Collisions that occur within 150 feet of an intersection are considered intersection collisions.  Collisions that occur more than 150 feet away from an intersection are classified as mid-block collisions.

Table 4.1 shows the total number of collisions associated with each type of facility. Between 2019-2023, 80% of Barstow’s reported collisions occurred within 150 feet of an intersection, while the remaining 20% took place at mid-block locations. Vulnerable road users were disproportionately affected, with 91% of bicyclist collisions 4%
14%
7%
27%
0% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Share of Collisions
Collisions
Lighting Condition
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Total Collisions KSI Collisions

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 28
and 73% of pedestrian collisions occurring at intersections.

Notably, pedestrians experienced a relatively higher share of mid-block collisions (27% of pedestrian incidents) compared to bicyclists (9% of bicycle incidents). This overall distribution indicates that intersections represent the predominant collision location for all road users, while mid-block locations remain an area of concern particularly for pedestrians.

Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type
Collision Type
Intersection Mid-Block
Total
Collisions % of type Collisions % of type
All Collisions 800 80% 201 20% 1,001
Bicycle Collisions 10 91% 1 9% 11
Pedestrian Collisions 55 73% 20 27% 75
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Table 4.2 shows how the collision type share varies by location. Broadside collisions comprise the largest share of collisions at intersections (28%), followed by hit object (19%) and rear-end (16%) collisions. At mid-block locations, hit object collisions are most prevalent (27%), with rear-end (21%) and sideswipe (13%) collisions representing the second- and third-largest categories. Vehicle/pedestrian collisions account for similar proportions at both intersections (7%) and mid-block locations (8%), while overturned collisions occur more frequently mid-block (3%) than at intersections (1%).

Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type
Collision Type Intersection Mid-Block Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions Share
Broadside 220 28% 27 13% 247 25%
Hit Object 150 19% 54 27% 204 20%
Rear-end 126 16% 43 21% 169 17%
Sideswipe 109 14% 27 13% 136 14%
Head-On 97 12% 15 7% 112 11%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 57 7% 17 8% 74 7%
Other 17 2% 5 2% 22 2%
Not Stated 13 2% 6 3% 19 2%
Overturned 11 1% 7 3% 18 2%
Total 800 100% 201 100% 1,001 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Table 4.3 tabulates the PCFs by facility type. Unsafe speed was the most common factor citywide, representing 28% of intersection collisions and 33% of mid-block collisions. At intersections, the most frequent PCFs were unsafe speed, improper turning (18%), automobile right-of-way violations (16%), and traffic signal and sign violations (9%). At mid-block locations, unsafe speed, improper turning (17%), and DUI (9%) comprised the largest categories. Traffic signal and sign violations occurred almost exclusively at intersections, while DUIrelated collisions showed a more even distribution between intersection and mid-block segments. Pedestrian

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 29
violations and other lower-frequency factors—such as unsafe starting or backing and improper driving—had relatively higher mid-block proportions, reflecting variation in contributing factors by facility type.

Table 4.3: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type
Intersection Mid-Block
Total
PCF Category Collisions % Collisions %
Unsafe Speed 225 28% 66 33% 291
Improper Turning 140 18% 35 17% 175
Automobile ROW 126 16% 19 9% 145
Traffic Signal and Signs 75 9% 2 1% 77
Driving/Bicycling under the influence 52 7% 19 9% 71
Unknown 41 5% 5 2% 46
Pedestrian Violation 28 4% 9 4% 37
Not Stated 23 3% 9 4% 32
Unsafe Starting or Backing 17 2% 9 4% 26
Pedestrian ROW 14 2% 4 2% 18
Unsafe Lane Change 13 2% 2 1% 15
Other Improper Driving 8 1% 6 3% 14
Wrong side of the road 7 1% 4 2% 11
Hazardous Parking 5 1% 3 1% 8
Other than Driver (or Pedestrian) 3 0% 5 2% 8
Following too Closely 6 1% 1 0% 7
Improper Passing 5 1% 2 1% 7
Other Hazardous Violation 6 1% 0 0% 6
Other Equipment 4 1% 0 0% 4
Brakes 2 0% 1 0% 3
Total 800 100% 201 100% 1,001
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Table 4.4 the distribution of collisions by lighting condition and facility type. Daylight conditions accounted for the majority of collisions (56% overall), representing 77% of intersection collisions but only 24% of mid-block collisions. In contrast, 64% of mid-block collisions occurred in dark conditions with street lighting, compared to just 12% of intersection collisions under the same conditions. Dark conditions without street lighting accounted for 6% of all collisions, while dusk/dawn conditions represented 4%. A single collision occurred when streetlights were present but not functioning.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 30
Table 4.4: Street Lighting and Facility Type
Lighting Condition
Intersection Mid-Block Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Daylight 463 58% 97 48% 560 56%
Dark – streetlights 254 32% 70 35% 324 32%
Dark/no streetlights 39 5% 25 12% 64 6%
Dusk/dawn 35 4% 7 3% 42 4%
Not stated 9 1% 1 0% 10 1%
Dark – streetlights not functioning 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%
Total 800 100% 201 100% 1,001 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Broadside collisions were the most prevalent collision type, accounting for nearly one-quarter (25%) of all reported collisions. This type of collision is commonly associated with right-of-way violations, unsafe turning movements, and failure to observe traffic controls—conditions often concentrated at intersections and complex conflict points. Table 4.5 indicates that intersections were the predominant setting for broadside collisions, with 220 recorded incidents. Of these, 37% were attributed to Automobile Right-of-Way (Auto ROW) violations, while mid-block locations, though fewer in number (27 incidents), exhibited a higher proportion (48%) of Auto ROW-related collisions.

While less frequent than right-of-way violations, left-turn movements were associated with 20% of intersection broadside collisions and 26% of mid-block broadside collisions. These movements represent a recurring conflict type across both facility types. The observed patterns suggest that intersection control, signal timing, and access management strategies remain critical to reducing broadside collision risk within Barstow’s roadway network.

Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type
Facility Broadside Broadside + Auto ROW % Auto ROW Left Turn % Left Turn Intersection 220 81 37% 43 20%
Mid-Block 27 13 48% 7 26%
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023

4.3 CITY OF BARSTOW – SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY COMPARISON
SWITRS data was extracted for all of San Bernardino County using the same five-year period (2019–2023) to analyze trends in Fatal and Severe Injury in the City of Barstow compared to the rest of San Bernardino County.

In order to make a meaningful comparison of the two datasets, collisions on all highways were excluded from the San Bernardino County data, as they were for City data. Highway speeds and operating conditions are significantly different from those on local roadways, with fewer turning movements, bicycle and pedestrian prohibitions, and an overall higher design and travel speed.

As shown in Table 4.6, between 2019 and 2023, the City of Barstow had a total of 1,001 collisions on City streets. With a 2020 population of 25,415, this amounts to 39,386 collisions per million residents per year over the five-year period. In comparison, San Bernardino County recorded a total of 79,777 collisions during the

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 31
same period, at a rate of 36,567 collisions per million residents per year. Although Barstow’s collision rate is only slightly higher than the countywide average, this is significant given the city's smaller size and lower vehicle miles traveled. A rate comparable to a large, diverse county suggests a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, highlighting potential roadway safety concerns.

Table 4.6: Total Collision Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County Measure San Bernardino County City of Barstow
Population (2020 Census) 2,181,654 25,415
Total Collisions 79,777 1,001
Annual Collisions per Million Residents 36,567 39,386
KSI Collisions 3,390 69
KSI (% of Total) 4.2% 6.9%
Pedestrian Collisions 2,535 75
Pedestrian (% of Total) 3.2% 7.5%
Bicycle Collisions 1,382 11
Bicycle Collisions
(% of Total) 1.7% 1.1%
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023. U.S. Decennial Census
San Bernardino County has a lower percentage of KSI collisions than the City of Barstow (311 vs. 543). However, the share of pedestrian-involved KSI collisions was slightly lower in the County (29.8%) compared to Barstow (37.3%). Conversely, bicycle-related KSI collisions were more prevalent in Barstow (18%) than Countywide (14%), likely due to roadway conditions that present higher risks for cyclists. Factors such as wide arterial roads, limited designated bicycle infrastructure, and high-speed traffic corridors contribute to these elevated risks.

Table 4.7 focuses on the distribution of KSI collisions in San Bernardino County and Barstow. Barstow also has a greater proportion of fatal KSI collisions (6.9% vs. 4.3%) and a slightly higher percentage of severe injuries (7.6% vs. 3.0%) compared to the County. Additionally, pedestrian-related collisions account for a larger share of KSI incidents in Barstow (37%) than in the County (30%), and bicycle-related KSI collisions make up 18% of incidents in Barstow, exceeding the County's 14%. These figures indicate that while pedestrian and bicycle collisions represent a smaller portion of overall crashes, they pose a historically higher risk of fatal or severe injury in Barstow compared to the broader County.

Table 4.7: KSI Collision Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County Measure San Bernardino County City of Barstow
Population (2020 Census) 2,181,654 25,415
Fatal & Severe Collisions (KSI) 3,390 69
Annual KSI Collisions per Million Residents 311 543
Fatal Collisions 988 23
Fatal (% of KSI) 29.1% 33.3%
Severe Injury Collisions 2,402 46
Severe Injury (% of KSI) 70.9% 66.7%
Pedestrian KSI Collisions 756 28

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 32
Measure San Bernardino County City of Barstow
Pedestrian (% of KSI) 22.3% 40.6%
Bicycle KSI Collisions 194 2
Bicycle KSI Collisions (% of KSI) 5.7% 2.9%
Source: SWITRS, 2019-2023
Table 4.8 compares the distribution of collision types on local roads (2019-2023). Relative to the County, Barstow shows lower shares of broadside and rear-end collisions and higher shares of head-on, hit-object, and vehicle/pedestrian collisions—indicating more roadway-departure/segment conflicts and greater pedestrian involvement, even though intersections remain the predominant crash context. The Difference column (Barstow count as a % of County count) reinforces this pattern: vehicle/pedestrian presents the highest relative contribution (3.1%), while most other types cluster around 1–2%. Read alongside Table 4.8, these results point to prioritizing speed management, centerline/edge delineation and access control on key segments, and high visibility/protected crossings at locations with concentrated pedestrian risk.

Table 4.8: Collision Type Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County Collision Type San Bernardino County City of Barstow Difference Broadside 24,669 247 1.0%
Head-On 5,894 112 1.9%
Hit-Object 12,542 204 1.6%
Not Stated 776 19 2.4%
Other 1,200 22 1.8%
Overturned 1,804 18 1.0%
Rear End 18,047 169 0.9%
Sideswipe 12,426 136 1.1%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 2,419 74 3.1%

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 33
Table 4.9 compares PCFs on local roads (2019–2023). Barstow’s top PCFs mirror the County—Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, and Automobile Right-of-Way. Barstow shows higher relative contributions in pedestrianrelated violations (Pedestrian Right-of-Way and Pedestrian Violation) and several low-frequency behaviors (e.g., Improper Passing, Other Equipment), indicating elevated risk at pedestrian conflict points and occasional passing/visibility issues on segments. Values in Difference reflects PCF prominence relative to the County.

Table 4.9: PCF Comparison, City of Barstow vs. San Bernardino County Primary Collision Factor (PCF) San Bernardino County City of Barstow Difference Unsafe Speed 19,150 291 1.5%
Improper Turning 16,279 175 1.1%
Automobile ROW 13,627 145 1.1%
Under the Influence 6,794 71 1.0%
Unsafe Lane Change 1,842 15 0.8%
Traffic Signals and Signs 8,484 77 0.9%
Unknown 2,694 46 1.7%
Unsafe Starting / Backing 2,249 26 1.2%
Other Than Driver / Ped 1,027 8 0%
Wrong Side of Road 2,244 11 0.5%
Pedestrian Right of Way 558 18 3.2%
Pedestrian Violation 1,210 37 3.1%
Other Hazardous Parking 513 8 1.6%
Improper Passing 67 7 10.4%
Other Equipment 97 4 4.1%
Lights 988 0 0%
Following Too Closely 663 7 21.4%
Not Stated 584 32 5.5%

4.4 CITY OF BARSTOW VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE
In the California OTS Collision Ranking system, the City of Barstow was classified under Group D for the 2020 and 2021 reporting years, and in Group E for 2022.
 Group D included 91 cities in 2020 and 93 cities in 2021, generally representing populations between 25,001 and 50,000.
 Group E included 104 cities in 2022, with populations ranging between 10,001 and 25,000.

Table 4.10 shows the City’s 2020–2022 collisions rankings among peer cities (1 being the highest/worst and the last number in each group being the lowest/best). The City ranked high (i.e., worse relative position) in several categories that align with issues identified through the citywide collision analysis.  In 2022, Barstow ranked 73rd of 104 cities for total fatal and injury collisions, 78th for alcohol-involved collisions, and 70th for speed-related collisions, showing improvement relative to prior years.

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 34
 The City’s composite ranking (alcohol, speed, nighttime, hit-and-run, and DUI-related crashes) improved from 17th in 2020 to 82nd in 2022, indicating a significant overall reduction in high-risk collision factors.
 Pedestrian-involved collisions improved from 6th in 2021 to 31st in 2022, with no recorded pedestrian collisions involving children under 15 (98th) or seniors over 65 (100th).

These rankings illustrate measurable gains in roadway safety outcomes citywide, particularly in reducing alcohol-related and speed-related collisions. Continued emphasis on pedestrian and intersection safety, along with targeted enforcement of impaired driving, will be critical to sustaining this positive trajectory

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 35
Table 4.10: OTS Collision Categories Comparison, City of Barstow vs. Cities of Similar Size Category
2020 2021 2022
Victims
Killed &
Injured
OTS Rank
Victims
Killed &
Injured
OTS Rank
Victims
Killed &
Injured
OTS Rank
Total Fatal and Injury 56 58/91 65 63/93 58 73/104
Alcohol Involved* 12 22/91 11 38/93 4 78/104
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21* 0 37/91 0 59/93 0 103/104 Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34* 4 19/91 7 20/93 2 71/104 Motorcycles 5 26/91 6 27/93 4 56/104
Pedestrians 6 35/91 16 6/93 10 31/104
Pedestrians < 15 3 3/91 2 4/93 0 98/104
Pedestrians 65+ 0 60/91 2 14/93 0 100/104
Bicyclists 0 90/91 1 81/93 3 67/104
Bicyclists < 15 0 49/91 0 53/93 1 38/104
Composite 46 17/91 53 30/93 26 82/104
Other Collision Categories
Category
Fatal &
Injury
Crashes
OTS Rank
Fatal &
Injury
Crashes
OTS Rank
Fatal &
Injury
Crashes
OTS Rank
Speed Related* 13 32/91 17 32/93 8 70/104
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am)* 9 25/21 9 34/93 8 55/104
Hit and Run* 8 29/91 9 24/93 4 65/104
Other Measures
Category Arrests OTS Rank Arrests OTS Rank Arrests OTS Rank DUI Arrests 55 56/91 54 56/93 36 41/104
Daily VMT 258,414 255,349 255,411
Fatal/Injury Collisions/1,000,000 VMT 217 255 227
*OTS aggregates these indicators to produce the Composite collision total.

Source: OTS Crash Rankings 2020, 2021, 2022

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 36

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the LRSP. The emphasis areas provide the City of Barstow with areas to focus on when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The implementation of the emphasis areas should directly relate to the goals, policies, and strategies of the LRSP.

Based on the collision data analysis and trends in the OTS rankings, the following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified:
 Pedestrian Safety
 Motorcycle Safety
 Bicyclist Safety
According to Table 5.1, the 2019-2023 collision data show concerns of high KSI rates for pedestrians and motorcyclists similar to OTS’s comparison in Table 4.10. While the previous table compared to similar sized cities, Table 5.1 compares to the entire state of California for an additional perspective of Barstow’s roadway safety. When comparing to the statewide rates, Bicyclist KSI rates also rise to the top, inferring that Barstow’s emphasis areas should focus on Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), users who rely on transportation modes aside of the vehicle. While Intersection-related collisions are very common in Barstow, KSI rates are lower compared to statewide KSI rates for intersection collisions.

Table 5.1Barstow KSI Collision Emphasis Areas Compared to Statewide Averages (2019–2023) Emphasis Areas
Statewide
Comparisons Barstow resulting in KSI Statewide resulting in KSI Pedestrian Higher 37.33% 18.90%
Motorcycle Higher 23.50% 20.80%
Bicyclists Higher 16.70% 7.30%
Lane Departure Lower 15.70% 42.10%
Aging Driver Lower 11.54% 12.80%
Impaired Driving Lower 10.29% 23.90%
Intersection Lower 6.49% 24.30%
Young Driver Lower 5.00% 12.10%

5.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Pedestrian-involved collisions are a concerning issue at multiple locations throughout the City. Despite accounting for only 7% of total recorded cases, collisions in this category make up approximately 40% of all KSI collisions recorded during the study period. As shown in Figure 5.1, many of these KSI collisions took place at intersections found along major corridors and on smaller neighborhood streets. As with collisions involving unsafe speeds, both Figures 5.1 and 5.2 also reveal a high number of pedestrian-involved collisions along Main Street.

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 37
Figure 5.1: Pedestrian Collision Distribution, East of Highway 58

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 38
Figure 5.2: Pedestrian Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 39

5.4 MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Similar to pedestrian-involved collisions, motorcycle collisions were also overrepresented in the KSI category.

Although accounting for 3% of total collisions, these cases made up 12% of collisions resulting in a fatality or serious injury. Note that about half of all motorcycle collisions were associated with Unsafe Speeds as a PCF.

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 confirm that most motorcycle-involved collisions are categorized KSI and took place at a variety of locations ranging from the Main Street corridor to smaller intersections located in neighborhoods.

Figure 5.3: Motorcycle Collision Distribution, East of Highway 58

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 40
Figure 5.4: Motorcycle Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 41

5.5 BICYCLIST DRIVER SAFETY
Collisions involving bicyclists saw a slight overrepresentation in their share of total KSI collisions compared to total overall collisions (3% vs. 1%, respectively). While bicyclist collisions are relatively few in number, they have a high risk of resulting in KSI, similar to pedestrian and motorcyclist collisions. Both Figure 5.5 and 5.6 reveal a high concentration of collisions (both KSI and non-KSI) along Main Street.

Figure 5.5: Bicycle Collisions Distribution, East of Highway 58

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 42
Figure 5.6: Bicycle Collision Distribution, West of Highway 58

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 43

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The City of Barstow has made ongoing efforts to improve roadway safety, particularly focused on reducing severe and fatal collisions involving vulnerable road users. Multiple pursuits have been secured through California’s Active Transportation (ATP) and federal HSIP opportunities.

6.1 EXISTING PROJECTS AND CONTEXT
Some existing locations identified by the City that are slated for improvements:
 East Main Street & Yucca Avenue: systemic intersection improvements  Barstow Road & Rimrock Road: systemic intersection improvements, and left-turn phasing implementation at the signal (with Caltrans assistance)  Main Street, from Muriel Drive to Yucca Avenue: active transportation improvements Note that since these locations are already identified for improvements, they are not included in this LRSP as showcase projects.

The recommended engineering countermeasures (physical or operational improvements made in the public right of way to enhance transportation safety) build upon ongoing safety efforts and aim to address the most common collision patterns identified in Barstow from 2019 to 2023, based on a comprehensive analysis of SWITRS data:
 Rear-end collisions due to unsafe speeds
 Sideswipe collisions due to improper turning or passing  Broadside collisions due to automobile right-of-way violations  Broadside collisions due to failure to obey traffic signals and signs  Hit-object collisions due to improper passing
Countermeasure recommendations are targeted at intersections and unsafe speeds, the most common facility type, and the most common PCF associated with Barstow’s collisions. Countermeasures focusing on Safety Emphasis Areas as established in Section 5 are also included. Safety countermeasures should be seen as a toolkit of potential countermeasures for their corresponding category. Their applicability for specific locations will depend on the following:
 Physical context
 Collision severity
 Involved parties, especially bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists  Primary collision factors
 Movements of the involved parties preceding the occurrence of the collision Each toolkit table summarizes each countermeasure’s applicable collision types, collision reduction factor (CRF), project life of the recommended improvement, maximum federal reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach. The project life is used to estimate the number of collisions to include in Benefit-Cost Ratio (e.g. a project life of 20 years would mean that the number of collisions estimated to occur in a 20-year time frame should be included in the benefit calculation).

The countermeasure numbers (far left column) in Table 6.1 represent the ID number for the types of improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Throughout this document, countermeasures eligible for HSIP funding will have the ID number, and those that are not eligible will not have an ID number.

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 44
Note that engineering countermeasures addressing “All” types of collisions apply to motorcycles as they operate on the same infrastructure as other vehicles.

6.1 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY

6.1.1 COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS
While pedestrian-involved collisions comprised only 7% of total collisions in Barstow, they accounted for 41% of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions. Of these collisions, approximately 49% were attributed to pedestrian violations, while 24% were caused by drivers failing to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, with the remainder associated with other driver-related factors. Bicycle-involved collisions represented just 1% of all reported collisions, yet they accounted for nearly 3% of KSI collisions. Most bicycle collisions (91%) occurred at intersections, with broadside and sideswipe crashes being the most common patterns.

SWITRS data on pedestrian-involved collisions is limited by the way these crashes are categorized. Unlike other collisions, which may be coded with a wide range of Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) such as unsafe speed, DUI, or improper turning, all pedestrian-involved collisions are classified under either “pedestrian violation” (indicating the pedestrian was at fault) or “pedestrian right-of-way violation” (indicating the driver was at fault).

Similarly, all pedestrian-involved collisions are grouped into the “vehicle-pedestrian” collision type. This categorization simplifies the typical range of PCF and collision type information and limits the availability of secondary details that could provide additional context to individual crashes.

6.1.2 COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Countermeasures to address pedestrian safety should focus on increasing visibility both at intersections and mid-block crossings, create delineated spaces within roadways and intersections for pedestrians, and make geometric changes to intersections when necessary to place pedestrians in a safer position that reduces movement conflicts with vehicles. Table 6.1 describes these countermeasures.

Table 6.1: Recommended Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) Signalized Intersections
SI18PB Install Pedestrian
Countdown Signal Heads
Install a pedestrian countdown
signal containing a timer display
that counts down the number of
seconds left to finish crossing the
street.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 25% 20
SI19PB Install Pedestrian Crossing
(S.I.)
Install or create a new marked
crosswalk. Pedestrian & Bicycle 25% 20
SI20PB Pedestrian Scramble
Create a signal phase where
pedestrians can cross in all
directions while all vehicle traffic is
stopped; remove pedestrian walk
phase when vehicles are moving.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 40% 20

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 45
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) SI22PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Gives pedestrians the opportunity to
enter an intersection 3-7 seconds
before vehicles are given a green
indication.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 60% 10
Non-signalized Intersections
NS21PB Install raised medians
(refuge islands)
Create a protected space for
pedestrians to wait in an
intersection, so they can cross each
street direction one at a time rather
than waiting for both directions to
clear simultaneously.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 45% 20
NS22PB
Install Pedestrian Crossing
at Uncontrolled Location
(signs and markings only)
Install or create a new marked
crosswalk and associated signage at
an unsignalized intersection.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 25% 10
NS23PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Install or create a new marked
crosswalk with features such as
continental striping, set-back yield
bars, and additional lane markings.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 35% 20
R36PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)
NS24PB Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Install signage with flashing lights
that are activated by a pedestrian
push button to warn drivers of
pedestrians actively crossing.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 35% 20
R38PB
NS25PB
Install Pedestrian Signal
(including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))
Install an overhead flashing beacon
activated by pedestrian push button
to warn drivers of pedestrians
actively crossing.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 55% 20
All Intersections
N/A*Install Curb Bulb-Outs
Extend the pedestrian waiting area
into the crosswalk to shorten
crossing distances and improve
pedestrian sight lines/visibility while
calming adjacent traffic.

N/A
Roadways
R37PB Install Raised Pedestrian
Crossing
Install or create a raised walkway to
increase pedestrian visibility. Pedestrian & Bicycle 35% 20

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 46
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) R35PB
Install Sidewalk/Pathway (to
avoid walking along
roadway)
Provides pedestrians with space to
travel within the public right-of-way
that is separated from roadway
vehicles.

Pedestrian & Bicycle 80% 20
*Not an HSIP-eligible countermeasure.

Source: Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.7 April 2024

6.2 UNSAFE SPEEDS

6.2.1 COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS
The most common combination of collision type and Primary Collision Factor (PCF) in Barstow are rear-end collisions due to unsafe speeds. Among collisions with unsafe speed as the primary factor, hit-object collisions were the second most frequent, followed by smaller shares of sideswipe, broadside, and head-on crashes.

Overall, unsafe speed was the leading factor citywide, contributing to nearly one-third of all reported collisions between 2019 and 2023. These patterns highlight the role of excessive or inappropriate speeds in both highfrequency crashes such as rear-ends and in more severe outcomes such as head-on collision.

6.2.2 COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Reduction in unsafe speed-related collisions can be achieved through countermeasures that calm traffic, increase driver reaction time, and create physical protections from objects and other vehicles. Table 6.2 describes these countermeasures.

Table 6.2: Recommended Unsafe Speed Countermeasures
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) Signalized Intersections
SI02
Improve signal hardware:
back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size and number
Increase driver attention by adding a
retroreflective border to traffic
signals, making the signal easier to
see from a greater distance.

All 15% 10
SI03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Reduce traffic congestion by retiming signals so that traffic flow is improved and stops at signalized
intersections are reduced along a
corridor.

All 15% 10
SI05
Install Left-Turn Lane and
add Turn Phase (signal has
no left-turn lane or phase
before)
Install Left-Turn Lane or related LeftTurn Phase to reduce collisions between pedestrians and leftturning vehicles at intersections.

All 55% 20
SI07 Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal-mounted)
Increase signal visibility in an
intersection by mounting signals on
a mast arm instead of a pedestal.

All 30% 20

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 47
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) SI08
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(through intersection)
Reduce collisions by adding markers
and striping to guide vehicles
through complex intersections.

All 10% 10
SI09 Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.)
Increase driver awareness of an
approaching signalized intersection
by installing flashing beacons.

All 30% 10
SI10 Improve Pavement Friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
Improve skid resistance at
intersections with high crash rates
by applying High Friction Surface
Treatment to roadway.

NS20 All 55% 10
R21
SI14 Install Right-Turn Lane (S.I.)
Minimize collisions between rightturning vehicles and following vehicles by installing a right-turn
lane.

All 15% 20
SI16RA Convert Intersection to
Roundabout (from Signal)
Reduce crashes and keep the range
of vehicle speeds narrow by
installing roundabouts at signalized
intersections.

All Varies 20
SI17RA
Convert Intersection to
Compact Roundabout (from
Signal)
Reduce crashes and keep the range
of vehicle speeds narrow by
installing compact roundabouts at
smaller signalized intersections in
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
areas.

All Varies 20
Non-signalized Intersections
NS04RA Convert Intersection to
Roundabout (from All Way
Stop or Yield Control on
Minor Road)
Calm traffic speeds by installing
roundabouts at regular intervals
along a residential street to require
drivers to slow down.

All Varies 20
NS05RA
NS06RA Convert Intersection to
Compact Roundabout (from
All-Way Stop or Yield
Control on Minor Road)
Calm traffic speeds by installing
compact roundabouts at regular
intervals along a residential street to
require drivers to slow down.

All Varies 20
NS07RA
NS12 Install Transverse Rumble
Strips on Approaches
Warn motorists that something
important is ahead by installing
roadway strips that generate noise
when travelled over by a vehicle.

All 20% 10
NS20 Install Left-Turn Lane (Where
No Left-Turn Lane Exists)
Reduce rear-end collision potential
by adding a left-turn lane to remove
waiting vehicles from the throughvehicle stream.

All 35% 20
Roadways

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 48
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) R08 Install Raised Median
Limit collisions and unsafe turning
movements by incorporating a
raised median between opposing
travel lanes that reinforces lane
limits.

All 20% 20
R09 Install Median (Flush)
Limit collisions by incorporating a
median between opposing travel
lanes that reinforces lane limits.

All 15% 20
R11
Install
Acceleration/Deceleration
Lanes
Reduce crashes by providing lanes
with the proper length to allow
vehicles to either decelerate and
navigate a turning movement safely
or accelerate and enter a highway at
the correct speed.

All 25% 20
R12 Widen Lane (Initially Less
than 10 ft.)
Widen the traveled way on
horizontal roadway curves to make
operating conditions on curves
comparable to those on tangents.

All 25% 20
R13 Add Two-Way Left-Turn
Lane
Provide a buffer between opposing
directions of travel and separate
left-turning traffic by adding a twoway left-turn lane.

All 30% 20
R14
Road Diet (Reduce Travel
Lanes and Add a Two-Way
Left-Turn and Bike Lanes)
Reduce roadway segment speeds
and head-on crashes and
bicycle/vehicle collisions by
decreasing vehicle travel lanes and
adding two-way left turn/bike lanes.

All 35% 20
R15 Widen Shoulder
Provide a greater area for drivers to
regain control of a vehicle by adding
extra shoulder space.

All 30% 20
R16 Curve Shoulder Widening
(Outside Only)
Create a recovery area where drivers
can regain control of a vehicle by
adding widening the outside of
roadway curve shoulders.

All 45% 20
R17 Improve Horizontal
Alignment (Flatten Curves)
Decrease the likelihood of a vehicle
leaving its lane by increasing the
radius of a horizontal roadway
curve.

All 50% 20
R22
Install/Upgrades Signs with
New Fluorescent Sheeting
(Regulatory or Warning)
Obtain driver attention by applying
a fluorescent yellow sheeting to
signs (or other retroreflective
material).

All 15% 10
R23 Install Chevron Signs on
Horizontal Curves
Warn drivers of an approaching
curve by installing post-mounted
chevron signs
All 40% 10

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 49
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) R24 Install Curve Advance
Warning Signs
Warn drivers of an approaching
curve by installing advance warning
signs ahead of problem curves.

All 25% 10
R25
Install Curve Advance
Warning Signs (Flashing
Beacon)
Warn drivers of an approaching
curve by installing flashing beacons
to identify particularly challenging
curves.

All 30% 10
R26 Install Dynamic/Variable
Speed Warning Signs
Provide visual warning to drivers
indicating that they may be traveling
over the recommended speed for
the approaching curve.

All 20% 10
R27 Install Delineators, Reflectors
and/or Object Markers
Warn drivers of approaching curves
or fixed objects by installing
delineators, reflectors, and/or object
markers.

All 15% 10
R28 Install Edge-Lines and
Centerlines
Help drivers who might leave the
roadway because of their inability to
see roadway edges by installing
edge-lines and centerlines.

All 25% 10
R29 Install No-Passing Line
Provide clear passing and nopassing areas via visible lines so that drivers can determine where passing
maneuvers can be completed safely.

All 45% 10
R30 Install Centerline Rumble
Strips/Stripes
Alert drivers that they are drifting
out of their lane and crossing the
centerline by providing roadway
strips that provide an auditory
indication (rumble) when travelled
on.

All 20% 10
R31 Install Edgeline Rumble
Strips/Stripes
Alert drivers that they are drifting
out of their lane and crossing the
edgeline by providing roadway
strips that provide an auditory
indication (rumble) when travelled
on.

All 15% 10
R32 Speed Safety Cameras
Increase enforcement capabilities by
adding speed safety cameras along
roadways with speed-related issues.

All 20% 10
Source: Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.7 April 2024

6.3 INTERSECTION SAFETY

6.3.1 COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS
Broadside collisions are the most prevalent crash type at intersections in Barstow, accounting for 220 crashes (28% of all intersection collisions). They are most commonly associated with Automobile Right-of-Way (Auto ROW) violations (37% of broadside crashes) and traffic signal or sign violations (25%). Improper turning

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 50
contributed to 175 collisions (17% citywide), reinforcing that turning movements and conflicting right-of-way are frequent concerns at intersections. This safety emphasis area is therefore focused on reducing broadside collisions through improvements to intersection control, visibility, and turn-movement management.

6.3.2 COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Enhanced intersection safety countermeasures should work to minimize driver error, mitigate the impacts of driver error, and provide drivers with a greater sense of awareness about upcoming decisions they will need to make and hazards to look out for as they approach intersections. Table 6.3 describes these countermeasures.

Table 6.3: Recommended Intersection Safety Countermeasures CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) Signalized Intersections
SI01 Add Intersection Lighting
(S.I.)
Provide extra lighting at the
signalized intersection, which
improves safety during nighttime
conditions.
“Night” Crashes 40% 20
SI02
Improve signal hardware:
back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size and number
Increase driver attention by adding a
retroreflective border to traffic
signals, making the signal easier to
see from a greater distance.

All 15%% 10
SI03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Reduce traffic congestion by retiming signals so that traffic flow is improved and stops at signalized
intersections are reduced along a
corridor.

All 15% 10
SI05
Install Left-Turn Lane and
add Turn Phase (signal has
no left-turn lane or phase
before)
Install Left-Turn Lane or related LeftTurn Phase to reduce collisions between pedestrians and left-turning
vehicles at intersections.

All 55% 20
SI06
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane already
exists)
Address head-on and broadside
collisions during unprotected left
turns across traffic by installing a
protected left turn signal (note:
requires warrant analysis)
All 30% 20
SI07 Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal-mounted)
Increase signal visibility in an
intersection by mounting signals on
a mast arm instead of a pedestal.

All 30% 20
SI08
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(through intersection)
Reduce collisions by adding markers
and striping to guide vehicles
through complex intersections.

All 10% 10
SI09 Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.)
Increase driver awareness of an
approaching signalized intersection
by installing flashing beacons.

All 30% 10

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 51
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) SI10
Improve Pavement Friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
Improve skid resistance at
intersections with high crash rates by
applying High Friction Surface
Treatment to roadway.

All 55% 10
SI11
Install raised median on
approaches
Address broadside, rear-end, and
sideswipe collisions by preventing
left-turning movements (on or off
the roadway) in close vicinity of
major intersections.

All 25% 20
NS14
SI13 Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left-turns and Uturns
Address broadside, rear-end, and
sideswipe collisions by separating
thru-traffic from left-turning
movements at intersections.

All 50% 20
NS17
SI14 Install Right-Turn Lane (S.I.)
Minimize collisions between rightturning vehicles and following vehicles by installing a right-turn lane
at signalized intersections.

All 15% 20
SI15 Reduced Left-Turn Conflict
Intersections
Minimize left-turn collisions by
implementing geometric intersection
designs that involve U-turns.

All 50% 20
NS18
SI16RA Convert Intersection to
Roundabout (from Signal)
Reduce crashes and keep the range
of vehicle speeds narrow by installing
roundabouts at signalized
intersections.

All Varies 20
SI17RA
Convert Intersection to
Compact Roundabout (from
Signal)
Reduce crashes and keep the range
of vehicle speeds narrow by installing
compact roundabouts at smaller
signalized intersections in pedestrian
and bicycle-friendly areas.

All Varies 20
Non-signalized Intersections
NS01NT Add Intersection Lighting
(N.S.I.)
Provide lighting at the unsignalized
intersection, which improves safety
during nighttime conditions.

Night 40% 20
NS02
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
yield control)
Implement stop controls for traffic in
all directions to reduce driver rightof-way conflicts at intersections where some directions have stop
controls and others do not.

All 50% 10
NS03 Install Signals
Prevent severe crashes by installing
signals at previously unsignalized
intersections.

NS04RA Convert Intersection to
Roundabout (from All Way
Calm traffic speeds by installing
roundabouts at regular intervals
All Varies 20

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 52
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) NS05RA
Stop or Yield Control on
Minor Road)
along a residential street to require
drivers to slow down.

NS06RA Convert Intersection to
Compact Roundabout (from
All-Way Stop or Yield
Control on Minor Road)
Calm traffic speeds by installing
compact roundabouts at regular
intervals along a residential street to
require drivers to slow down.

All Varies 20
NS07RA
NS08
Install or upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or
other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Increase driver awareness of nonsignalized intersections and prevent collisions by installing larger/more
signs either at or prior to the
intersection.

All 15% 10
NS09 Upgrade intersection
pavement markings
Increase driver awareness of nonsignalized intersections and provide additional information as drivers
approach (such as lane destinations,
“Stop Ahead” markings).

All 25% 10
NS10
Install Flashing Beacons at
Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Increase driver awareness of signage
and other traffic control measures at
non-signalized intersections by
installing a visible, flashing signal.

All 15% 10
NS11 Install Flashing Beacons as
advance warning (N.S.I.)
Increase driver awareness of
approaching non-signalized
intersections by installing a visible,
flashing signal as an advance
warning.

All 30% 10
NS12 Install Transverse Rumble
Strips on Approaches
Warn motorists that something
important is ahead by installing
roadway strips that generate noise
when travelled over by a vehicle.

All 20% 10
NS13
Improve sight distance to
intersection (Clear Sight
Triangles)
Increase intersection and vehicle
visibility at non-signalized
intersections by removing sight
distance restrictions.

All 20% 10
NS15
Install splitter-islands on the
minor road approaches.

Increase intersection visibility by
installing splitter-islands at minor
road approaches to unsignalized
intersections.

All 40% 20
NS16 Install raised median on
approaches (N.S.I.)
Reduce crashes related to left-turns
by installing raised on approaches to
non-signalized intersections
All 25% 20
NS19 Install Right-Turn Lane
(N.S.I.)
Minimize collisions between rightturning vehicles and following vehicles by installing a right-turn lane
at non-signalized intersections.

All 20% 20

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 53
CM # Countermeasure
Names Description CollisionType CRF Project Life (Years) NS20 Install Left-Turn Lane (Where
No Left-Turn Lane Exists)
Reduce rear-end collision potential
by adding a left-turn lane to remove
waiting vehicles from the throughvehicle stream.

All 35% 20
Source: Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.7 April 2024

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 54

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents a list of potential non-infrastructure solutions to Barstow’s roadway safety needs. The programs will promote safe behavior in each plan’s identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.

7.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Pedestrians are a highly vulnerable set of road users when it comes to vehicle-involved collisions. While motorists have a responsibility to drive safely, pedestrians can also take steps to enhance their own safety through increased awareness and measures to make themselves more visible.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered and/or continued to address pedestrian and bicycle collisions:

7.1.1 EDUCATION
 Implement a “See and Be Seen” campaign through signage, social media, and advertising.  Promote Barstow Police Department (BPD) Bicycle Safety Classes.  Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education in schools. Lessons related to walking can include the danger of walking with distractions, while bicycle lessons can include helmet and bicycle fit, hand signals, and riding safely with traffic.

7.1.2 ENFORCEMENT
 Offer Bicycle Safety Classes as a diversion for bicycle riders who have been cited for traffic violations.

7.1.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources Description Responsible Agency Funding Source
Education
Implement a “See and Be Seen” campaign for pedestrians and cyclists City of Barstow Caltrans ATP NI Funds, OTS Grants Create and promote Barstow Police Department (BPD) Bicycle Safety Classes.

Barstow Police Department OTS Grants
Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education in schools. Lessons related to walking can include the danger of walking with distractions, while bicycle lessons can include helmet and bicycle fit, hand signals, and riding safely with traffic.

Barstow Unified School District OTS Grants

7.2 UNSAFE SPEEDS
The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address unsafe speed-related collisions.

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 55

7.2.1 EDUCATION
 Create a social media campaign to help drivers become more aware of how their speed impacts the risk of death for vulnerable road users. This campaign could be led by the City of Barstow Department of Community Services or the Barstow Police Department.

7.2.2 ENFORCEMENT
 Deploy Barstow Police Department officers equipped with radar or LIDAR technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.
 Deploy Barstow Police Department officers at locations with frequent cell phone violations to ticket distracted drivers, as distracted driving can contribute to a speed-related collision.

7.2.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.2 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing unsafe speeds.

Table 7.2: Unsafe Speed Program Funding Sources
Description Responsible Agency Funding Source
Education
Create a social media campaign across multiple
platforms that targets messaging towards drivers
to drive at or below the speed limit, with emphasis
on the consequences of not doing so.

City of Barstow Department of
Community Services, Barstow Police
Department
Caltrans ATP NI Funds, OTS
Grants
Enforcement
Deploy police officers equipped with radar or
LIDAR technology at strategic locations to ticket
speeding drivers.

Barstow Police Department OTS Grants

7.3 INTERSECTION SAFETY
While intersection safety is primarily a consideration of infrastructure, non-engineering measures can be integral to the successful implementation of intersection upgrades. Through outreach programs, members of the public can be made aware of changes, offer their input, and learn more about the benefits of upgraded amenities at intersections.

7.3.1 EDUCATION
 Create a pop-up demonstration using SCAG’s Go Human Kit of Parts, which is a set of physical materials that demonstrate potential street design elements in a temporary manner. These are made of portable, light-weight materials that are easy to transport and assemble.  Create educational materials to teach drivers how to use unfamiliar intersection features, such as mini roundabouts.

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 56

7.3.2 ENFORCEMENT
 Deploy special enforcement around newly upgraded intersections to ensure that features are being used properly, e.g. ensuring bicycle lanes remain unobstructed, limit lines are obeyed, and roundabouts are used correctly.

7.3.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.3 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing intersection safety.

Table 7.3: Intersection Safety Program Funding Sources
Description Responsible Agency Funding Source(s)
Education
Create a pop-up demonstration using SCAG’s Go Human Kit of Parts, which is a set of physical materials that demonstrate potential street design elements in a temporary manner. These are made of portable, light-weight materials that are easy to transport and assemble.

Barstow Department of Community
Services (Public Works), Southern
California Association of Governments
(SCAG)
SCAG Go Human MiniGrants, OTS Grants, ATP NI
Funds
Create a social media campaign focused on reducing
distracted driving or cell phone use while driving.

Barstow Department of Community
Services, Barstow Police Department
Caltrans ATP NI Funds, OTS
Grants
Enforcement
Deploy special enforcement to ensure that features are being used properly, e.g. ensuring bicycle lanes remain unobstructed, and roundabouts are used correctly.

Barstow Police Department, Barstow
Department of Community Services
(Public Works)
OTS Grants

7.4 MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Because they are classified as motor vehicles by California law, motorcycles must share the roadway with larger cars and trucks, making them susceptible to vehicle-involved collisions. Programs aimed at educating motorcyclists on how to safely navigate roadways and intersections where larger vehicles are present can be helpful in reducing accidents.

7.4.1 EDUCATION
 Implement a safety campaign through signage, social media, and advertising.  Promote Barstow Police Department (BPD) Motorcycle Safety Classes.

7.4.2 ENFORCEMENT
 Deploy special enforcement in areas with high amounts of recorded motorcycle collisions that focuses on high-risk violations (speeding, improper turning, running red lights, etc.)  Offer Motorcycle Safety Classes as a diversion for motorcycle riders who have been cited for traffic violations.

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 57

7.4.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.1: Motorcycle Program Funding Sources
Description Responsible Agency Funding Source
Education
Implement a safety campaign reminding motorcyclists of
mandatory helmet requirements, encouraging other road users’ awareness of motorcyclists, and warning about the consequences of impaired riding.

City of Barstow OTS Grants
Create and promote Barstow Police Department (BPD) Motorcycle Safety Classes.

Barstow Police Department OTS Grants
Enforcement
Deploy special enforcement in areas with high amounts of recorded motorcycle collisions that focus on high-risk violations (speeding, improper turning, running red lights, etc.)
Barstow Police Department OTS Grants
Offer Motorcycle Safety Classes as a diversion for motorcycle riders who have been cited for traffic violations (BPD). Barstow Police Department OTS Grants

7.1 BICYCLE EDUCATION SAFETY
This program helps to advance bicyclist safety and driver awareness along key corridors and near priority destinations (schools, parks, transit, and commercial areas)—focusing on intersection positioning, predictable maneuvers/hand signals, nighttime visibility, and yielding at crossings. These measures complement planned engineering treatments and are delivered by the Barstow Department of Community Services and the Barstow Police Department, with school-based components coordinated through local partners.

7.1.1 EDUCATION
 Provide pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education in schools and at community events.  Include walking lessons on avoiding distractions, and bicycle lessons on helmet/bike fit, hand signals, and riding safely with traffic.

7.1.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources Description Responsible Agency Funding Source
Education
“See & Be Seen” Bicycle Safety Awareness Campaign include activities such as community outreach events, school-based education, basic safety-gear distribution, bilingual materials, and driver-focused public messaging.

Barstow Department of Community
Services, Barstow Police
Department
OTS Grants

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 58

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
This section provides the project scope, collision reduction benefits calculation, cost estimation, and Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio analysis. This section also discusses and summarizes the project prioritization for the HSIP application.

8.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS
Project scopes were developed by identifying countermeasures that directly address Barstow’s predominant collision patterns. Each scope represents one or more countermeasure types that can be applied individually or combined as corridor or intersection packages.

Expected benefits will be derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Collision Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the observed collision totals. The process will include:
 Identifying the baseline number of collisions by type and severity  Applying CRFs to estimate preventable collisions
 Applying standard collision cost values by severity (per LRSM v1.7)  Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis. These include:
 Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures may be utilized in the B/C ratio for any single project.
 For a countermeasure to be included in the B/C ratio calculations, it must represent at least 15 percent of the project’s total construction cost. This requirement ensures that minor project elements and not over-represented in the safety analysis.

To determine the benefit of a proposed improvement, the engineer first identifies the number of collisions that could potentially be prevented. A Collision Reduction Factor (CRF) is then applied to estimate the percentage of collisions expected to be avoided. This reduction is multiplied by the standard collision cost values by severity established in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (2024) to calculate the project’s total benefit.

The resulting “benefit” represents the estimated reduction in collision costs that would occur once the improvement is implemented.

Table 8.1: Collision Values and EPDO Score
Collision Severity Location Type Collision Cost EPDO Score Value Fatality (K) and Severe Injury (A)
Signalized Intersection $2,162,000 119.93
Non-Signalized
Intersection $3,440,000 190.81
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,978,000 165.17
Evident Injury - Other Visible (B) $193,000 10.73
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) $110,000 6.10
Property Damage Only (O) $18,000 1.00
Source: Appendix D of the Caltrans LRSM, 2024

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 59

8.2 BENEFIT/COST RATIO
A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project's benefits relative to its costs, and both are expressed in monetary terms. The BCR is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit and dividing it by the overall project cost. Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits than costs. Note that projects with a lower BCR are not disqualified from all funding opportunities. For grant opportunities that rely on higher BCR numbers, these projects may be combined with relevant projects with a higher BCR to increase competitiveness. Once a project is selected for further development, a detailed design concept and cost estimate should be created, including costs for all project phases from planning to construction completion.

Based on Caltrans’s need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for-projects, the benefit and cost calculations should be completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The calculated BCR can then be refined by expanding or reducing the project scope elements, to deliver the most safety benefit with a project that is highly competitive in future HSIP cycles.

8.3 SHOWCASE LOCATIONS
This section highlights six representative locations selected from the City’s collision analysis and stakeholder discussions. These showcase projects illustrate the range of safety issues addressed through the LRSP and demonstrate how data-driven improvements can align with future HSIP, ATP, and SS4A funding. Each location includes a conceptual cost estimate and calculated Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio. Four citywide recommendations were also included as general projects that may improve safety.

Below are the six showcase locations alongside the four city-wide recommendations:

1. Muriel Drive and Armory Road

2. Main Street and Avenue H

3. Rimrock Road and Muriel Drive

4. Main Street and Avenue H

5. Riverside Drive and Yucca Road

6. First Avenue and Irwin Road, First Avenue realignment and traffic signal.

7. City-wide Bicycle Lane Upgrades

8. City-wide Guardrail Upgrades

9. City-wide Uncontrolled Crosswalk Upgrades

10. City-wide All-way Stop Controlled Intersection Upgrades

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 60

8.3.1 MURIEL DRIVE AND ARMORY ROAD
Muriel Drive & Armory Road is a high-collision intersection with recurring broadside and sideswipe crashes. Contributing factors include limited visibility and vehicle approach speed.

CM #
Countermeasure
Names Collision Type
Estimated
Project
Cost
Total
Crashes BCR
VH7
Install retroreflective
border on signal
backplates
Broadside/Sideswipe
$42,098 14 47.63
SI22PB Implement Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Pedestrian
ST1 ST2
ST5
Install high-visibility
continental crosswalk Pedestrian
SI21PB Install advanced stop
bars Pedestrian
-
Transverse rumble strip
on northern approach Rear-End

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 61

8.3.2 MAIN STREET AND AVENUE H
Signalized intersection with recurring broadside and head-on collisions; outdated signal hardware and limited pedestrian visibility.

CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Type
Estimated
Project Cost
Total
Crashes BCR
P15 P19
P20
Replace or install
new signal poles
and foundations
Broadside/
Head-On
$326,004 15 3.19
VH2
Install 3-12" LED
vehicle heads with
mounting
Broadside/
Rear-End
PPB3
Install APS
pedestrian push
buttons
Pedestrian
PH2
Install LED
countdown
pedestrian signal
heads
Pedestrian
PCC8 Install ADA curb
ramps
Pedestrian
ST5
Install high-visibility
continental
crosswalks
Pedestrian

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 62

8.3.3 MAIN STREET AND 7TH AVENUE
Full signal modernization to address recurring intersection crashes and operations; includes new heads, APS upgrades, countdowns, signing, and ADA ramps.

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 63
CM #
Countermeasure
Names Collision Type
Estimated Project
Cost Total Crashes BCR
SI07 Convert signal to mast arm (basis for BCA) Broadside/ROW $202,554 8 1.69
VH2 Install 3–12" LED vehicle heads (12 EA) Broadside/Rear-End PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian heads (8 EA) Pedestrian PPB3 Install APS pedestrian push buttons (8 EA) Pedestrian ST5 Install high-visibility continental crosswalk (1,950 SF) Pedestrian TSS3 Relocate reflectorized street name signs (2 EA) All PCC8 Install curb ramps (4 EA) Pedestrian/ADA
I12 Wiring and integration (1 LS) All

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 64

8.3.4 RIMROCK ROAD AND MURIEL DRIVE
Intersection identified with frequent broadside collisions; signalization and accessibility upgrades proposed to improve safety and operations.

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 65
CM # Countermeasure Names Collision Type
Estimated
Cost
Total
Crashes BCR
NS03 Install new traffic signal system (includes cabinet, controller, and detection) Broadside / ROW $521,529 13 1.15
VH7 Install retroreflective borders on backplates
Broadside /
Sideswipe
VH2 Install 3–12" LED vehicle heads with mounting (16 EA) Broadside / RearEnd
PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian signal heads (8 EA) Pedestrian PPB3 Install Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) push buttons (8 EA) Pedestrian PCC8 Install curb ramps (4 EA) Pedestrian / ADA
TSS5 Install reflectorized street name signs All
ST3 Install pavement markings All

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 66

8.3.5 1

ST AVENUE AND IRWIN ROAD
Intersection with a mix of head-on and broadside collisions. Realign 1st Avenue northbound with Irwin Road.

CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Type
Estimated
Project
Cost
Total
Crashes BCR
R17
Horizontal realignment of 1st
Avenue approach to improve
geometry and sight distance
Head-On
/
Broadside
$1,397,606 6 0.15
ST2/
ST3
Install striping and pavement
markings All
S3
Install new sign panel and
post All

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 67

8.3.6 YUCCA ROAD AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE
Intersection with a mix of head-on and hit-object collisions. Proposed project includes geometric realignment of the eastern portion of Riverside Drive with the western portion of Riverside Drive.

CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Collision
Type
Estimated
Project Cost
Total
Crashes BCR
R17
Realign Riverside
Drive to form a TintersectionHead-On/
Broadside
$885,449 8 0.33
PCC3
PCC7
Install curb,
gutter, and
sidewalk (4,356
SF)
Pedestrian/
ADA
ST2\ST3
Install striping
and pavement
markings All
S3
Install sign panel
and post All

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 68

8.4 GENERAL CITYWIDE IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to the location-specific projects identified in this plan, several citywide safety improvements are recommended to address systemic issues observed across Barstow’s roadway network. These upgrades focus on improving multimodal visibility, pedestrian accessibility, and roadside safety through consistent application of proven countermeasures. The following subsections summarize the proposed citywide enhancements.

8.4.1 CITYWIDE BICYCLE LANE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING UPGRADES Systemic improvements are recommended across Barstow’s existing bicycle network to enhance visibility and safety for cyclists. Upgrades include refreshed lane striping, replacement of faded or outdated pavement markings, and installation of new bicycle signage that meets current standards. These improvements will provide consistent wayfinding and delineation throughout the City, helping to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles. The project aligns with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding objectives focused on network-wide multimodal safety.

8.4.2 CITYWIDE GUARDRAIL UPGRADES
Citywide guardrail upgrades are proposed to bring existing installations up to current Caltrans and AASHTO standards. Improvements will address substandard end treatments, damaged or incomplete sections, and insufficient runout protection, particularly along corridors such as Riverside Drive and Outlet Center Drive.

These upgrades are intended to reduce the severity of roadway departure collisions and enhance roadside safety. The improvements are eligible for HSIP funding as part of a systemic liability-reduction approach.

8.4.3 CITYWIDE UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALK UPGRADES
Citywide pedestrian safety upgrades are proposed at uncontrolled crossings where marked crosswalks lack adequate visibility or control devices. Improvements may include high-visibility striping, advance signage, and pedestrian warning beacons where appropriate. These upgrades are designed to increase driver yielding behavior and improve crossing comfort for pedestrians, especially near schools and neighborhood centers. The improvements align with SS4A and HSIP funding opportunities that prioritize systemic pedestrian safety countermeasures.

8.4.4 CITYWIDE ALL-WAY STOP SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS
Systemic all-way stop enhancements are proposed to improve visibility and compliance at uncontrolled or lowvisibility intersections. Recommended upgrades include larger stop signs, advance warning signage, and refreshed stop bars or markings to reinforce intersection awareness. These improvements aim to reduce broadside and angle collisions and are suitable for HSIP or SS4A funding that targets low-cost, systemwide intersection safety measures.

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 69

8.5 LIST OF POTENTIAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPLEMENTATION LOCATIONS Aside from the showcase projects and the general city-wide improvements, this report also lists identified locations that may be eligible for traffic signal installations in the scenario that they fulfill warrant requirements.

The potential intersections include:

1. Rimrock Road and Muriel Drive

2. First Avenue and Irwin Road

3. First Avenue and Old Hwy 58

4. Rimrock Road and Montara Road

5. Rimrock Road and Broadway Avenue

6. Mountain View Avenue and Second Avenue

7. Barstow Road (SR 247) and Barstow College Driveway

8. Armory Road and Broadway Avenue

9. Armory Road and Higgins Road

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 70

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the process that will be used to evaluate the success of the plan, ensure implementation, and establish when an update is needed.

9.1 EVALUATION AND UPDATE TIMEFRAME
The LRSP should be evaluated annually to ensure that objectives are being met. The LRSP collision analysis and recommendations should be revised and/or updated, at a minimum, every five years, per Caltrans requirements for maintaining a valid LRSP. The safety emphasis areas may be adapted or revised as safety priorities in the City evolve over time and as additional safety infrastructure or programs are implemented.

In developing and evaluating any performance measures for traffic safety improvement, it is important that measures are established within the context of the safety emphasis areas, and that the data needed to measure them is readily available. For example, if the City wants to use fatal collisions per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the City, both the collision data and accurate VMT estimates will need to utilize a consistent methodology over each year that is measured. It is also important to note that longer term safety infrastructure projects and education campaigns can take several years to show clear improvements over time. Year-to-year safety trends may even show short-term increases but measuring outcomes over the long term will also help the City determine if it is making steady progress towards increased traffic safety.

9.2 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Oversight of LRSP implementation and evaluation should be overseen by a Technical Advisory Committee or incorporated into an existing committee. This committee should include stakeholders within the City, which may include the City of Barstow Public Works Department, Barstow Police Department, Barstow Fire Protection District, Barstow Unified School District, and other City departments with transportation, planning, or public health responsibilities. External coordination should also include Caltrans District 8, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), and other regional or community partners as appropriate.

The Technical Advisory Committee should utilize data-informed evaluation methods and measures to ensure that the goals of the LRSP are continually met. Data from SWITRS and OTS is released annually, and the City can supplement that with data from its Police Department collisions database or other information that Public Works maintains. NHTSA also releases annual data on fatal collisions through the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). As other related documents like General Plan elements, specific plans, Safe Routes to School programs, or other transportation studies are completed, they should be added to the list of references that are supported by, and support, the LRSP. Where possible, the LRSP’s goals should be incorporated into other planning documents for consistency across City policies and procedures.

9.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund engineering and non-engineering roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) encourages bicycle and pedestrian use in the state by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support multimodal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 71
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) awards grants for projects addressing one or more of the ten priority areas, including Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Motorcycle Safety, Police Traffic Services, Roadway Safety and Traffic Records, Distracted Driving, Emergency Medical Services, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Public Relations.

At the federal level, the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds roadway safety improvements on any public roadway, but the funds are distributed by Caltrans through a state discretionary program. USDOT has also recently created the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program, which can fund a broad variety of roadway safety projects and studies. USDOT and FHWA are in the process of revising the guidance and priorities of many funding programs, which may open new opportunities for safety funding that were not considered a good fit for projects in the past, but may be strong candidates based on the revised guidance.

Table 9.1 provides a list of eligible programs and funding sources related to transportation safety. These programs, and others that stem from new revenue sources in the State of California, should be considered as they are programmed and incorporated into the City’s infrastructure funding strategies. For Barstow, these sources will be used to advance the intersection and systemic improvements identified in Chapter 8; Table 9.1 provides a high-level alignment between the recommended improvements and potential funding programs.

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 72
Table 9.1: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary Oversight Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Any work on public roads, bikeways and pedestrian paths/trails “that improves the safety for its users”. For the most part, only engineering projects are eligible, but the FAST act also permits funding for data collection by law enforcement1, 2. Funding awards are administered by the State through a bi-annual funding call for projects.

Data Collection, Countermeasure
Implementation
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced Transportation
Technologies & Innovative
Mobility Deployment
(ATTIMD)
Funds advanced transportation and congestion management technologies to improve safety, efficiency and performance. Examples of funded project types include advanced traveler information systems and data collection and analysis efforts3. The City can partner with the County or SCAG on innovation projects.

Digital Enforcement; Technology
Partnerships
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program (STBG)
Provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals4.

Active Transportation
US Department of
Transportation
Safe Streets and Roads for
All (SS4A)
The purpose of SS4A grants is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries through safety action plan development and implementation focused on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators.

Roadway Safety, Active
Transportation, Planning & Design,
Education and Enforcement, Data
Collection
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects that improve the safety or increase the mode share of bicycling and walking. Additional program objectives include reducing emissions and enhancing public health5.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and
Enforcement
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Sustainable Communities
Grant Program
The program awards "Competitive Grants" to local governments. These grants prioritize projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, support multi-modal transportation, involve stakeholder/ community engagement and support related plans like the California Transportation Plan and California Complete Streets Framework6 .

Active Transportation, Speed,
Education

9.0 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 73
Oversight Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed California Office of
Traffic Safety
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grants
The goal of the annual program is to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes so that all roadway users arrive at their destination safely. Using Federal Highway Safety Program funds, the OTS partners with political subdivisions of the state to address California’s Highway safety needs at the state, county, and local level7.

Alcohol-Impaired Driving, DrugImpaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, Roadway Safety and Traffic
Records, Emergency Medical
Services, Occupant Protection,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Public
Relations/Advertising/ Marketing
California Air
Resources Board
Sustainable Transportation
Equity Program (STEP)
Aims to address community residents’ transportation needs, increase access to key destinations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by funding planning, clean transportation, and supporting projects particularly in disadvantaged and low-income communities via two types of grants: Planning and Capacity Building Grants and Implementation Grants.

Countermeasure Implementation
Sources:

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, September 2021

2. Highway Safety Improvement Program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148.

3. Federal Highway Administration. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment. February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/advtranscongmgmtfs.cfm.

4. Federal Highway Administration. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/

5. California Transportation Commission. 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 16, 2022. Resolution G-22-30.

6. California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program 2022-23 Grant Application Guide. September 2021.

7. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year 2024. October 2023.

CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX A
Glossary
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX B
Safety Cost Estimates
CITY OF BARSTOW | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN