SAFER
STREETS
BURBANK
April 2025
Safer Streets Burbank is the
initiative to eliminate fatalities and
serious injuries on Burbank streets
by 2035.
SECTION 148 OF TITLE 23,
UNITED STATES CODE
REPORTS DISCOVERY AND
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF
CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND
INFORMATION — Notwithstanding
any other provisions of law, reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or data
compiled or collected for any purpose
relating to this section, shall not be
subject to discovery or admitted into
evidence in a Federal or State court
proceeding or considered for other
purposes in any action for damages
arising from any occurrence at the
location identified or addressed in the
reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or
other data.
This study applies a systemic safety
approach that identifies certain
features on particular roadways that
are correlated with specific collision
types and frequencies. This broad
approach is necessitated by the
inherent nature of covering an entire
agency’s facilities in one study and
the limited scope/budget available
to prepare safety plans. Limited
time is available to perform field
observations throughout the study
area to contextualize the data, and
therefore, it is beyond the scope of
work to perform in-depth “hot spot”
evaluations at all locations.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
PROJECT TEAM
City of Burbank
Community Development
Christopher Buonomo, AICP
David Kriske, AICP
Kyle Kramer
Fehr & Peers
Natalie Chyba, PE
John Muggridge, AICP
Nata Kovalova
Emily Finkel, RSP1
Ryan Freedman, EIT
Sebastian Silva
Burbank Fire Department
Fire Chief Danny Alvarez
Deputy Fire Chief Mark Hatch
Administration/Logistics Battalion
Chief David Burke
Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Jim
Moye
Burbank Police Department
Lt. Jeffrey Barcus
Lt. John Pfrommer
Sgt. Fletcher Stone
Burbank Unified School District
Julie Markussen
City Attorney’s Office
Lisa Kurihara
Public Information Office
Jonathan Jones
Mary Movsesyan
Public Works
Ken Berkman, PE
Anthony Roman, PE
Edward Yu, PE
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
ACTION PLAN
Vision ...................................................................................... 5 State of Roadway Safety in Burbank ........................13 Action Plan & Evaluation ...............................................23 Near-Term Projects ..........................................................29 1 2
3 4
TECHNICAL SUMMARIES
Safety Analysis ...................................................................61 Engagement .......................................................................77 Countermeasure Toolbox ............................................ 123 A
B
C
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
Vision
1 As we work together toward zero fatalities and
severe injuries on our City streets, this Action Plan
provides an overview of where we are, where we’d
like to be, and how we can get there. It will take
extensive coordination across all City departments
and collaboration with our residents and visitors.
We hope that you will be our partner.
Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
VISION
Page intentionally left blank.
6 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
VISION
Burbank commits to bringing the number of
severe and fatal crashes down to zero by 2035.
GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
Safety is our highest priority.
When designing, funding, and restoring our streets, safety is the most important outcome. Burbank will realign resources to match new roadway safety goals.
Our streets should be safe and comfortable for all who use them.
Pedestrians and bicyclists are more vulnerable to roadway collisions, and everyone is a pedestrian at some point during every trip.
Manage speeds to save lives.
Speed is a fundamental predictor of crash survival, and children and seniors are particularly vulnerable. Burbank will prioritize vehicle speed reduction and redesign for lower speeds to protect human life.
Use a context-sensitive and data-driven approach.
An effective safety plan derives its insights from current, concise data that can be easily shared within an organization. The City will use data to identify location- specific needs and to develop clear, transparent reporting of project impacts.
Immediate action is critical.
The City will implement projects with quick-build materials to improve roadway safety until permanent projects can be funded and designed.
Each City department has a leadership role in helping us reach zero.
Building a culture of roadway safety requires alignment and collaboration among multiple City departments. City staff will work to establish shared goals and policies to enable a quicker, more proactive approach to addressing roadway safety issues.
Build on prior planning work.
The Complete Streets Plan laid the foundation for Safer Streets Burbank, and these plans will work in tandem to guide both short-term and long-term roadway safety investments.
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
7 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
47 ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
VISION
BUILDING A SHARED VISION
Understanding Community Values
232
safety concerns mapped
89 online survey responses
30+
community meeting
attendees
By the Numbers
How much time are
you willing to sacrifice
in your trip to improve
roadway safety?
Whatever
it takes
2-5 min
2 min or less
None
KEY TAKEAWAY
87% agree that
safety should be the
top priority when
making decisions
about street design
Survey Snapshot
“I feel safe when...”
“I’m biking in a
protected lane.”
“Sidewalks
are well lit.”
“I can ride my horse
on the side of the
street without fear
of speeding drivers,
rude drivers, or
other wheeled
vehicles trying to
scare horses.”
“Cars are
driving slow.”
“Drivers share
the road.”
+5
+3
+1 +1
Full survey responses
and community meeting
exercises are included in
Technical Summary B.
60%
8%
19%
13%
Statements made by Burbank community members at our Safer Streets Burbank community meeting.
8 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
“It’s 3 am and the
streets are quiet.”
“There’s plenty of
space on the sidewalks
for pedestrians.”
“Traffic is flowing
on major streets.”
“Stop signs have
blinking red lights...
can’t miss it!.”
“...I can get out of
parked cars safely.”
“There are concrete
bollards rather than
plastic bollards.”
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
9 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
49 ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
VISION
City of Burbank
Focus Network
KEY TAKEAWAY
80% of fatal and serious
injury crashes in Burbank
occur on the Focus
Network, which accounts
for 16% of streets.
Focus Network
The focus network identifies streets that had the highest combination of collision history, severe and fatal collisions, and collisions involving bicyclists or pedestrians. These are the streets the City of Burbank will prioritize when investing in roadway safety. More detail on methodology is included in Technical Summary A.
10 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
Safe System Framework
The Safe System approach is
a framework for designing and
managing our roadways that
accounts for human error and
vulnerability. The approach is
rooted in five core elements
(inside the circle) and six
guiding principles (outside of
the circle). The approach has
been adopted both federally by
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and at the state level
by Caltrans. By adhering to the
Safe System approach, Burbank
is implementing industry
best practices, and ensuring
eligibility for future federal and
state safety grant funding.
By establishing a roadway
system that addresses all five
core elements, we build in
redundancy so that if one piece
of the system fails, the whole
system doesn’t fail.
Source:
FHWA
Vision Zero Toolkit
4 Source: FHWA
Examples: Vision Zero initiatives that use the Safe System Approach Hoboken, NJ: The city’s Vision Zero Action Plan is organized around the SSA, identifying the timeframe, stakeholders, and performance metrics for completion of each action.8 Portland, OR: Metro identifies the SSA as an effective and inclusive way to address transportation safety in its 2018 Regional Transportation Safety Strategy.9 California: The state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted the SSA for their State highway system and incorporated it into their 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Caltrans 2020-2024 Strategic Plan.10
Who Can Use this Toolkit
This toolkit can serve as a reference for any of the diverse stakeholders leading and participating in Vision Zero. In particular, city, county, regional, or Tribal governments might benefit from this toolkit, but it may also be useful for advocates, community organizations and partners, university students or researchers, local leadership, and state governments looking for ways to help support robust and effective commitments to Vision Zero.
8 Hoboken Vision Zero, “Action Plan,” 2021, https://www.vzhoboken.com/action 9 Metro, “Regional Transportation Safety Strategy,”
https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2019/01/29/2018-Regional-Transportation-Safety- Strategy_FINAL.pdf
10 Reed Parsell, “Mile Marker: A Caltrans Performance Report, Summer 2021,” California DOT, 2021, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/public-affairs/mile-marker/summer-2021/safety Source: FHWA
Redundancy and Roadway Safety
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
11 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
411
ATTACHMENT 2 - 11
ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
State of
Roadway
Safety in
Burbank
2 An in-depth analysis of the most recent five years
of available injury crash data highlights the focus
areas that are the foundation of this Action Plan:
severe crashes, intersections, and speed.
Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
ATTACHMENT 2 - 13
INTRODUCTION
On average, over 37,700 people lose their life each year in a traffic collision in the United States.1 In Los Angeles County, vehicle collisions are the leading cause of death for young people under the age of 30 – above homicide, suicide, and drug overdose.
2 Unfortunately, Burbank is not immune to these trends.
Every year, an average of 23 collisions result in death or severe injury on our streets. On average, three of those collisions are fatal, where a person lost their life and a community lost their son, daughter, mom, dad, or dear friend.
The remaining 20 collisions result in serious injuries such as severe breakages, head trauma, or paralysis – a person’s life permanently changed due to a crash.
We conducted an in-depth analysis of the most recent five years of available injury crash data in the City. There were over 2,100 crashes that resulted in an injury of some kind between 2018 and 2022. This section summarizes the key
trends identified through that analysis. A full overview of our analysis is provided in T echnical Summary A.
Safer Streets Burbank was initiated by City Council in
2023 as a direct response to these trends. The solutions presented in the following sections are rooted in research and best practice.
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2 LA County Public Health
STATE OF ROADWAY SAFETY IN BURBANK
14 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 14
FOCUS ON SEVERE CRASHES
There are on average over 400 crashes each year that result in injury. Safer Streets Burbank is especially focused on the 3% of those crashes that result in death or severe injuries.
People walking and biking, and on motorcycles are our most vulnerable road users. They make up just 24% of all trips in Burbank but almost 70% of our most severe and fatal collisions.
Fatal
Crashes
Severe
Injury
Crashes
Based on data collected by Burbank Police Department over five years (2018-2022).
Burbank Severe and Fatal Collisions, 2018-2022
Mode Share Source: California
Household Travel Survey, 2012
All Injury
Collisions
Fatal & Severe
(KSI) Collisions
Burbank
Mode Share
Vehicle Motorcycle Bicycle Transit
& Other
76%
8%
6%
10%
36%
9%
29%
26%
84%
12%
2%
2%
Pedestrian
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
15 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
415
ATTACHMENT 2 - 15
FOCUS ON INTERSECTIONS
Across all modes of transportation, intersections are key sites of crashes in Burbank. Over 90% of vehicle- only crashes occur at intersections. Broadside crashes are the most common crash type, which typically involves a vehicle making an improper left turn or running a red light. Over 95% of bicycle crashes occur at intersections. Nearly half occur at side-street stop-controlled intersections (i.e. unsignalized intersections with minor-street-only stop control). Over 80% of pedestrian crashes occur while a pedestrian is crossing a street. Almost 60% occur while they are crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.
Pedestrian
Crash
Location
Vehicle
Crash
Location
59%
Crossing
in Crosswalk
at Intersection
22%
Crossing not
in Crosswalk
19%
In Road & Other
Bicycle
Crash
Location
KEY
TAKEAWAY
Over 90%
of vehicle-
only crashes
occur at
intersections.
95% of
bicycle
crashes
occur at
intersections.
Over 80% of
pedestrian
crashes occur
while crossing.
53%
Signal
5%
All Way Stop
33%
Side Street Stop
9% Midblock
& Uncontrolled
38%
Signal
11%
All Way Stop
46%
Side Street Stop
5% Midblock
& Uncontrolled
STATE OF ROADWAY SAFETY IN BURBANK
16 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 16
FOCUS ON SPEED
Vehicle speed is the most important factor influencing crash severity. The higher the vehicle speed, the less likely someone is to survive when they are involved in a crash. Not surprisingly, injury crashes in Burbank are concentrated on the highest speed streets. Over 80% of injury crashes occur on streets with a posted speed of 30 mph or higher, while these streets account for one-fifth of Burbank’s network.
KEY TAKEAWAY
30 mph+ streets account for
one-fifth of Burbank’s street
network but four-fifths of
Burbank’s injury collisions.
Share of
Injury Crashes on
Streets with Posted
Speed 30+ mph
22%
82%
Share of
Streets with Posted
Speed 30+ mph
HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:
RISK OF DEATH
MPH
23 10%
HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:
RISK OF DEATH
MPH
42 50%
HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:
RISK OF DEATH
MPH
58 90%
Sources: Fatality Analysis Reporting System; Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub- Categories in 2020, DOT HS 813 118, June 2021; AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death; National Traffic Speeds Survey III: 2015, DOT HS 812 485, March 2018 Research shows that the number one indicator of crash severity is speed.
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
17 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
417
ATTACHMENT 2 - 17
ATTACHMENT 2 - 18
Building on Previous Efforts
FEDERAL
CONTEXT
The Federal Highway Administration has provided guidance and financial incentives to reduce fatal and severe crashes to zero.
Safer Streets Burbank is built on a strong foundation of federal, state, and local policy and practices.
FHWA
Local
Roadway
Safety
Plans
Guidance
on data-
backed
analyses
Infrastructure
Investment
and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
$5 billion for
safe streets
projects over 5
years
FHWA
National
Roadway
Safety
Strategy
Adopts Safe
System
Framework
FHWA Safe
System
Roadway
Design
Hierarchy
Provides Safe
System design
guidance
2012 2021 2022 2023
STATE
CONTEXT
California has followed suit and has pushed forward supporting safety legislation every year.
AB 2147
“Freedom to
Walk” Act
Caltrans
“Pivot”
Pivot to the
Safe System
Framework in the
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
(released in 2022)
AB 43
Flexibility in
speed limit
setting
AB 1909
Bikes can go with
pedestrians at
signals
Caltrans
adopts a Vision
Zero Goal
Eliminate severe
and fatal crashes
by 2050
AB 645
Speed camera
pilot
AB 413
“Daylighting”
bill
2020 2021 2022 2023
Learn more about
THE SAFE SYSTEM
APPROACH in
Chapter 1: Vision.
FHWA Safe
System
Project-
based
Alignment
Framework
Framework
for assessing
roadway
improvements
2024
SB 1216
Prohibits
new sharrow
markings
on 35+ mph
streets
2024
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
19 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
419
ATTACHMENT 2 - 19
LOCAL
CONTEXT
Safer Streets Burbank is the continuation of years of safety-related planning at the City.
City Council
adopts
Burbank2035
Plan
GOAL 9 – Safety,
Accessibility,
Equity: Burbank’s
transportation
network is safe,
accessible, and
equitable.
Safer Streets
Burbank is
consistent with
the City’s policy
documents like
the Burbank 2035
General Plan
,
as well as state
policy meant to
de-emphasize
congestion and
focus on reducing
vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Safer
Streets Burbank
supports these goals
by helping the City
identify and modify
legacy policies
and projects that
prioritize vehicle
throughput and
focus on reducing
vehicle delay.
City Council
adopts Complete
Our Streets Plan
GOAL 8 – Help
people to be
and feel safe on
Burbank’s streets.
Safer Streets
Burbank will help to
streamline and focus
implementation of
Complete Streets
policies while
providing clear
guidance on how
to implement them
more efficiently. The
Complete Streets
Plan already has
a stated goal of
improving roadway
safety, and it
broadly addresses
safety and injuries
that road users
face. Safer Streets
Burbank lays out a
more focused and
dynamic process to
implement Complete
Streets.
Phase II of the
Burbank Channel
is completed
This project extends
the path from
the Downtown
Metrolink Station to
Alameda Avenue
and provides a
protected off-street
path for bicycles and
pedestrians.
City Council
directs staff to
explore Vision
Zero for Burbank
February 2013 January 2020 2021 January 2023
STATE OF ROADWAY SAFETY IN BURBANK
20 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 20
San Fernando
Boulevard
Reconfiguration
Project
This project is
implemented
to improve
the pedestrian
experience,
multimodal safety,
and accessibility.
March 2024
The San Fernando Bikeway will complete a bike path extending from Sylmar to Empire Center with a future connection to Downtown Metrolink.
The Chandler Bikeway Extension will connect the existing Chandler Bikeway to the Downtown Metrolink Station, which also closes the gap on the future regional bikeway from Chatsworth to Long Beach.
The Front Street Protected Bikeway will provide east/west bicycle connectivity under I-5 between Downtown Burbank, the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station, and the LaTerra development, which will construct a sidewalk-level separated Bikeway.
The First Street Separated Bikeway will provide connectivity between Burbank Bridge, Downtown Burbank, and the Front Street Protected Bikeway, and it will include a sidewalk-level separated bikeway at First Street Village.
The Glenoaks Signal Improvement Project replaced 14 traffic signals to improve safety, enhance operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The project consists of street improvements and traffic signal modifications along Glenoaks Blvd. within the project limits. These improvements include traffic signal modifications [new signal poles, flashing yellow arrows, protected left turns, LED lights, high visibility crosswalks, Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), vehicle detection, video cameras, and battery, backup systems], sidewalk, ADA ramps, landscape restoration, AC pavement restoration, signing and striping, traffic control, and various other items as identified by the plans and specifications.
2025 and Beyond
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
21 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
421
ATTACHMENT 2 - 21
ATTACHMENT 2 - 22
Action Plan &
Evaluation
3 Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
The City has established a vision of eliminating
fatalities and serious roadway injuries in Burbank
by 2035. Achieving this goal will require the City
of Burbank to address safety from multiple angles,
from updating internal City policies and practices to
implementing safety projects on the focus network.
This section introduces the set of actions that
define the safety roadmap for the City.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 23
This action list was developed to help the City achieve its vision of eliminating severe and fatal crashes by 2035 and reflects coordination across the Community Development, Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments and the Burbank Unified School District. Additional information on the citywide coordination and public engagement conducted as part of this process is included in the Vision Chapter and T echnical Summary B.
The action list was developed to target specific roadway safety challenges identified through an analysis of the City of Burbank’s recent collision history. The list represents a set of near-term actions the City may take in the next two to three years to improve roadway safety for our residents and visitors alike. These actions will be periodically revisited to expand on successes and rethink actions that are having a less-than-expected safety impact.
ACTION PLAN
ACTION PLAN & EVALUATION
24 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 24
Evaluation Approach
Outcomes
We are dedicated to transparency in our efforts to improve transportation safety across the City. We will quantify progress and evaluate the success of this plan by reporting on the following set of performance measures via an annual safety report (Action Item 6.4).
à Number of injury collisions, by mode and severity
à Number of children injured in collisions
à Number of older adults injured in collisions
Actions
The annual safety report will also include a status update on each action item identified in this plan. We will use the annual analyses to determine what’s working and what’s not so we can update our approach as necessary, such as:
à Number of priority corridor projects analyzed,
evaluated, planned, or completed
à Share of maintenance projects completed with a safety improvement à Share of projects designed using the Safe System Design Hierarchy à Number of street segments with lower speed limits
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
25 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
425
ATTACHMENT 2 - 25
ACTION ITEMS: PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
1 Implement priority projects identified in the Safer Streets Burbank Plan.
1.1 San Fernando Boulevard (I-5 On/Off Ramp to Cypress Avenue)
1.2 Glenoaks Boulevard (Cypress Avenue to Olive Avenue)
1.3 Victory Boulevard (Burbank Boulevard to Providencia Avenue)
1.4 Alameda Avenue (Main Street to Glenoaks Boulevard)
1.5 Vanowen Street (Ontario Street to Buena Vista Street)
1.6 Hollywood Way (Vanowen Street to Clark Avenue)
1.7 Victory Boulevard (Ontario Street to Burbank Boulevard)
1.8 Buena Vista Street (San Fernando Boulevard to Clark Avenue)
1.9 Olive Avenue (Orchard Drive to 6th Street)
1.10 Additional intersections: side-street stop-controlled intersections
1.11 Additional intersections: signalized intersections 2 Implement strategies from the countermeasure toolbox on City streets during routine repaving, maintenance, community development, and new capital projects.
2.1 Develop and maintain a suite of countermeasures that are pre-screened by all relevant departments, updating as needed, thereby reducing lead time in planning and review when implementing road safety projects.
2.2 Develop a roadway project checklist that incorporates mandatory checks for safety opportunities aligned with the Safe System Design Hierarchy to be considered when repaving, maintenance, and capital projects are implemented.
2.3 Develop and/or refine City policies for countermeasures, including but not limited to crosswalks, pedestrian phasing, and speed humps, that reflect Federal and State best practices.
2.4 Incorporate the Safe System Design Hierarchy into Community Development Department transportation study and objective design standards.
3 Utilize available state laws to lower speed limits where applicable throughout the City.
3.1 Update City speed limits by incorporating safety-oriented criteria allowed by AB 43 (2021), conducting new engineering and traffic surveys (E&TS) as needed.
3.2 Redirect police patrol officer resources to speed enforcement on Focus Network corridors.
3.3 Augment traffic officer assignments with patrol officers assigned to high-visibility safety missions on the Focus Network.
3.4 Because crime prevention and traffic enforcement both contribute to public safety, direct police patrol efforts to speed and traffic safety enforcement when not assigned to radio calls.
3.5 Integrate traffic safety into police community engagement activities, particularly on the Focus Network and in areas with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
ACTION PLAN & EVALUATION
26 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 26
ACTION ITEMS: POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
4 Launch a public safety education campaign about Safer Streets Burbank processes, improvements, and future engagement.
4.1 Coordinate with Community Based Organizations to conduct targeted outreach, including targeted campaigns for seniors, non-English speaking populations, or other vulnerable groups.
4.2 Collaborate across City departments, including the Police and Parks and Recreation Departments, on public programming to build confidence in using active transportation modes and to encourage safer driving behavior.
5 Establish durable funding and policy goals that prioritize street safety.
5.1 Develop a funding strategy for the next 10 years that includes annual milestones and leverages local, state, and federal funding sources. Ensure that proposed temporary projects align with these policy objectives so they are best positioned to win grant funding to be upgraded to permanent materials.
5.2 Develop a plan for acquiring vehicles or contract services that would address the maintenance needs of new, safety-related infrastructure (e.g. street sweepers designed for narrow spaces like curb extensions and bike lanes).
5.3 Analyze impacts of Safer Streets Burbank projects on emergency response capacity to identify capital and other needs to maintain response times.
5.4 Establish and maintain list of safety-related legislative priorities to be advocated for at the state and federal level.
5.5 Conduct annual trainings that include tools such as walk audits and infrastructure demonstrations for council members, department heads, and City staff focused on policy setting and Safe Systems design.
6 Improve data collection, tracking, and reporting related to Safer Streets projects and principles.
6.1 Conduct before/after speed surveys on roadways where speed management strategies are implemented.
6.2 Further standardize police crash reporting practices through training and technology integration.
6.3 Develop a streamlined process for timely interdepartmental collision data sharing that can serve as the foundation for future capital project planning.
6.4 Produce annual safety reports summarizing City of Burbank crash trends and status of safety projects. Update the Safer Streets Burbank datasets and Focus Network every three years to reflect evolving collision trends.
6.5 Refresh project corridors at regular intervals based on updated crash statistics and analysis, and identify updated priority projects accordingly.
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
27 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
427
ATTACHMENT 2 - 27
ATTACHMENT 2 - 28
Priority
Projects
4 Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
The City has worked across departments to
establish a list of priority projects that have the
potential to significantly move the needle on
safety. This section introduces those priority safety
strategies and projects.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 29
How We Get There:
Priority Projects
Project Benefits
à Use cost-effective materials within
the existing right-of-way
à Have been pre-screened to
streamline engineering design and
departmental depth review
à Can be deployed at multiple locations
à Align with the longer-term visions
outlined in Complete Our Streets Plan
The City of Burbank has
longer-term vision documents
such as the Complete Our
Streets Plan that establish
the vision for long-term
investments on our city
streets. This Action Plan is
focused on small but mighty
design interventions that can
be implemented while we
work toward the long-term
vision outlined in our other
planning documents.
The priority treatments
outlined in this Plan 1) use
cost-effective materials within
the existing right-of-way, 2)
have been pre-screened to
streamline engineering design
and departmental depth
review, 3) can be deployed
at multiple locations, and
4) are in alignment with the
longer-term visions outlined in
Complete Our Streets Plan.
FOCUS ON PRIORITY
LOCATIONS
PRIORITY PROJECTS
30 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 30
Establishing Safety Strategies
and Priority Projects
Interdepartmental Working Groups
City staff worked together to develop the basis of this Action Plan and establish priority safety projects that have interdepartmental support. Over four meetings, we:
à Identified collision trends
à Confirmed the focus network
à Identified near-term safety strategies
à Developed priority safety projects
Working Group Discussions Lead by the Community Development Department Christopher Buonomo, AICP
David Kriske, AICP
Kyle Kramer
Participants
Burbank Fire Department
Fire Chief Danny Alvarez
Deputy Fire Chief Mark Hatch
Administration/Logistics Battalion
Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Jim Moye
Chief David Burke
Burbank Police Department
Lt. Jeffrey Barcus
Lt. John Pfrommer
Sgt. Fletcher Stone
Burbank Unified School District
Julie Markussen
City Attorney’s Office
Lisa Kurihara
Public Information Office
Jonathan Jones
Mary Movsesyan
Public Works
Ken Berkman, PE
Anthony Roman, PE
Edward Yu, PE
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
31 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
431
ATTACHMENT 2 - 31
Physical infrastructure improvements that address observed collision trends can be implemented to make roadways safer by design. While large-scale capital projects are in development, we can make lower-cost improvements that address safety immediately. The following toolbox presents treatments that address the most pressing safety concerns. The full safety toolbox is included in Technical Summary C.
Priority Strategies
Protected Left Turns
Pavement Markings
through Intersections
Retroreflective Backplates
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian Recall
Rest-in-Red
Closed Slip Lane
Left Turn Calming
High-Visibility Crosswalks
PRIORITY PROJECTS
32 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 32
Neighborhood Traffic CirclesClose Bike Lane Gaps
Speed Feedback Signs Lane Narrowing Curve Warning Signage Curb Extensions Access Management
Signage Noting that Signals
Coordinate to Posted Speeds
The right combination of these tools will vary by intersection and roadway and will be dependent on several factors, including how much right-of-way is available, existing intersection control, surrounding land use, vehicle volumes and speeds, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and collision history. Picking treatments from each of these categories increases the redundancy, and therefore resilience, of City of Burbank roadways.
SAFER STREETS BURBANK
33 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
433
ATTACHMENT 2 - 33
Priority Safety Projects (Action Item #1)
These projects represent an opportunity to make near-term improvements at corridors and intersections with the highest concentration of fatal and severe injury collisions. Project extents are shown in the map on the right.
Key Trends
We analyzed collision data to uncover collision trends for each priority project and identify the most relevant safety interventions. A detailed overview of our analysis is included in Technical Summary A.
Broadside (“T-bone”)
collisions at signalized and
side-street stop-controlled
intersections
Speeding on major streets
Pedestrian collisions
involving pedestrians
crossing in a crosswalk
Bicycle collisions at
intersections
Driving under the
influence, often leading to
collisions with parked cars
Project Corridors
Glenoaks Boulevard
(Cypress Avenue to
Olive Avenue)
Victory Boulevard
(Burbank Boulevard
to Providencia
Avenue)
Alameda Avenue
(Main Street to
Glenoaks Boulevard)
Hollywood Way
(Vanowen Street to
Clark Avenue)
Vanowen Street
(Ontario Street to
Buena Vista Street)
San Fernando
Boulevard (I-5 On/
Off Ramp to Cypress
Avenue)
Victory Boulevard
(Ontario Street to
Burbank Boulevard)
Buena Vista Street
(San Fernando
Boulevard to Clark
Avenue)
Olive Avenue
(Orchard Drive to 6th
Street)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Common Collision Trends
PRIORITY PROJECTS
34 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - 34
City of Burbank
Project Corridors
4 5
8 2
7 9
1 3
6 SAFER STREETS BURBANK
35 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
435
ATTACHMENT 2 - 35
36 This Action Plan is focused on cost-
effective and time-efficient design
interventions that can be implemented
at various locations. Each project
cutsheet identifies general concepts
for corridor-wide and/or location-
specific countermeasures chosen
for streamlined implementation.
Some of these countermeasures may
require additional study or materials
procurement. The cutsheets also
identify possible long-term capital
improvement opportunities and
complementary projects outlined
in other planning documents such
as the Complete Our Streets Plan.
These long-term project will require
further study, interdepartmental
coordination, in-depth engineering
design, and comprehensive
community engagement to ensure
equitable, effective implementation.
priority projects
PROJECT CUTSHEETS
ATTACHMENT 2 - 36
37 Page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 37
San Jose Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Harvard Rd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Palm Ave.
Orange Grove Ave.
Olive Ave.
Angelino Ave.
Glenoaks Blvd.
San Jose Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Harvard Rd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Palm Ave.
Orange Grove Ave.
Olive Ave.
Angelino Ave.
Glenoaks Blvd.
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
pedestrian collisions at
signalized intersections
nighttime pedestrian
collisions
unsafe speed collisions
broadside collisions at
signalized intersections
pedestrian collisions at
side street stop-controlled
intersections
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
length 0.4 mi
posted speed 30 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 34-37 mph
number of lanes 4 lanes
average dail y traffic 31,000 - 36,000
number of controlled
crossings 4
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 560 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 700 ft
bike facility none
38 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
59 6
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
7%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
22%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
100%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
priority projects
GLENOAKS BOULEVARD
Cypress Avenue to Olive Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2 - 38
San Jose Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Harvard Rd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Palm Ave.
Orange Grove Ave.
Olive Ave.
Angelino Ave.
Glenoaks Blvd.
v
39 priority improvements
Enhance roadway and pedestrian
lighting
Extend pedestrian safety
and speed management
improvements along entire Focus
Network extent of Glenoaks Blvd
Investigate need for additional
signals and crosswalks at Palm
Ave and San Jose Ave
STOP
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Aligns with Downtown Pedestrian
Improvement Study and connects to
North Olive Greening Project
STOP
ALL WA Y
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
STOP-CONTROLLED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
MIDBLOCK
IMPROVEMENTS
• Left Turn Calming
• Curb Extensions
• Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
• Retroreflective Backplates
• Coordinate Signals to
Posted Speed, Add
Signage Accordingly
• High-Visibility Crosswalks
Across Side Streets
• Speed Feedback Signs
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Glenoaks Boulevard at Magnolia Boulevard
Add corner bulb-outs to reduce pedestrian crossing distance.
Unsignalized Side Streets
Add high-visibility crosswalks where no crosswalks are currently present.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 39
Olive Ave. Tujunga Ave. Verdugo Ave.
Providencia Ave.
Cedar Ave. Elmwood Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Cypress Ave
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Chandler Blvd.
Chestnut St.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Clark Ave.
Verdugo Ave.
Oak St.
Main St.
Palm Ave.
Victory Blvd.
Olive Ave. Tujunga Ave. Verdugo Ave.
Providencia Ave.
Cedar Ave. Elmwood Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Cypress Ave
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Chandler Blvd.
Chestnut St.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Clark Ave.
Verdugo Ave.
Oak St.
Main St.
Victory Blvd.
Palm Ave.
Victory Blvd.
V ic t o r y B l v d .
pedestrian collisions
unsafe speed collisions
bicycle collisions
broadside collisions at
signalized intersections
broadside collisions at side
street stop-controlled
intersections
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
length 1.2 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 29-41 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
average dail y traffic 23,000 - 27,000
(16,000)
number of controlled
crossings 7
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,000 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1,500 ft
bike facility none
40 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
90 5
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
18%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
9%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
94%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
priority projects
VICTORY BOULEVARD
Burbank Boulevard to Providencia Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2 - 40
Olive Ave. Tujunga Ave. Verdugo Ave.
Providencia Ave.
Cedar Ave. Elmwood Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Cypress Ave
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Chandler Blvd.
Chestnut St.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Magnolia Blvd.
Clark Ave.
Verdugo Ave.
Oak St.
Main St.
Victory Blvd.
Palm Ave.
Victory Blvd.
V ic t o r y B l v d .
41 priority improvements
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Segment identified as a Bicyclist Priority Street in
the Complete Our Streets Plan
Roadway Reconfiguration &
Separated Bikeway
Install a separated bikeway
between Burbank Channel
Bikeway and Burbank Blvd.
Investigate need for additional
signals at Chestnut St, Cypress
Ave, Palm Ave
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Protected Left Turns
• Curb Extensions
• Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• Coordinate Signals to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage Accordingly
• Retroreflective Backplates
• Speed Feedback Signs
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Note: Victory Signal Synchronization Project is in the
planning/design phase in the CIP. See https:/ /www.
burbankca.gov/web/public-works/cip-planning-design
Victory Boulevard at Olive Avenue
Add corner bulb-outs to improve crosswalk alignment and shorten pedestrian crossing distances acriss the skewed intersection.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 41
Lake St.
Flower St.
San Fernando Rd.
Glenoaks Blvd.
Victory Blvd.
Main St.
Elmwood Ave.
Linden Ave.
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Alameda Ave.
Lake St.
Flower St.
San Fernando Rd.
Glenoaks Blvd.
Victory Blvd.
Main St.
Elmwood Ave.
Elm Ave.
Linden Ave.
Riverside Dr.
I-5 - G o ld e n S t a t e F w y .
Alameda Ave.
left turning vehicle collision
hit parked vehicle collision
unsafe speed collisions
pedestrian collisions 2
injury collisions
1 injury collision
dui collisionsbroadside collisions at
signalized intersections 3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
bicycle collisions
42 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
93 6
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
6%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
11%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
90%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
length 1.2 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 38-44 mph
number of lanes 4-5 lanes
average dail y traffic 25,000 - 30,000
number of controlled
crossings 7
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,000 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1,500 ft
bike facility none
priority projects
ALAMEDA AVENUE
Main Street to Glenoaks Boulevard
ATTACHMENT 2 - 42
Lake St.
Flower St.
San Fernando Rd.
Glenoaks Blvd.
Victory Blvd.
Main St.
Elmwood Ave.
Elm Ave.
Linden Ave.
Riverside Dr.
I-5 - G o ld e n S t a t e F w y .
Alameda Ave.
43 priority improvements
Curve Warning Signage
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Long-term underpass improvements identified as
Alameda Underpass Improvement Project
Extend median to restrict turns
onto Alameda Ave
Enhance roadway and pedestrian
lighting
Elevated and seperated
sidewalks along underpass
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• Left-Turn Calming
• Retroreflective Backplates
• Rest-in-Red
• Curb Extensions
• Pedestrian Recall
• Coordinate Signals to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage Accordingly
• Speed Feedback Signs
• Lane Narrowing
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Extend median to restrict turns
onto Alameda Ave
ATTACHMENT 2 - 43
Burbank Blvd. Chandler Blvd. Magnolia Blvd.
Clark Ave.
Verdugo Ave.
Vanowen St. Ontario St.
Screenland Dr.
Victory Blvd.
Pacific Ae.
Jeffries Ave.
Wyoming Ave.
Allan Ave. Edison Blvd.
Hollywood Way
hit parked vehicle collision
unsafe speed collisions pedestrian collisions
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
dui collisionsbroadside collisions at
signalized intersections 3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
44 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
110 9
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
6%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
12%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
83%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
length 2 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 37-42 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
average dail y traffic 24,000 - 29,000
number of controlled
crossings 11
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,200 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1,200 ft
bike facility bike lane
(n of pacific ave)
priority projects
HOLLYWOOD WAY
Vanowen Street to Clark Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2 - 44
Burbank Blvd. Chandler Blvd. Magnolia Blvd.
Clark Ave.
Verdugo Ave.
Vanowen St. Ontario St.
Screenland Dr.
Edison Blvd.
Victory Blvd.
Pacific Ave.
Valhalla Dr.
Jeffries Ave.
Wyoming Ave.
Allan Ave.
Hollywood Way
45 Upgrade Bike Facility to a
Separated Bikeway North of
Pacific Ave
Investigate the need for signals
at Allen Ave and Wyoming Ave
priority improvements
Hollywood Way at Burbank Boulevard
Close right turn lane from Codova Street and restrict
left turns onto Hollywood Way to simplify intersection.
Curve Warning Signage
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Hollywood Way Underpass Improvement
identified as a a long-term project
STOP
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Curb Extensions
• Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• Coordinate Signals to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage Accordingly
• Retroreflective Backplates
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
• Speed Feedback Signs
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 45
Lima St.
Ontario St. Niagara St. Naomi St.Catalina St.
Buena Vista St. Brighton St.
Vanowen St.
Lima St.
Ontario St. Niagara St. Naomi St.Catalina St.
Buena Vista St. Brighton St.
Vanowen St.
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
dui collisions
hit object collisionsbicycle collisions
broadside collisions at
signalized intersections
broadside collisions at side
street stop-controlled
intersections
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
46 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
14 3
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
14%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
7%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
100%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
length 0.4 mi
posted speed 40 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 48-52 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
average dail y traffic 15,000
number of controlled
crossings 1
no crosswalks except at buena vista st
(0.8 mi to next crosswalk)
bike facility none
priority projects
VANOWEN STREET
Ontario Street to Buena Vista Street
ATTACHMENT 2 - 46
Lima St.
Ontario St. Niagara St. Naomi St.Catalina St.
Buena Vista St. Brighton St.
Vanowen St.
47 Roadway Reconfiguration &
Separated Bikeway Extended to
Hollywood Way
priority improvements
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
If bikeway is extended in the long-term, this
would connect to the existing bikeway west
of Hollywood Way and link with the proposed
Hollywood Way Underpass Improvement, a long-
term Complete Our Streets Plan project.
• Refresh Pavement Markings
Through Intersection
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Speed Limit Reduction & Speed
Feedback Signs
• Bike Lane hollywood way to naomi st
• Lane Narrowing
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Corridor-wide speed limit reductions per AB43 and re-striping to naorrow lanes
ATTACHMENT 2 - 47
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Burbank Blvd.
Cypress Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Delaware Rd.
Amherst Dr.
Scott Rd.
Grismer Ave.
Walnut Ave.
Grimmel Dr.
San Fernando Blvd.
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Cypress Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Delaware Rd.
Amherst Dr.
Scott Rd.
East Ave.Grismer Ave.
Walnut Ave.
Grimmel Dr.
San Fernando Blvd.
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
2 injury collisions
1 injury collisionunsafe speed collisions
broadside collisions at
signalized intersections
collisions invol ving
left-turning vehicles
pedestrian collisions
parked vehicle
collisions
48 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
42 3
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
12%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
14%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
95%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
length 0.9 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile)
35-40 mph
(w of walnut ave)
number of lanes 4-5 lanes
average dail y traffic 15,000 - 20,000
number of controlled
crossings 9
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 500 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1100 ft
bike facility bike lane
priority projects
SAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD
I-5 On/Off Ramp to Cypess Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2 - 48
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Cypress Ave.
Magnolia Blvd.
Delaware Rd.
Amherst Dr.
Scott Rd.
East Ave.Grismer Ave.
Walnut Ave.
Grimmel Dr.
San Fernando Blvd.
49 long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Aligns with Downtown Ped Safety Improvement
Study and connects to First Street Bikeway
priority improvements
Access Management at Scott
Road/Amherst Drive
Address the skewed/complex intersection
at Amherst Drive through turn restrictions
and signal improvements.
Reconfigure the lanes at the San
Fernando/Burbank intersection to
enhance pedestrian and bicycle
safety treatments
STOP
ALL WA Y
priority corridor-wide improvements
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
STOP-CONTROLLED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
MIDBLOCK
IMPROVEMENTS
East Avenue
Add curve warning signage
and left-turn restrictions.
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalks
• Curb Extensions
• Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
• Rest-in-Red
• Coordinate Signals to
Posted Speeds, Add
Signage Accordingly
• Retroreflective Backplates
• High-Visibility Crosswalks
• Curb Extensions
• Speed Feedback Signs
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 49
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Hollywood Way
Fairview St.
Ontario St.
Buena Vista St.
Niagara St.
Keystone St.
Reese Pl.
Victory Blvd.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Griffin Park Dr.
Monterey Ave.Lincoln Ave.
Victory Blvd.
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Hollywood Way
Fairview St.
Ontario St.
Buena Vista St.
Niagara St.
Keystone St.
Reese Pl.
Victory Blvd.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Griffin Park Dr.
Monterey Ave.Lincoln Ave.
Victory Blvd.
pedestrian collisions
unsafe speed collisionsbroadside collisions at
signalized intersections
broadside collisions at side
street stop-controlled
intersections
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
50 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
75 7
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
5%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
5%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
100%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history.
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
length 1.2 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 25-46 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
average dail y traffic 21,000 - 24,000
number of controlled
crossings 6
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,400 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1,600 ft
bike facility bike lane
priority projects
VICTORY BOULEVARD
Ontario Street to Burbank Boulevard
ATTACHMENT 2 - 50
I-5 - Golden State Fwy.
Hollywood Way
Fairview St.
Ontario St.
Buena Vista St.
Niagara St.
Keystone St.
Reese Pl.
Victory Blvd.
Victory Pl.
Burbank Blvd.
Griffin Park Dr.
Monterey Ave.Lincoln Ave.
Victory Blvd.
51 Remove slip lane and install
access control, signal, and
striping upgrades at Burbank
Blvd
Addresses cluster of crashes at a
skewed/complex intersection
Upgrade Bike Facility to a
Separated Bikeway
Reflects FHWA guidance on bikeway
facility type on high speed, high ADT
corridors. Addresses bicycle collisions
Investigate the need for signals
at California St, Catalina St,
Lincoln St, Parish Pl, and Griffith
Park Dr
priority improvements
Add leading pedestrian interval
at Buena Vista Street
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Segment identified as a Bicyclist Priority Street
in Complete Our Streets Plan
STOP
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Curb Extensions
• Coordinate Signals to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage Accordingly
• Retroreflective Backplates
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
• Speed Feedback Signs
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 51
San Fernando Blvd.
Kenmere Ave.Thornton Ave. Empire Ave.
Vanowen St.
Victory Blvd.
Chandler Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Clark Ave.
Burbank Blvd.
Buena Vista St.
San Fernando Blvd.
Kenmere Ave.Thornton Ave. Empire Ave. Vanowen St.
Victory Blvd.Monterey Ave.
Chandler Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Clark Ave.
Burbank Blvd.
Buena Vista St.
nightime dui collisionspedestrian collisions
2 injury collisions
1 injury collision
unsafe speed collisionsbroadside collisions at
signalized intersections 3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
52 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
158 6
TOTAL INJURY COLLISIONS
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
7%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
8%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
89%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history. length 2.3 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 36-43 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
average dail y traffic 21,000 - 27,000
number of controlled
crossings 9
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,200 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 2,000 ft
bike facility none
priority projects
BUENA VISTA STREET
San Fernando Boulevard to Clark Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2 - 52
San Fernando Blvd.
Kenmere Ave.Thornton Ave. Empire Ave. Vanowen St.
Victory Blvd.Monterey Ave.
Chandler Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Clark Ave.
Burbank Blvd.
Buena Vista St.
53 Kenmere Avenue
Restrict Kenmere Ave to right-in, right-out only
through a hardened centerline and striping upgrades.
priority improvements
Southbound lane reduction and
slip lane removal at Vanowen St
Addresses cluster of collisions at
a complex intersection with an
inconsistent cross section.
Investigate treatments for
Ralph’s Plaza Entrance
Addresses cluster of collisions
turning into/out of plaza.
Investigate need for signal at
Pacific Ave
Addresses broadside and pedestrian
collisions, helps manage speed, and
establishes Pacific Avenue as a bike route
with comfortable crossing opportunities.
Vanowen Street
Refresh striping and cat
tracking at Vanowen Street.
long-term vision improvements
STOP
STOP
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Curb Extensions
• Coordinate Signals
to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage
Accordingly
• Retroreflective
Backplates
Monterey Avenue
Restrict Monterey Ave to right-in, right-out only
through a hardened centerline and striping upgrades.
MIDBLOCK
IMPROVEMENTS
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
• Speed Feedback Signs
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Note: A new signal at Jeffries Ave is in the CIP.
Buena Vista Signal Synchronization Project is also in
the CIP. See: https:/ /www.burbankca.gov/web/public-
works/cip-planning-design
STOP
ALL WA Y
STOP-CONTROLLED
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
• Access Management
ATTACHMENT 2 - 53
Sparks St.
Virginia Ave.
Victory Blvd.
Parish Pl.
Lake St.
San Fernando Blvd.
1st St. 3rd St.
Glenoaks Blvd.
6th St.5th St.
Verdugo Ave.
Clark Ave.
I-5 - Golden State Fw
y.
Olive Ave.
STOP
ALL WA Y
STOP
ALL WA Y
Virginia Ave.
Sparks St.
Victory Blvd.
Parish Pl.
Lake St.
San Fernando Blvd.
1st St. 3rd St.
Glenoaks Blvd.
6th St.5th St.Verdugo Ave.
I-5 - Golden State Fw
y.
Olive Ave.
2 injury collisions
1 injury collisionpedestrian collisions
unsafe speed collisionsbroadside collisions at
signalized intersections
broadside collisions at side
street stop-controlled
intersections
3+ injury collisions or
1+ ksi collision
54 corridor characteristics
collision trends
collision statistics (2018-2022)
92 4
TOTAL COLLISIONS
COLLISIONS BY TYPE
KSI COLLISIONS
7%
BIKE
COLLISIONS
13%
PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
95%
COLLISIONS AT
INTERSECTIONS
Map used to depict collision trends and does not show all collision history. length 1.8 mi
posted speed 35 mph
observed speed
(85th percentile) 25-45 mph
number of lanes 4-5 lanes
average dail y traffic 11,000 - 25,000
(higher s of 1st st)
number of controlled
crossings 6
avg. distance between
controlled crossings* 1,400 ft
max distance between
controlled crossings** 1,600 ft
bike facility bike lane
priority projects
OLIVE AVENUE
Orchard Drive to 6th Street
ATTACHMENT 2 - 54
STOP
ALL WA Y
STOP
ALL WA Y
Virginia Ave.
Sparks St.
Victory Blvd.
Parish Pl.
Lake St.
San Fernando Blvd.
1st St. 3rd St.
Glenoaks Blvd.
6th St.5th St.Verdugo Ave.
I-5 - Golden State Fw
y.
Olive Ave.
55 priority improvements
Consolidate Driveways at
Orchard
Addresses a cluster of collisions related
to uncontrolled driveway access.
Install Access Control, Signal, and
Striping Upgrades at Verdugo/
Sparks
Addresses a cluster of collisions at
a skewed/complex intersection.
Add Leading Pedestrian Intervals
long-term vision improvements
Complete Our Streets Plan Connection
Improvements at the Spark/Verdugo
intersection will improve crossing for
bicycles utilizing the Verdugo bike lanes,
identified as a Bicyclist Priority Street.
• Protected Left Turns
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Curb Extensions
• Coordinate Signals to Posted Speeds,
Add Signage Accordingly
MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
• Speed Feedback Signs
priority corridor-wide improvements
Colors below represent collision trends on previous page.
All countermeasures are subject to engineering feasibility. Some countermeasures may require additional study to warrant installation.
Olive Avenue at Victory Boulevard
Add corner bulb-outs to improve crosswalk alignmment and shorten pedestrian crossing distances across the skewed intersection.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 55
56 corridor characteristics
priority projects
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS
signalized intersections
roadway context collision types
Intersection Intersection Type Transit Stops Bike Facility Land Use Vehicle Only Pedestrian Bicycle Total Hollywood/Olive Major/Major Yes No Commercial 5/1 0/0 0/0 5/1 Riverside/Olive Major/Major
(skewed) No No Commercial 3/1 0/0 0/0 3/1
Buena Vista/Olive Major/Major
(skewed) Yes No Commercial/
Retail 4/0 1/0 0/0 5/0
Alameda/Pass Major/Major Yes Bike Route (Pass) Commercial/ Retail 4/0 0/0 1/0 5/0
Hollywood/Verdugo Major/Minor Yes Bike Lane (Verdugo) Retail 9/0 1/0 0/0 10/0 Empire/Lincoln Major/Minor Yes Bike Lane (Lincoln) Commercial 3/0 1/1 0/0 4/1 Alameda/Keystone Major/Minor No Bike Lane (Alameda)
Bike Route (Keystone)
Commercial/
Residential 4/1 1/0 0/0 5/1
San Fernando/Angeleno Minor/Minor Yes Bike Lane (Alameda) Retail/ Resi- dential 4/1 0/0 0/0 4/1
Key: #/# = Injury Collisions 2018-2022 (not including KSIs) / KSIs ATTACHMENT 2 - 56
Keystone St
3rd St
Amherst Dr
Empire Ave
San Fernando Blvd
P a s s A v e
Olive Ave
Verdugo Ave
Lake St
S San Fernando Blvd
Buena Vista St
1st St
6th St
F l o w e r S t
V i c t o r y P l
Main St
Harvard Rd
N Victory Blvd
Maple St Hollywood Way
Vanowen St
Alameda Ave
W Victory Blvd
Jeffries Ave
Pacific Ave
Burbank Blvd
Chandler Blvd
Glenoaks Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Riverside Dr
Kenneth Rd
NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS
Projects denoted on map in green
• Protected Left Turns
• Left Turn Calming
• Pavement Markings Through Intersections
• High Visibility Crosswalks
• Rest-in-Red
• Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• Curb Extensions and/or Pedestrian Refuge Islands
• Close Slip Lanes
57 Colors depict collision trends addressed. See legend below. pedestrian collisions
unsafe speed collisions
broadside collisions at signalized intersections
left turning vehicle collision
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS
signalized intersections near-term improvement locations ATTACHMENT 2 - 57
58 corridor characteristics
priority projects
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS
unsignalized intersections with minor-street-only stop control roadway context collision types
Intersection Intersection Type Transit Stops Bike Facility Land Use Vehicle Only Pedestrian Bicycle Total Alameda/ Parish Major/Minor No Bike Lane (Alameda) Residential 4/1 0/0 0/0 4/1 Burbank/ Avon Major/Minor No No Commercial 0/0 1/1 0/0 1/1 Magnolia/ Shelton Major/Minor No No Retail 1/0 0/0 1/1 2/1 Glenoaks/ Lamer Major/Minor
(Skewed) No No Residential 3/1 0/0 0/0 3/1
Victory Pl/ Empire
Center Major/Minor No No Commercial 3/1 0/0 0/0 3/1
6th/ Roselli Minor/Minor No No Residential 1/0 1/1 0/0 2/1 6th/Palm Minor/Minor No No Residential 1/0 1/1 1/1 3/2
6th/ Fairmount Minor/Minor No No Residential 0/0 1/1 0/0 1/1 East/ Scott Minor/Minor No No Residential/
Retail/Park 2/0 1/1 0/0 3/1
Key: #/# = Injury Collisions 2018-2022 (not including KSIs) / KSIs ATTACHMENT 2 - 58
Keystone St
3rd St
Amherst Dr
Empire Ave
San Fernando Blvd
P a s s A v e
Olive Ave
Verdugo Ave
Lake St
S San Fernando Blvd
Buena Vista St
1st St
6th St
F l o w e r S t
V i c t o r y P l
Main St
Harvard Rd
N Victory Blvd
Maple St Hollywood Way
Vanowen St
Alameda Ave
W Victory Blvd
Jeffries Ave
Pacific Ave
Burbank Blvd
Chandler Blvd
Glenoaks Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Riverside Dr
Kenneth Rd
59 ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS
side street stop-controlled intersections near-term improvement locations near-term long-term
Intersection Neighborhood
Traffic Circle
Access
Management
(Left Turn
Restrictions)
Investigate
Installing
a Signal
Alameda/
Parish
✔
Burbank/ Avon ✔
Magnolia/
Shelton
✔
Glenoaks/
Lamer
✔
Victory Pl/
Empire Center
✔
6th/ Roselli ✔*
6th/Palm ✔*
6th/ Fairmount ✔*
East/ Scott ✔
*Consider additional traffic circles on 6th Street at Alameda Avenue, Elmwood Avenue, and Cedar Avenue to manage speeds along the corridor.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 59
Technical Summary A
1 ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 60
ATTACHMENT 2 - 60
Safety
Analysis
A Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
Technical Summary A
37 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
461
ATTACHMENT 2 - 61
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
SAFETY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
We conducted an in-depth analysis of the most
recent five years of available injury crash data in
the City. There were over 2,100 crashes that
resulted in an injury between 2018 and 2022.
This section summarizes the analysis of injury
collisions, identifies roadway characteristics
associated with these collisions, and details the
development of the City’s Focus Network.
The safety analysis is based on data from the
City of Burbank’s collision database,
supplemented with information on crash
locations from the Transportation Injury
mapping System (TIMS) maintained by UC
Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center (SafeTREC) sourced in
collaboration with the Burbank Police
Department. The goal of this analysis was to
inform strategies the City can deploy to
eliminate crashes that result in death or severe
injuries and therefore excludes property-
damage-only collisions as well as collisions on
State highways and privately-owned roads and
parking lots.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Intersections are key sites of crashes in Burbank, across modes. Ninety-one percent of injury collisions occurred at an intersection, most commonly at signalized intersections. • Broadside collisions (i.e. “T-bone” collisions) accounted for nearly half of injury collisions and over a third of KSI collisions. • Vulnerable road users experienced severe collision outcomes at higher rates. Collisions involving pedestrians and motorcyclists were more likely to be fatal or severe—their share of KSI collisions was 2.5x and 5x their share in all injury collisions, respectively. • The most common place for a pedestrian -involved collision was in a crosswalk. Over half of pedestrian collisions and 44% of pedestrian KSI collisions involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.
• Speed was a factor in most injury collisions. 91% of injury collisions and 86% of KSI collisions occurred on roadways with 85th percentile observed speeds of 30mph or more.
• Eighty percent of the City’s KSI collisions occurred on just 16% of the street network —we refer to this set of streets going forward as the Focus Network.
• Burbank is not alone in these trends. The U.S. has seen a 25% increase in roadway fatalities between 2012 and 2023, with annual pedestrian fatalities increasing by 54% during that time. The FHWA has emphasized intersections and vulnerable roadway users as key focuses for safety improvements (NHTSA).
62 ATTACHMENT 2 - 62
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
COLLISION LANDSCAPE
Between 2018 and 2022, 2,123 injury collisions occurred on city-owned roadways in Burbank. Injury collisions reached a five-year low in 2020, followed by an uptick in 2021.
Over the five-year period, there were 105 collisions where victims were killed or severely injured. 15 of these collisions were fatal. This equates to an average of 21 collisions where people were killed or severely injured each year. 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Number of Injury Collisions
Year
INJURY COLLISIONS
KSI
Injury (Non-KSI)
63 ATTACHMENT 2 - 63
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
WHO IS INVOLVED
Pedestrians and motorcyclists made up a disproportionate share of KSI collisions compared to all injury collisions—their share of KSI collisions was 2.5x and 5x their share in all injury collisions respectively. Injury collisions involving a bicycle were disproportionately high relative to bicycle mode share for all trips in Burbank.
76%
6%
8%
10%
36%
29%
9%
26%
84%
2% 12%
2%
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bike
Ped
Transit
Other
Note: CHTS refers to the California Household Travel
Survey, which estimates the mode share for all trips.
INJURY COLLISIONS
BY MODE
KSI COLLISIONS
BY MODE
BURBANK MODE SHARE,
CHTS 2012
64 ATTACHMENT 2 - 64
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
Road users ages 20-34 had a disproportionately high rate of involvement in collisions in Burbank.
Youth and seniors were disproportionately impacted by bicycle and pedestrian-involved collisions.
Road users ages 15-19 accounted for 3x their share of bicycle collisions relative to their share of the City’s population. Road users 65 years of age or older accounted for a higher share of pedestrian collisions relative to their share of the population.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Collision Parties
Burbank Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
KSI COLLISIONS BY AGE
OF INVOLVED PARTIES
BICYCLE-INVOLVED KSI
COLLISIONS BY AGE OF
INVOLVED PARTIES
PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED
COLLISIONS BY AGE OF
INVOLVED PARTIES
65 ATTACHMENT 2 - 65
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
WHERE COLLISIONS OCCUR
Most injury collisions—91 percent—occurred at an intersection. Vehicle-only and pedestrian collisions occurred most often at signalized intersections, while bicycle-involved collisions occurred most often at side street stop-controlled intersections. Roadways with the most frequent collision history are discussed later in this section in the context of the Focus Network. 52%
33%
5%
1%
9%
43%
37%
6%
1%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Signalized
Side street stop-
controlled
All way stop-
controlled
No stop control
Midblock (not at
an intersection)
KSI collisions Injury collisions
38%
45%
11%
1%
5%
55%
28%
7%
1%
9%
53%
32%
5%
1%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Vehicle Only
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS BY
INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS BY MODE AND
INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE
66 ATTACHMENT 2 - 66
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
WHY COLLISIONS OCCUR
The Primary Collision Factor (PCF) refers to the primary cause of the crash as determined by the officer and corresponds to sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC). Auto right-of-way violation accounted for the most injury collisions and the most KSI collisions among all primary collision factors. Unsafe speed accounted for the second most injury collisions and third most KSI collisions. It is important to note that speed can still be a key factor in collisions where unsafe speed is not the PCF. Driving under the influence accounted for a disproportionate share of KSI collisions compared to all injury collisions. Alcohol may still be involved in collisions despite it not being listed as the PCF—17% of KSI collisions were coded as involving alcohol.
31%
19%
11%
11%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Auto R/W violation
Unsafe speed
Improper turning
Failure to stop/yield
at red
Driving under
influence
22%
12%
10%
10%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Auto R/W violation
Driving under influence
Unsafe speed
Uknown
Improper turning
COMMON PRIMARY
COLLISION FACTOR (PCF)
DEFINITIONS
1. Auto right -of-way
violation: Failure of a party
of any mode to yield to the
driver’s right-of-way or a
driver observing their right-
of way improperly. “Autos”
may include bikes in this
category as the CVC
considers a bicycle a
vehicle.
2. Unsafe speed: Driving at a
speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent
having due regard for
weather, visibility, the
traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway,
and in no event at a speed
which endangers the safety
of persons or property.
3. Improper turning: Turning
a vehicle from a direct
course or moving right or
left upon a roadway before
such movement can be
made with reasonable
safety and/or not giving
appropriate signal.
4. Traffic signs and signals:
Failure to stop or yield
appropriately at a red light
or stop sign.
5. Driving under influence:
Operating a motor vehicle
while impaired due to being
under the influence of
alcohol, drugs or both.
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS BY
TOP PCF
KSI COLLISIONS BY
TOP PCF
67 ATTACHMENT 2 - 67
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
Broadside collisions (i.e. “T-bone” collisions) accounted for nearly half of injury collisions and over a third of KSI collisions. Over a third of broadside collisions involved a left-turning vehicle. Rear ends were the second most common collision type but were less likely to have a fatal or severe outcome.
Collisions between a vehicle and a pedestrian and hit object collisions accounted for a disproportionate share of KSIs relative to injury collisions. 45%
21%
10%
9%
7%
5%
4%
35%
6%
25%
10%
9%
10%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Broadside
Rear-End
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Sideswipe
Head-On
Hit Object
Other
KSI collisions Injury collisions
36%
30%
13%
7%
4%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Proceeding straight/making
left turn
Both parties proceeding
straight
Proceeding straight/entering
traffic
Proceeding straight/making a
U turn or other unsafe turning
Proceeding straight/making a
right turn
All other movement pairs
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS BY
COLLISION TYPE
DRIVER MOVEMENT PRECEDING
BROADSIDE INJURY COLLISIONS
68 ATTACHMENT 2 - 68
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
Pedestrian collisions most often occurred while a pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. Over 50% of drivers involved in a pedestrian collision were turning before the collision occurred. Drivers were most often making a left turn in these collisions. 59%
22%
13%
4%
1%
44%
44%
7%
4%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Crossing in crosswalk at
intersection
Crossing not in
crosswalk
In road
Not in road
Crossing in crosswalk
not at intersection
KSI collisions Injury collisions
36%
33%
18%
5%
3%
2%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Proceeding straight
Making left turn
Making right turn
Backing
Stopped in road
Entering traffic
Other
PEDESTRIAN ACTION PRECEDING
PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED INJURY
COLLISIONS
DRIVER MOVEMENT PRECEDING
PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED INJURY
COLLISIONS
69 ATTACHMENT 2 - 69
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
WHEN COLLISIONS OCCUR
The most common time of day for injury collisions to occur was during the afternoon peak from 3pm-6pm. A higher share of KSI collisions occurred in dark overnight hours (6pm-6am) and on weekends compared to all injury collisions.
0% 10% 20% 30%
Late Evening (9pm-12am)
Evening (6pm-9pm)
Afternoon Peak (3pm-…
Mid-Day (12pm-3pm)
Late Morning (9am-12pm)
Morning Peak (6am-9am)
Early Morning (3am-6am)
Overnight (12am-3am)
KSI Collisions Injury Collisions
0% 10% 20% 30%
Sunday
Saturday
Friday
Thursday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
KSI Collisions All Collisions
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS
BY TIME OF DAY
ALL INJURY COLLISIONS BY DAY
OF WEEK
70 ATTACHMENT 2 - 70
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
We analyzed the locations of the injury collisions to understand what roadway characteristics were most commonly associated with injury collisions in Burbank. We looked at nine different contextual factors to identify common collision profiles for each mode. Combined, these collision profiles accounted for a majority of injury collisions and KSI collisions in Burbank. Collisions at signalized intersections and collisions at side street stop-controlled intersections emerged as trends across modes. Another theme was vehicle speed—71% of injury collisions and 74% of KSI collisions occurred on roadways with 85
th percentile observed speeds of 30mph or more.
1. Average daily traffic (Streetlight,
2022)
2. Obs
erved speed data (Wejo,
2022)
3. R
oadway classification (City of
Bu
rbank)
4. Intersection Type (F&P defined)
• Major-Major; Major-Minor;
M
inor-Minor; Midblock
5. Control Type (City of Burbank)
• Signal; All-Wa y Stop; Side-
Street Stop; None
6. Presence of Bicycle Facility (City
of B
urbank)
7. Presence of Speed Humps (City of
Bu
rbank)
8. Adjacent Land Use:
Cal
EnviroScreen 4.0 score; near
Parks; near Schools; near Transit
Stops
9. Special Designation Districts
• Big Box (F&P defined);
Dow
ntown; Downtown Core
(F&P defined); Golden State;
Hillside; Magnolia Park;
Media; Rancho
EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
This analysis compared the rate of injury collisions
and KSI collisions in disadvantaged communities
to the City overall. Disadvantaged communities in
Burbank were defined as any census tract in the
City with a top 25
th percentile score in the
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool, which shows pollution
burden and vulnerability in California by census
tract. The disadvantaged communities in Burbank
are concentrated in the neighborhoods adjacent
to I-5, including most of Downtown, and account
for 40% of the City’s land area. Vehicle-only
collisions occurred in disadvantaged communities
at a similar rate to the City overall, however these
areas had a disproportionate share of the City’s
pedestrian- and bicycle-involved KSI collisions.
Areas categorized as disadvantaged communities
in Burbank accounted for 63% of pedestrian-
involved KSI collisions and 50% of bicycle-
involved KSI collisions. Disadvantaged community
status was considered when selecting priority
projects for inclusion in this plan. See Section 4
for additional detail.
71 DATA SOURCES USED
ATTACHMENT 2 - 71
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
Vehicle-Only Pedestrian-Involved Bicyclist-Involved
• Broadside collisions at
si
gnalized intersections
• Side street stop-con trolled
collisions on higher-
volume, high-speed
roadways
• Collisions near parks
• Collisions in the Downtown
Di
strict
• Crossing (in crosswalk) at
si
gnalized intersections
• Crossing at a side street
sto
p-controlled
intersection
• Crossing (not in crosswalk)
on hi
gh-volume, high-
speed roadways
• Crossing near transit stops
• Crossing in the Downtown
Di
strict
• Collisions at side street
sto
p-controlled
intersections
• Collisions at signalized
in
tersections
• Collisions on local streets
• Collisions along roadways
wi
th Class II bike lanes
THESE FIVE TRENDS
MAKE UP:
76% of Ped Injury Collisions
89% of Ped KSI Collisions
THESE FOUR TRENDS
MAKE UP:
90% of Bike Injury Collisions
90% of Bike KSI Collisions
THESE FOUR TRENDS
MAKE UP:
68% of Veh-Only Injury Collisions
74% of Veh-Only KSI Collisions
COLLISION TRENDS
72 ATTACHMENT 2 - 72
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
FOCUS NETWORK
Eighty percent of the City’s
KSI collisions occurred on
just 16% of the street
network—we refer to this set
of streets going forward as
the Focus Network. The
Focus Network identifies
higher-risk locations for
injury collisions across all
modes based on collision
history and was used to
prioritize near-term safety
improvements in this plan.
73 ATTACHMENT 2 - 73
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
To develop the Focus Network, we weighed injury collisions by the factors listed below. • Collision severity in terms of “comprehensive” crash cost • Mode: Involves bicyclist or pedestrian
The weights for collision severity are based on 2022 California Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM) crash costs for each collision severity. In addition to collision severity, additional weight was given to collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists to reflect a strong emphasis on vulnerable road users in the development of the Focus Network. Cumulative scores for collisions were summed and then aggregated to segments to develop the Focus Network.
AB43 AND SPEED LIMIT SETTING FLEXIBILITY
The decision to include an additional weight for collisions involving vulnerable road users was informed by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Safety Corridor Definition Requirements, which recommends that crash mode influence collision weighting. The Safety Corridor Definition Requirements were developed by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) to comply with Assembly Bill 43. Assembly Bill 43 provides local authorities greater flexibility in setting and reducing speed limits.
74 ATTACHMENT 2 - 74
TECHNICAL SUMMARY A: SAFETY ANALYSIS
Page intentionally left blank.
75 ATTACHMENT 2 - 75
1 ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 76
ATTACHMENT 2 - 76
Engagement
B Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
Technical Summary B
39 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
477
ATTACHMENT 2 - 77
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
OVERVIEW
Federal and State guidance for safety planning define a data-driven approach to analyzing collision trends, pairing those trends with safety treatments, and identifying priority locations for safety investments.
Community engagement is an important part of validating collision data and understanding community sentiment on transportation safety. Building community awareness about perceived and actual collision trends, and how safety treatments can be utilized are critical parts of Action Plan implementation.
Community engagement took three forms over the duration of the Action Plan development:
•
Status updates to Transportation Commission and City Council. Two updates to City Council were provided on January 10, 2023 and July 30, 2024. One update to Transportation Commission was provided on March 27, 2024.
• Project Website and Digital Survey. Our project website and online survey were live for four months (1/2/2025-3/31/2025). The online survey included a web map where users could add pins where they’ve experienced transportation safety issues, as well as multiple choice questions about users’ experience on Focus Network corridors, their prioritization of transportation safety over time savings, and demographic questions.
• In-person community meeting. A community meeting was held at the Buena Vista Branch Library on 3/12/2025. It included a four stations where visitors could 1) learn more about Safer Streets Burbank, 2) put pins on a map and express their transportation safety concerns, 3) participate in a “I feel safe when…” exercise, and 4) up/down vote for near-term safety strategies.
78 ATTACHMENT 2 - 78
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
PROJECT WEBSITE AND DIGITAL SURVEY
The following pages present the survey response summary. 79 ATTACHMENT 2 - 79
F&P Social Pinpoint
Report Type: Form Results Summary
Date Range: 02-01-2025 - 31-03-2025
Exported: 03-04-2025 12:44:41
Open
Untitled
Safer Streets Burbank
84 Contributors
89 Contributions
Contribution Summary
1. How do you get around Burbank? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 88 (98.9%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Drive 94.32% 83
Motorcycle 5.68% 5
Walk 85.23% 75
Use a mobility device such as a walker or wheelchair 1.14% 1 Bike 45.45% 40
Take transit 22.73% 20
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 1 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 80
E-bike 9.09% 8
E-scooter 1.14% 1
Other 0% 0
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 2 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 81
2. Where have you experienced speeding drivers? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 4 | Answered: 85 (95.5%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 49.41% 42 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 43.53% 37 Alameda Ave 48.24% 41
Hollywood Way 55.29% 47
Vanowen St 31.76% 27
San Fernando Blvd 38.82% 33
Buena Vista St 45.88% 39
Olive Ave 55.29% 47
Glenoaks Blvd 72.94% 62
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 3 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 82
3. Where have you experienced difficulty crossing the street? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 5 | Answered: 84 (94.4%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 34.52% 29 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 26.19% 22 Alameda Ave 40.48% 34
Hollywood Way 41.67% 35
Vanowen St 17.86% 15
San Fernando Blvd 30.95% 26
Buena Vista St 45.24% 38
Olive Ave 52.38% 44
Glenoaks Blvd 51.19% 43
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 4 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 83
4. Where have you experienced discomfort when riding a bike? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 6 | Answered: 83 (93.3%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 45.78% 38 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 37.35% 31 Alameda Ave 40.96% 34
Hollywood Way 54.22% 45
Vanowen St 28.92% 24
San Fernando Blvd 36.14% 30
Buena Vista St 49.40% 41
Olive Ave 53.01% 44
Glenoaks Blvd 57.83% 48
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 5 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 84
5. Where have you experienced challenging driving conditions? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 6 | Answered: 83 (93.3%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 31.33% 26 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 31.33% 26 Alameda Ave 39.76% 33
Hollywood Way 42.17% 35
Vanowen St 26.51% 22
San Fernando Blvd 32.53% 27
Buena Vista St 34.94% 29
Olive Ave 39.76% 33
Glenoaks Blvd 54.22% 45
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 6 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 85
6. Where have you experienced drivers ignoring traffic laws? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 5 | Answered: 84 (94.4%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 44.05% 37 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 45.24% 38 Alameda Ave 50.00% 42
Hollywood Way 58.33% 49
Vanowen St 35.71% 30
San Fernando Blvd 47.62% 40
Buena Vista St 50.00% 42
Olive Ave 54.76% 46
Glenoaks Blvd 76.19% 64
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 7 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 86
7. Where have you experienced poor lighting conditions after dark? Check all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 7 | Answered: 82 (92.1%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Victory Blvd (from Burbank Blvd to Providencia Ave) 29.27% 24 Victory Blvd (from Ontario St to Burbank Blvd) 20.73% 17 Alameda Ave 25.61% 21
Hollywood Way 26.83% 22
Vanowen St 19.51% 16
San Fernando Blvd 20.73% 17
Buena Vista St 20.73% 17
Olive Ave 30.49% 25
Glenoaks Blvd 40.24% 33
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 8 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 87
8. When making decisions about road or street design, people's safety should be the top priority. Required Slider | Skipped: 3 | Answered: 86 (96.6%)
Count Average Median Min Max
86 35.23 50.00 -50 50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
3.49%
3 0%
0 0%
0 3.49%
3 0%
0 5.81%
5 3.49%
3 3.49%
3 6.98%
6 20.93%
18 52.33%
45 F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 9 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 88
9. In areas where children or seniors may be present, the road or street should be designed to slow down drivers. Required
Slider | Skipped: 3 | Answered: 86 (96.6%)
Count Average Median Min Max
86 33.26 50.00 -50 50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
3.49%
3 2.33%
2 1.16%
1 1.16%
1 0%
0 9.30%
8 1.16%
1 4.65%
4 8.14%
7 12.79%
11 55.81%
48 F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 10 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 89
10. How much time are you willing to sacrifice in your trip to improve roadway safety? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 3 | Answered: 86 (96.6%)
Answer choices Percent Count
None 12.79% 11
Two minutes or less 8.14% 7
2-5 minutes 18.60% 16
Whatever it takes 60.47% 52
Total 100.00% 86
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 11 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 90
11. What is your age? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 88 (98.9%)
Answer choices Percent Count
17 or younger 0% 0
18-25 1.14% 1
26-45 60.23% 53
46-64 23.86% 21
65 or older 7.95% 7
Prefer not to answer 6.82% 6
Total 100.00% 88
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 12 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 91
12. What is your gender identity? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 88 (98.9%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Female 31.82% 28
Male 51.14% 45
Transgender Female 3.41% 3
Transgender Male 1.14% 1
Gender Non-Conforming 3.41% 3
Prefer not to answer 9.09% 8
Other 0% 0
Total 100.00% 88
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 13 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 92
13. What is your race/ethnicity? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 88 (98.9%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Asian 2.27% 2
Black or African American 1.14% 1
Hispanic or Latino/a/e 13.64% 12
Middle Eastern or North African 2.27% 2
Native American or Alaskan Native 2.27% 2
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0% 0
White 59.09% 52
Prefer not to answer 15.91% 14
Other 3.41% 3
Total 100.00% 88
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 14 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 93
14. What is your Zip code? (optional)
Short Text | Skipped: 17 | Answered: 72 (80.9%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 15 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 94
15. Anything else you’d like to share with the Safer Streets Burbank team? (optional) Long Text | Skipped: 33 | Answered: 56 (62.9%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (02 Jan 2025 to 31 Mar 2025) Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 95
Safer Streets Burbank
Title/Question: Untitled
Tool Type: Form
Report Date Range: 1 Jan 2025 ‐ 3 Apr 2025
Date Exported: 3 Apr 2025 05:34 pm
Date Submitted Contribution
Mar 13, 2025, 11:36 AM
Why isn’t Magnolia, the most dangerous street in my neighborhood where cars speed, there are no pedestrian crossings, and people drag race, not on this list? In Magnolia park people actually want to cross the street because they are shopping and contributing to our economy, but it’s terrifying to do so unless you want to go several blocks out of your way and wait 10 minutes in the hot sun for the light to change.
Mar 13, 2025, 10:07 AM
It should be noted that this survey was flawed. Prior to 3/12, it did not allow you to submit unless you answered all the question even if the choices did not apply to the respondent. It also forced the respondent to answer important safety question without any specifics. The survey was slanted and unfair. No Bueno.
Mar 12, 2025, 04:49 PM
In my previous submission stating that I have not noticed unique traffic safety issues in Burbank, I meant to say my observations are WEST of the 5 (not east) Mar 12, 2025, 04:25 PM
The agree or disagree questions are nonspecific, too generalized and unfair. I have not noticed higher incidents of traffic safety issues in Burbank from other places in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. What I have noticed in Burbank (most familiar east of the 5) is there is little traffic congestion.
The flow of traffic is good and short term and long term parking is abundant and free. Except for the occasional bicycle (usually the same two guys) riding on the sidewalk, the pedestrian experience is a good one.
My biggest concern in regards to traffic and pedestrian safety are e‐bikes which are apparently allowed on sidewalks. That is unacceptable. Personal e‐bikes must be prohibited on the sidewalk, as are e‐ scooter, whether there is a abutting empty bike lane or not.
Burbank is a wonderful 15 minute walking city and an 8 minute driving city. Let's keep it that way and not ruin it with experiments.
Mar 12, 2025, 04:06 PM
Feels like they’ve overlooked the reckless speeding for soo long. Why? Minimum put the speed meter permanently on more streets like Alameda and up and down Olive and Glenoaks like the one on Riverside. Not that temporary crap. And the one they had temporarily on Alameda flashed red and blue lights ‐ I live by there and it got my attention. And the blinking in‐ground flashing lights on Main that were there years ago for crossing and were great, have never been replaced‐ we have the technology! And most importantly, ticket for Exhibition of Speed and the noise level of these cars. My hubby got a ticket for exhibition of speed years ago and I see it going on constantly now. These are things we already have in the toolbox. Make the punishment for reckless driving and speeding the same as a DUI. Both put all of us and our families at risk for being killed in the exact same way.
Impound their car permanently. These will make it stop. .
ATTACHMENT 2 - 96
Mar 12, 2025, 03:11 PM
Enforce existing laws in school zones, streets, and crosswalks. Narrowing and reducing lanes increases risk and creates irritated, and delayed drivers who tend to make careless mistakes. As a motorcycle rider, I can say for sure that most hazardous driving is due to, aggressive drivers, exhibition of speed, and personal electronic device use. Focus on these for maximum benefit at minimal cost to city and impact on good drivers. Survey requires that I enter problem location without offering a "no problem" option. This requirement to identify a problem is unethical and dishonest from a data analysis point of view. Please disregard my entry of Hollywood Way as a default entry to be allowed to submit this feedback.
Mar 12, 2025, 01:55 PM
the survey does not allow to skip the last question. it does not apply to me , not familiar with the lighting conditions in some of those areas
Mar 11, 2025, 11:47 PM
Making streets smaller like you did on
Olive is not safer not for drivers and not for anyone else. This is a very bad policy that meeds To be reversed like Glendale did on Brand. I rarely see bikers on these streets. To make everyone suffer doesn’t make sense.
Mar 10, 2025, 11:41 AM
Consistent and maximum enforcement, no warnings. Anyone who experiences Burbank traffic are aware what they are doing. willful disregard for traffic laws is the rule. More innocent people are going to be killed if the city doesn't get a handle on the reckless drivers.
Mar 06, 2025, 07:17 AM
Have designated bus lanes on major roads, more pedestrian crosswalks in between avenues and more bike lanes. also bicycle repair stations and street signage advocating to share the roads.
Mar 05, 2025, 07:32 PM
Speed bumps in the neighborhoods, especially near schools and library, please. I see the flashing signs on Glenoaks that say slow down, but people ignore them, and they roll thru stops. I’d love for Burbank to be more walkable, right now it doesn’t totally feel safe to walk in certain areas.
Feb 20, 2025, 04:48 PM
The Olive Ave restriping that you did above Glenoaks is a borderline disaster. The one lane of traffic with a parking lane and a giant median is NOT safe. I drive up and down it every day, and I see cars parked on or over the white line all the time, which means that they’re at higher risk of being side swiped. Even if they’re inside the line, if they open their car door, they’ll get hit, because there isn’t enough room. To feel safe, I straddle the yellow line on the other side, which means I’m driving partially in the median. I also have to enter the median because cars frequently park in the single driving lane with their emergency lights on (or not), which obviously isn’t safe, and is what the median is supposed to be used for. Lastly, it’s tricky to see cars turning left when they’re at a stop sign facing the opposite direction from me, because they’re basically turning left from (what used to be) a right hand lane, and I’m in the opposite right hand lane facing them. With how wide the entire road is, that means I’m essentially having to look across (what used to be) four lanes to see them. If we’re both going straight, then it’s fine. But if I’m going straight and they’re turning left, an accident could happen from me not seeing that, because of how far they are diagonally across from them.
Feb 19, 2025, 09:16 PM
Speeding is a major issue in some areas like Vanowen. Another issue is when large trucks usually commercial are parked in residential areas and block the line of sight of drivers when trying to make turns.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 97
Jan 15, 2025, 10:02 PM
First, Thank you:
I'm thrilled that Burbank has great planners pushing ahead with accessible mobility campaigns, Complete Streets designs and active transportation focus. It's a dream! Now onto the political will, COMMUNITY SUPPORT and billions $ to make dramatic shifts physically and culturally.
OP/ED section:
We've been cornered, crippled and suffocated by the auto industry's century‐long campaign to insure car dominance and dependency. I'm an apologetic car owner who tries to minimize driving and maximize cycling for all practical errands and commutes. I love the joyous simplicity and utility, the low cost, silent, low impact wonder of bikes. I can't believe everyone doesn't love them! Of course bikes aren't for everyone... they can only serve about 95% of the population.
Request:
Please test all proposed designs with an experienced 8‐80 committee... get on small‐wheeled electric chairs with paraplegics and go down the ramp pointed toward the middle of the intersection, or try getting across a bridge; push kids in a stroller; ride with kids going to school or the park; maneuver ramp switchbacks on a loaded cargo bike & trailer, etc. Real world tests expose what's missed or dismissed when compliance is met in an office.
Enormous huge thanks & great cheers for pushing forward.Onward! Jan 15, 2025, 08:54 PM The level of lawlessness on the roads the last few years is unprecedented.
Jan 15, 2025, 09:37 AM
Please arrest and prosecute speeding individuals to the fullest. Especially teen and young men who are the biggest offenders. Make an example, arrest them, and then maybe, just maybe they’ll finally realize that they are not untouchable. So sick of it all.
Jan 15, 2025, 07:13 AM
I have almost been run over as a pedestrian on Glenoaks multiple times. This has occurred at all hours of the day and night. I like the recent addition of left turn arrows on several Glenoaks cross streets‐ but they do not protect pedestrians if they are not set to turn to a red arrow. It is typically a vehicle trying to turn left that tries to run me down because drivers are just not looking for people in the crosswalks.
Additionally, I cannot understand why BPD does not have a presence on Glenoaks to catch people racing, speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, etc. This happens with extremely loud engines revving right in front of the police station, yet nothing changes, and no enforcement occurs. Even after the multiple fatalities of those innocent young people at Glenoaks/ Andover, no real enforcement started.
Please start giving hefty fines to these irresponsible, selfish, car‐obsessed people with their overly tinted windows and loud modified exhausts, who drive in such an unsafe manner that I am afraid to walk and drive in my own city. There is no excuse for allowing them to continue to act in such a dangerous manner.
Jan 14, 2025, 04:24 PM We also see a lot of front sidewalk trash dumping‐old furniture etc. how can this be mitigated ?
Jan 14, 2025, 10:08 AM
I wanted to take a moment to thank y'all for doing what you can for people. Safe transportation, as you know, is incredibly difficult to manage, especially when having to balance the wants of drivers and the needs of pedestrians and bikers. I'm of the stance that pedestrians' and bikers' safety, and dedicated lanes for emergency vehicles and buses take higher priority than typical commuter vehicles. It's unfortunate that in order to make every other form of transportation safer, the advantages of driving need to be chipped away and more inconvenient. But there's limited space in this great city and a new balance needs to be struck.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 98
Jan 12, 2025, 04:12 PM
Firstly, all of the bike lanes in Burbank should be converted to protected bike lanes. Secondly, all of the bike lanes should be connected to each other. Lastly, the bike lanes should be connected to the bike infrastructure of the other cities in Los Angeles County.
Jan 08, 2025, 12:07 AM
Biking in Burbank is incredibly difficult. Realistically, we should be prioritizing the safety of all pedestrians.
Jan 06, 2025, 03:36 PM We need bike lanes that are safer beyond plastic bollards or lines on the streets. And yes to the BRT.
Jan 06, 2025, 03:04 PM Put all way stops on Clark from Addison to North Hollywood Way.
Jan 06, 2025, 02:55 PM
More bike lanes will remind drivers to share the road, thus making them slow down‐ and we’d have safer roads
Jan 06, 2025, 01:28 PM
I love the progress you have made with bike lanes. I would love to see more protected bike lines and increased usability, like lights changing every so often without needing to get onto the curb and press the beg button. Also connecting existing bike routes would be huge. Also getting across the freeways/railroad tracks as I currently only use the large ramp near IKEA to get across because it's the only one where I don't have to be beside cars going high speeds. Thank you for all your continued hard work, I can't wait until Burbank becomes a world class bike friendly and accessible city :) Jan 06, 2025, 08:29 AM Road diets are a scam. Don’t remove traffic lanes.
Jan 05, 2025, 11:26 PM
Give pedestrians more priority ‐ change the lights more quickly on Alameda, more crossings and please stop prioritizing through traffic over local foot and bike traffic Jan 05, 2025, 07:15 AM
Crossing the freeway on foot is the biggest issue I've ever had in Burbank. Every other problem can be easily avoided with an alternate route, but there are so few ways to cross over the freeway and ALL of them feel too dangerous. The Burbank Blvd overpass has a safety fence, which is good, but you have to cross multiple freeway on ramps to use it, which is much too dangerous with the way people drive. The Magnolia and Olive overpasses have guardrails which are so low they provide no safety at all. If I were to trip or get bumped by another pedestrian on the narrow sidewalk I would fall right over. I waited years for the San Fernando underpass to be finished so I could walk to the Empire Center, but it too is too dangerous, requiring me to cross an on‐ramp that drivers making a right‐on‐red often don't even slow down for. Likewise, they follow right behind the car in front of them, making a chain of drivers taking rights‐on‐red without looking for pedestrians. As mentioned in my comment on the map, I would often find myself having to shout or wave my arms in order for someone to stop and let me cross when I had the light. It was way too dangerous and stressful and I gave up on it after only a handful of uses.
Jan 04, 2025, 11:17 PM
I have a small child and a terrified about walking and biking to school. A father and child were recently hit at a school crossing near our house.
EVERY TIME I leave the house I see (whether biking/driving/walking) no matter where I go in Burbank I witness aggressive driving and or traffic violations. I wish there was more policing and traffic tickets for anytime who does this in Burbank. It feels like purple so this in the regular because they know there are no repercussions.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 99
Jan 04, 2025, 07:34 PM
Downtown burbank area would greatly improve a sense of community and be more useful if it was closed to car thru‐traffic on weekends. Ventura downtown does this.
Crossing the 5 freeway on a bike on Burbank blvd is a terrifying experience but one of the only routes.
Requires crossing freeway on/off ramps unprotected and a bike lane that switches mid road where cars are at high speeds and not looking for bikes.
I’ve been harassed on my bike while driving on Kenneth ave bike blvd on several occasions due to no separation between cars/bikes and drivers not understanding the roads purpose.
The empire center is actively dangerous without a car to go between stores. I’ve seen people climbing boulders to cross the center due to essentially a single path to connect the lots across the main thru street.
Bike lanes should be separated from car traffic by concrete or curbs on all major routes. Unbroken bike routes should be prioritized between major points of interest.
Routes like chandler bike path should be a model across the city. It has almost no points of interest yet is loved by the community and has frequent flow of people on foot or wheels.
Busses should get their own lane when possible.
Jan 04, 2025, 06:32 PM
The bikes are a big problem for me as a pedestrian. I got hit by a biker who was speeding and ran a red light. I flew into a busy street and would have died if there was a car passing by at that moment. I got lucky. There are too many bikers who are dangerously ignoring the rules. I also have noticed a lot of car drivers breaking the rules too. For example, the road by the airport recently got changed from two turning lanes to just one. A lot of people cut the line and force their way in, ignoring the rules. This makes the intersection dangerous. It would be nice if a police car could be stationed there, even just for a few hours a week. If people started getting ticketed for aggressive driving/unsafe merging, it would probably deter the bad drivers. Thanks for doing the work to improve the roads! :) Jan 04, 2025, 05:08 PM
Luxury vehicle drivers speeding and driving recklessly as if they have enough money that a ticket isn't relevant. Burbank needs to impound about a thousand bmws and Mercedes if you want it to change Jan 04, 2025, 03:52 PM
We need more fully‐separated or protected bike paths, like Chandler or the Burbank Channel.
Connecting Chandler further to the east and to the Metrolink station should be a first priority.
Jan 04, 2025, 03:16 PM
Please stop changing the streets. Olive above 5th is a ridiculous design. More stop signs along Kenneth and Bel Aire does nothing. Cars still run them. Illegal U turns and running red lights is common along Glenoaks. Where is BPD? Rarely do I see them out. Until people have a consequence from breaking traffic laws, they will do as they want please.
Also I should not have to answer questions above that don’t pertain to me. I don’t ride a bike and don’t experience difficulties in walking. Poorly designed survey.
Jan 04, 2025, 02:31 PM
Wish there were protected bike lanes and San Fernando / olive to Magnolia should be only for pedestrians.
Jan 04, 2025, 02:25 PM
stop taking away driving lanes for more bike lanes that no one ever uses. make san fernando a two way street again with parking because it is hard to get through and not everyone lives close enough to walk there. make olive ave a two lane street again because the new set up sucks and drivers are driving way too close to parked cars and traffic has gotten worse on this street.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 100
Jan 04, 2025, 12:44 PM
The "improvement" you made to Olive above Glenoaks is ATTROCIOUS. I walk to my doctor's office over there and I feel less safe walking since all the speeding cars are now right next to the parked cars and im constantly worried that cars are going to crash into the parked cars. The giant middle section confuses drivers on where to go when they need to turn and I've seen multiple cars almost hit other cars. What is the point of the yellow stripped median?
The Burbank Bridge and San Fernando are also completely unsafe. The lane markings for cars on the bridge is confusing and people enter the wrong lane all the time. On San Fernando heading from Sprouts to the mall has the worst merge I've ever seen and cars are constantly about to hit each other and honking. Who thought it was a good idea to go from multiple lanes to one straight away to 2 lanes?
I want safer streets, but so far all the city has done is make them unsafe for pedestrians and drivers three times over. I have lost confidence in the city planners here.
Jan 04, 2025, 11:38 AM
i can't walk one block outside my house without seeing the most insane dangerous driving and almost being hit. I'd also love to be able to bike in burbank but do not feel safe Jan 04, 2025, 11:02 AM
Painting lines on the street does not help people are riding their bicycles. We need a hard barrier between traffic. Moving the parking lane is one option I’ve been in support of. Drivers are more distracted than ever and it’s just not safe. I ride on the sidewalks, respectfully of pedestrians because I refuse to put myself 1 foot away from a distracted driver doing 35 miles an hour with no protection.
Jan 04, 2025, 10:38 AM
Please have more consideration for the majority of road users WHICH ARE MOTOR VEHICLES when making road changes. For example, road diets on streets such as Verdugo severely impact motor vehicle users with increased congestion and delays while serving to benefit very few cyclists (look at the traffic count of cyclists vs. motorists on Verdugo). Trying to improve safety of cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing but if that creates extreme externalizes such as congestion, gridlock, etc. you are impacting the majority of road users for the benefit of the very few. Please don't let the latest trends in urbanism override common sense.
Jan 04, 2025, 09:01 AM
Please adopt LA's no parking within 20 feet of a curb law ‐ my neighbors continually block alleyways and entrances with their huge trucks and SUVs making pulling out into the street difficult.
Jan 04, 2025, 08:24 AM
Traffic calming everywhere world be much appreciated, especially on Glenoaks, but even the tertiary streets in the neighborhoods — roundabouts, raised cross walks, etc Jan 04, 2025, 07:02 AM
When making decisions about street improvements: pedestrians should be at the forefront of priority.
Traffic violence is the number one cause of death for children in the US. Making our Burbank roadways safer is a way to measurably reduce that number.
Jan 04, 2025, 06:58 AM
Burbank could be great for pedestrians, why isn't it?
I love the changes made to San Fernando.
Jan 04, 2025, 05:20 AM
I’d love to see bike lanes are are actually protected by barriers. This could be as easy as switching bike lane and parking lane in some areas. Bad bike lanes are bad for everyone because cyclists are too scared to use them and drivers get aggravated to see empty bike lanes that could be car lanes.
Jan 04, 2025, 12:16 AM
You have already slowed down traffic to a crawl in Burbank. All of those artificial dead ends you built by the Whole Foods force everybody to use Hollywood Way or Buena Vista, and now you want to further complicate something that is unbroken. With a survey worded this way, no wonder you were going to get results that say things are unsafe. They absolutely are not and you should find a new project that actually helps people to work on.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 101
Jan 03, 2025, 05:39 PM
It is absolute lunacy that our city is talking about "Complete Streets" and then focusing on like 10 areas.
This is not a serious effort. People in Burbank do not have the freedom to consider alternative transit because we are completely held captive by the idea that the automobile is the only form of transit that deserves good, convenient infrastructure. Until we have leaders who show some courage and initiative, we will be given half measures like this whole project. It's absurd. "Bike lanes" like the one on Verdugo are not safe, period. Honestly ask yourself if you'd feel comfortable putting a 10 year old child in that lane. The studies are done. Grade separated, protected bikeways like Chandler are the only infrastructure that will actually attract users. Infrastructure needs to get people to where they need to go, not by picking some random stretches of roads and putting some paint in the street. Are we seriously still debating this? This is infuriating, stop submitting to entrenched, entitled people and do what's right.
Jan 03, 2025, 02:03 PM
BUSD needs BPD or trained crossing guards at all BUSD schools. Huerta has a gracious volunteer doing it now but she’s not trained and she herself would like to see the schools step up on street safety. We need the city to step up where BUSD won’t.
Jan 03, 2025, 06:28 AM
Triple the traffic enforcement division. Maximum enforcement with severe penalties are the the only way to get compliance. Target the core group who is committing the majority of the dangerous driving. .
Jan 03, 2025, 05:51 AM
I am an experienced bicyclists and am comfortable riding on the street but recently I have been having to visit a family member daily at St Joe's hospital and have been riding my bike there from the Magnolia Park area. I have been having to ride on the sidewalk during the afternoon peak because I no longer feel safe riding on Buena Vista between Alameda and Magnolia.
The Transportation Commission and City Council should be mandated to ride a bike with their families at peek times along the corridors in this plan. If they would not recommend that their families ride and walk on these streets they should amend the plan to provide safe streets and alternative biking routes. Thanks!
Jan 02, 2025, 05:48 PM
I’ve attempted to reach out to council members about this issue and have had no response. I’m glad Burbank is taking this seriously, but we need more engagement on this issue.
Jan 02, 2025, 04:34 PM
All drivers shouldn't be punished because of the unsafe drivers.
Are the updates on the East Olive study going to be released? Please disregard the survey answers on the following. It would not let me submit without an answer. I do not ride a bike and have not experienced difficulties crossing the streets.
Where have you experienced difficulty crossing the street? Check all that apply. Required (NOT
APPLICABLE)
Where have you experienced discomfort when riding a bike? Check all that apply. Required (NOT
APPLICABLE)
Where have you experienced poor lighting conditions after dark? Check all that apply. Required (NOT
APPLICABLE)
Jan 02, 2025, 03:50 PM
Many of these questions also apply to Magnolia Boulevard between Hollywood Way and Buena Vista.
Given the number of businesses and pedestrians, the City of Burbank should consider more crosswalks with flashing pedestrian signs crossing Magnolia and a road diet to 1 lane each way.
Jan 02, 2025, 03:44 PM
Ever consider increasing the number of law enforcement officers in the department to help mitigate the growing population of our city? Because with growth of population, comes growth of violations of said population. Just an option.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 102
Jan 02, 2025, 11:30 AM
Place your motor cops where the racers are. Glenoaks, San Fernando. Other than that do normal patrols. There is enough crime going on at any given time that you don't have to sit and wait for someone to go by at 5 over the limit
Jan 02, 2025, 10:57 AM
Better crosswalks, especially near the freeway. Walking over either bridge is scary anytime of day.
There needs to be better pedestrian options that are safer.
Mar 12, 2025, 06:00 PM How can e‐bike regulation discussion relate to this plan? Mar 12, 2025, 06:00 PM Riverside dog park plans currently don’t have crosswalks Mar 12, 2025, 06:00 PM Shade and access to water are important to combat heat/sun, especially near bus stops ATTACHMENT 2 - 103
Griffith Park
West Al
ameda Ave
nue
Barh
am B
oulevard
Riverside Drive
Burbank Bl
West Ver
dugo Ave
nue
Riverside Drive
Clybourn Avenue
No
rth P
ass Av
West Magnolia B
oulevard
West Olive Avenue
Olive Av
Hollyw
ood W
y
West Magnolia Bl
Magnolia Bl
Forest Lawn Drive
Victory Bl
South Buena
Vista Street
No
rth Ca
lifor
nia Street
Moorpark Street
e u n e v A e g d e L
·134
1 2
7 22
24 25
26 27
30 3536
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 464748
49 59
62 64
65 69
70 71
73 74
76 80
8182
87 88
91 92
101
102
103
106
107
108 111
112
113
114
118
127
132
137
138
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
150
151
155
156
157
158
159
164
165
166
173
174
175
176
186190
191
192
193 194
195 197
213
214
215
216
220
221
224
227
228
229
231
232
West Allan Ave
Chandler Bl
W Clark Ave
Bob Hope Dr
Social Pinpoint Contributions (1 of 4 Southwest)
Mode
Walk
Bike
E-Bike
Drive
Transit
Other
3101
·134
!"5
ATTACHMENT 2 - 104
Victory Bl
Cohasset Street North Gle
noaks B
oulevard
San F
ernando B
oulevard
Victory Boulevard
Burbank B
oulevard
Vanowen Street
Glenoaks Boulevard
Hollyw
ood W
y
Empire Avenue
West Magnolia B
oulevard
Cly
bourn Ave
nue
Burbank B
oulevard
Winona Avenue
Hollywood Wy
Buena
Vista Street
San F
ernando Road
Gle
noaks B
oulevard
No
rth Buena
Vista Street San F
ernando B
oulevard
No
rth
Mariposa St
!"5
7 9 15
19 43
49 50
5152
53 54
59 6061
62 64
70 91
95 96
103
104
105
112
119
120
121
123
125
126
129
132
133
142
144
152153
154
160
161
163
165
167
168
169
170
171
172
179
185
189
193 194
196
198
199
201202
203
207
208
212
218
219
224
No
rth
Keystone
St
West Allan Ave
West Chandler Blvd
Social Pinpoint Contributions (2 of 4 Northwest)
Mode
Walk
Bike
E-Bike
Drive
Transit
Other
3101
·134
!"5
ATTACHMENT 2 - 105
Riverside Drive
No
rth
Victory Bl
Victory B
oulevard
First Street
Victory Boulevard
Magnolia B
oulevard
Alameda Av
Front St
Gle
noaks B
oulevard
West Magnolia B
oulevard
San F
ernando B
oulevard
Cypr
ess Ave
nue
Victory Pl
ace Magnolia B
oulevard
West Al
ameda Ave
nue
West
ern Ave
nueMain Street
Gle
noaks B
oulevard
Sonora Ave
nue
South Victory Boulevard
Olive Av
Flow
er Street
Walnut Ave
nue
North Lake St
No
rth
Mariposa St
South Lake Street
!"5
3 4
5 6
8 9
1011
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
31 32
3334
37 43
54 55
5657
58 63
66 67
68 72
7577
78 79
80 8182
83 85
86 89
90 93
94 98
99 100
104
108
109
110
111114
115
116
117
122
123
124
126
128
129
131132
133
134
135
136
139
140
142
143
144
149
150
151
156
157
162
163
176
177
178
180
181
182
183
184
187
188
189
197
200
203
204
205
206
210
211
217
218
219
220
222
223
225
226
227
228
230
130
West Burbank Blvd
Chandler Blvd
West Clark Avenue
W Verdugo Avenue
W Olive Ave
West Oak Street
Social Pinpoint Contributions (3 of 4 East)
Mode
Walk
Bike
E-Bike
Drive
Transit
Other
3101 ·134
!"5
ATTACHMENT 2 - 106
First Street
Burbank Bl
Alameda Ave
nue
San F
ernando B
oulevard
Front Street
Orange Grove Ave
nue
Ikea Wy
Orange Grove Ave
nue
Magnolia B
oulevard
Cypr
ess Ave
nue
Ver
dugo Ave
nue
Gle
noaks B
oulevard
Olive Ave
nue
Gle
noaks B
oulevard
San F
erna
ndo B
oulevard
Olive Ave
nue
North Lake Street
South Lake Street
Flow
er Street
!"5
3 5
6 8
10 11
12 13
14 18
3155
56 57
58 63
66 67
68 72
75 77
78 79
83 86
89 90
93 94
98 99
100
109
115
116
117
122
124
128
130
131
134
135
139
140
177
178
181
182
183
184
187
188
204
205
206
210
211
217
222
225
230
South 3rd Street
South 5th Street
South 6th Street
South 7th Street
South 8th Street
Social Pinpoint Contributions (4 of 4 Downtown Zoomed)
Mode
Walk
Bike
E-Bike
Drive
Transit
Other
3101
·134
!"5
ATTACHMENT 2 - 107
Pin ID Comment
1 Buena Vista/Clark: want peds to go automatically with green 2 California @ 134: Need new/better ped crossings in this area. 3 Ikea bridge: hard to access on bike because ramps are out of the way, better signage needs, public art also needed. 4 San Fernando (New Popeyes/McDonalds): Turn lane issue 5 Glenoaks: Slow vehicle speeds
6 E Olive/Glenoaks: New median means drivers don’t feel they need to stop for pedestrians as much. 7 Victory/Burbank/Glenoaks: Drivers using center lane as passing lane. Not enough enforcement on speed. 8 Victory/Burbank/Glenoaks: Drivers using center lane as passing lane. Not enough enforcement on speed. 9 Victory/Burbank/Glenoaks: Drivers using center lane as passing lane. Not enough enforcement on speed. 10 Biking issue [No detail provided]
11 Olive at Fwy: Sidewalk too narrow, low rail, bikes on sidewalks, not enough space. 12 Walking issue [No detail provided]
13 Glenoaks intersections: Issues with turning drivers (right+left) and peds crossing 14 San Fernando/Magnolia: Needs exclusive ped phase from turning drivers. 15 Driving issue [No detail provided]
16 Front/Burbank/Fwy ramp: Dual rights need more clarification 17 Burbank/San Fernando: Bikes and right turn issues.
18 3rd Street/Burbank: Conflicts between bikes and school drop off 19 Amherst/3rd: Drivers don’t stop for peds in crosswalk. 20 Biking issue [No detail provided]
21 Walking issue [No detail provided]
22 Biking issue [No detail provided]
23 Biking issue [No detail provided]
24 Verdugo/Olive: Need roundabout
25 Biking issue [No detail provided]
26 Biking issue [No details provided]
27 Keystone/Olive: Bike button not working.
28 Equestrian issue [No detail provided]
29 Mariposa Bridge: Safey issues w/ horse riders, speed, access to Griffith Park needs improvement 30 Safety for equestrians, cyclists, and pedestrians need to co-exist. 31 Extend bike lane on Glenoaks
32 Alameda@ Fwy: keeps people from access to downtown via walking. 33 Geeky Tea & Games on Alameda/Main won’t nail down their bike rack. 34 E-biking issue [No detail provided]
35 Alameda/Parish: need safe crossings 9speeds too fast), deliver drivers/trees impacting sigh lines, shorten crossing. 36 Alameda: Extend bike lane on Alameda
37 Buena Vista/Olive: Needs longer crossing time.
38 Bob Hope near Park: Lower posted speed
39 Alameda: There was a fatal bike crash due to dooring 40 Alameda between Buena Vista and Hollywood: Need bike facilities 41 Oak and Clark: Speed management needed
42 Oak and Clark: Speed management needed
43 Need safe crossing (driver speeds), shorten crossing 44 There was a fatal bike crash
45 Walking issue [No detail provided]
46 Needs signal. People are using the alleys to cut through. 47 Needs signal. People are using the alleys to cut through. 48 Magnolia needs bike facilities
49 Driving issue [no detail provided]
50 There was a fatal bike crash on Empire.
51 bike issue
52 Victory around Hollywood: Bikes encountering issues with driver inattention 53 Hollywood Way is like a freeway
54 Fast unsafe drivers , drivers passing to avoid cars turning into Cambridge, pedestrians being ignored or nearly hit when crossing Cambridge over Cambridge drive. Cars turn into Cambridge and Birmingham fast which is danger to pedestrians. 55 I love this bike path and wish it were more accessible from downtown Burbank. Making the Olive Ave bridge safer for bikers and pedestrians would be a start.
56 My previous comment suggested a protected bike "path" on Glenoaks--what I actually meant was a protected bike lane. Just wanted to amend that!
ATTACHMENT 2 - 108
57 I've recently started to avoid walking down Glenoaks because I do not feel safe as a pedestrian, even in the middle of the day. I've nearly been hit multiple times by oblivious or impatient drivers making quick turns when I have the right of way to cross. I've also witnessed drivers speed through red lights during the early morning as I am walking to the bus stop.
Drivers treat this street as if it were a race track, and that is largely due to the width of the lanes. Narrowed lanes, curb extensions, and speed bumps are a few ways to discourage speeding and improve safety. A *protected* bike path on Glenoaks, with an actual physical barrier (i.e. planters) would be a great addition as well. 58 The timing of the pedestrian lights crossing Glenoaks is too short. It's approx 15 seconds, with the opposing light approx 1m45. If emergency vehicles are incoming from the station one block away, you miss the light and have to wait a cycle. 59 A protected bike lane on Buena Vista would make a great north-south route for cyclists and ebike riders 60 A protected bike lane on Victory would make a great additional east-west route for cyclists and e-bike riders 61 An APS signal is needed at this busy intersection.
62 My father is visually impaired, and APS device would be beneficial in this intersection. 63 Drivers are speeding up and down Palm all the time. You wouldn't think it's a residential area. 64 Cars try and turn left onto Hollywood Way from N. Cordova and try to cross all lanes. Many near misses. Put up no left turn sign at Cordova.
65 Cars constantly double parked along Magnolia for Portos. People just stopping and getting out in middle of street for Portos. Portos needs to come up with a better solution to control traffic and parking issues impacting all. 66 The planters without grills take up half the width and make two-way pedestrian traffic hard. They all need to have grills. 67 The combination of planters that take half the width and driveways that slant the entire width makes this difficult to use with two-way pedestrian traffic.
68 It's really scary to walk on this bridge. The sidewalk is narrow and the guardrail is low. 69 Cars still try and turn left into Target parking lot causing backup and near misses. Put up more car barriers so they can't turn left into parking lot.
70 Many near misses with cars trying to turn left from Allen onto Hollywood Way. Way too busy of a street to allow left turn here. Causes backups and also near misses with traffic collision. Make a no left turn intersection. 71 Extremely dangerous intersection to cross in any direction. Cars often don't stop at red lights to turn right and don't look for pedestrians.
A woman was killed there last year for that exact reason. Need a way to make cars stop before turning right as they race down to get to freeway and areas further down.
72 This diagonal parking/different colors/messy-posters-covid-sidewalk -seating barriers is a confusing mess. Feels like you're in Culver City.
73 Pedestrian walk signal does not activate unless button is pressed. (there is no green left turn arrow, only a yellow left turn arrow that doesn't always flash) This is common at other intersections. Not sure what the logic is. Walk signal should flash whether button is pushed or not.
74 The dumpster that has been parked on this corner for a year prevents drivers from seeing stop sign. Especially at night. 75 There is a good amount of red light running here. Have to wait a few seconds after the light turns to make sure no one is coming. 76 Cars driving East-bound on Magnolia often run the red light here. 77 Drivers get impatient here, turning N on Magnolia to E on Glenoaks. I've been nearly hit several times. 78 It is not safe to cross Glenoaks here. One has to walk to Orange Grove or Magnolia. A crosswalk would be nice. 79 Would it make sense to change the crosswalk timing here to make a pedestrian scramble? I feel like these work well in Glendale and Colorado in similar areas (think Colorado Blvd).
80 this intersection is dangerous for pedestrians crossing, as cars turning are very likely to hit people crossing Verdugo when the lights change. Visibility is challenging.
81 Excessive speed from Victory to Buena Vista on Clark, failure to stop at stop signs. I have seen speeds as high as 60mph. No one complies with the speed limits 25 mph or 15 mph while children are present. NO ONE! Some of the worst violaters are local residents. I know, because I see the same vehicles daily. Fail to stop before turning right or left at stop signs. Not yielding to pedestrians. 82 Only 30% of drivers stop on Clark.
83 So glad to see the quick build Front Street and Verdugo bike lane connecting downtown to the Metro station. No more dodging sidewalk blocking utility poles or cutting through the bushes to get into the parking lot and as far away from the frenetic drivers' inattentions as possible. The sidewalks still need wheelchair review and upgrades.
Gosh! That stinky old I-5 is an offensive, blaring barrier to peace on earth or any semblance of good health or modern "livability." How about removing the I-5 for an organic agriculture & wildlife corridor? Since the corps of engineers and Caltrans destroyed the natural wash, along with Burbank's "small town charm"; that too should be restored.
I'll bring my pickaxe and a couple thousand of my closest friends with banjos & wheelbarrows. 84 This fella seems upset that our vast police resources won't be singularly utilized to make sure a 150 lb biker follows the same rules that they don't even enforce for the 4,000 lb SUVs cruising through stop signs all over town at dangerous speeds. One time a car failed to stop at a stop sign and I crashed into them on my bike. My bike got busted up while thier BMW got a minor dent. There's a weight/power/destruction imbalance between these 2 means of transport, let's make sure we prioritize enforcing traffic laws on the ones able to inflict great damage.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 109
85 Oh man going East down San Fernando on a bike - I love and appreciate that there's a bike lane all the way down this road. But at these 2 intersections the bike lane shifts and cars are crossing left and right and man do you have to be hyper aware as a biker. 86 An all cross signal would be great here. Making downtown Burbank pedestrian/bicycle only would be even better! 87 Been begging for a pedestrian crossing here. It’ll help slow down the fast traffic and I won’t have to cross the street here without fearing for my safety. So many folks cross this bc the other pedestrian crossings are farther away. This is an easy lift! 88 All cross signal here would be fantastic.
89 Can we please put a stop sign here? Cars going north/south go very fast, and there’s not a lot of visibility if you’re going east/west. I always feel like there’s a car accident waiting to happen when I drive through here to get to Verdugo. 90 I wish we could make one of these lanes a dedicated bike lane. Other than that, I drive this street every single day and the only issue I’ve seen w/ the new re-striping is impatient drivers using the middle lane to bypass other cars waiting at the stoplight. I have never had an issue with cyclists at this intersection.
91 Chandler is a world class awesome bikeway but it is also a barrier to north-south travel by wheelchairs, strollers, and bikes.
Crossing ramps are needed between the existing street crossings. Some stretches of the Bikeway are close to a half mile without crossings or access. This no problem for drivers in climate controlled luxury cars but for human beings exposed to high heat, pouring rain or cold nights, it can be unexpectedly serious.
92 Grand parents peddling with kids on bikes or people dependent on wheelchairs must choose between one of two death-defying, high- speed, car-dominated routes over the LA river:
1. the Riverside bridge over the 134 fwy or 2. the Barham bridge.
If the equestrian neighborhood wants exclusive control of the publicly-financed "no bike" Mariposa Bridge, how about shifting all the costs of inspections, liabilities, and upkeep to an exclusive EQUESTRIAN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT TAX .
The City could then re-allocate the public funds to a bridge that serves the greater public, such as the proposed bridge at Bob Hope Drive.
93 This is a great class 1 bike path used by neighbors and travelers of all ages! WELL DONE!!!
Let's get it connected to the LA River!
94 The metro station bike parking room is in bad shape and looks like it hasn't been cleaned since the Obama admin. How about a bike parking clean up day?
Also the bathroom was a vandalized horrific mess and something suspicious was happening in the stall.
Definitely not a good first impression to Burbank visitors nor an incentive for the grandparents & grandkids to travel by train.
GRRRRR!!! Vandals!
95 This signal needs to have the left turn light function even if there are no cars in the left hand turn lane when the camera scans. People exiting Ralphs, the BofA ATM lot drive extremely fast in the middle lane trying to get the left turn arrow.
This is a high accident corner involving left hand turns 96 This intersection is not aligned going North South. The signals for N-S are long and encourage people to drive the alleys in order to get across.
97 This may be the only spot in the state that specifically has a "no bikes allowed" sign. Like you can't even dismount and walk a bike across. And police enforce this. I don't think this is even allowed under state guidelines. Can we look into this and allow bikers to cross on and off their bikes? Equal access for horses, bikers, and pedestrians. 98 One time I went up Cypress and then turned right on Glenoaks and wow I'll never do that again because drivers RACE up and down Glenoaks at all hours of the day and only view roads as suitable thruways for vehicles. They pass close and fast, none of that required 3ft or changing lanes to go around a bike.
99 Love that there's now a bike lane here, and that it's protected around the turn! But it's a little difficult to get onto when traveling South down Verdugo and I have to cross onto the other side with oncoming traffic. 100 Biking east on 3rd st, this dead end is very scary. Cars parked near the corner create huge blind spots. I have to venture out slowly until I'm well into the lane before I can see clearly in both directions to ensure no cars are coming. 101
Agreed! An all cross pedestrian signal is needed at this intersection.
The signal lights should also be placed on the near side of the intersection rather than the far side so cars stop before the crosswalk.
Too many people stop (or don't stop) after they have driven half way around the corner. 102 Time to go back to Verdugo with two lanes in either direction. Cars headed east line up to Pass Ave waiting for the Hollywood Way light.
Bicyclists don't use Verdugo they use Clark to the north, Oak to the south to ride or the Chandler bikeway. 103 Please note that there is NO comment suggesting that Chandler be changed to one direction on each side. 104
Just like school zones with 15 mph speed limits, driving speeds around parks should also be limited. The power and speed of cars needs to be restricted like tobacco, as a public health threat.
Glenoaks is too wide and too fast. It needs protected bike lanes and calming measures for universal access
ATTACHMENT 2 - 110
105
I have dropped off & picked up passengers, and used this Amtrak platform for train service. It's design is an embarrassing leftover and afterthought from the last 2 centuries. Traffic is frantic, parking is hideous, there are no reasonable ADA, pedestrian or bicycle access points.
Is this a City, Amtrak, or other agency's jurisdiction? I hope it will receive a COMPLETE station redesign that integrates it with the airport; with the redevelopment of Fry's, and gets convenient, safe connections to local neighborhoods by all modes. 106 There have been numerous near-miss accidents involving pedestrians jaywalking across Magnolia Blvd at Cordova St. I urge the City to install a flashing crosswalk to enhance safety and prevent potential accidents. 107
The corner of Magnolia and Hollywood Way is a nightmare. A big issue are the Uber/Dash drivers who are jaywalking across the street to pick up orders. They are also stacked up on the corners, take all the parking spots and just hangout. Porto's needs to create a pickup lot or something safer.
108
This set of 3 stop signs in a row is understandable because of the school, but makes it very annoying to drive through at any other time of the day or night. I'd love to see a set of circles or other road diet artifacts replace the jerky stop-and-go situation with a slow, smooth drive.
109
A bike & pedestrian bridge crossing the railroad tracks at Verdugo could reconnect the neighborhood divided by the freeway and railroad.
110
Agreed, prohibit right turns on red.
Also, position signals at the entrance of intersections not in the middle or on the exit side of the intersection. Cars will stop further back from the pedestrian crossing.
Agreed too, raise pedestrian crossings so drivers feel the difference and pedestrians stand taller. 111
With the upcoming Olive Park Rec Center redevelopment, fully accessible routes to the park will be more important than ever.
All parks, schools and public places need routes that pass the 8-80 test. Strollers, wheelchairs, walkers, bikes and boards need safe access. People own cars, not the streets. Those who truly need cars also need ADA parking for those everyday short trips. Others need safe routes free of high speed hubris and dismissive distractions. 112
Lima Street is located 1 block from Brett Harte Public Elementary School. Yet Lima Street is one of the only streets in our neighborhood without sidewalks or speed bumps. As a result, families that live on this street must walk in the main street with cars whizzing by (too fast, often not paying attention fumbling with phones/car dashboards.) It's a miracle no one has been hit by cars racing down the street.
And, ironically, the reason many cars are speeding down the street is to drop their kids off on time in the morning at 8:22 am PT. Lima Street is home to many families with young children. This roadway connects a Public School to a popular Public Restaurant (Coral Cafe.) The current solution is either:
A) Walk in the streets with your children, ducking between parked cars when oncoming traffic pays you no mind (unsafe) B) Walk on people's lawns (safe, but trespassing on private property.) Every parent on our street has asked: "how can we get a public sidewalk made by the city?" I am hoping to make this sidewalk happen.
And I am happy to work with the city to make it happen for the betterment of the community. 113 Vehicles frequently run the stop sign here and have almost hit pedestrians 114
During peak traffic hours, lots of students bike, skate, scoot & walk to Burroughs High School. These active transportation champions deserve recognition for their service to humanity and commitment to a healthier, cleaner world. They will also be more likely to continue their habits into adulthood and support safe, humane, accessible mobility. 115
The bike parking enclosure at the Community Service Building smells like a urinal and houses an organic waste dumpster with its own composite fragrance and diverse wildlife. Since few bikes are ever parked there how about putting an electric car charging station in the enclosure beside the organics bin. Just sayin...
116
The ADA ramp connecting the train platform to the west side parking lot of the Metro station has a 180 degree turn that directs wheel chair users AWAY from ADA parking.
The 180 turn is also too narrow for long frame cargo or tandem bikes. Even for standard frame bikes this ramp turn is annoyingly tight.
By cutting the railing at the curve and adding a north bound ramp extension, the tight turning radius problems would be solved and exiting in two directions would be possible.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 111
117
If you need a creepy, isolated, freeway-adjacent crime scene for your bicycle slasher movie, look no further than the Caltrans bike bridge connecting Flower Street to Santa Anita. Few people know it exists and fewer still have any desire to set foot or wheel upon it.
Good luck finding it; the entrances are secluded, unmarked and forbidding. The filthy surroundings roar with freeway noise. There are littered encampments, mattresses in the shrubs, ripped clothes on fences, eroded embankments, broken glass and shadowy repetitive concrete pillars.
Ride it alone on a cold foggy night and you'll get jumpy creep show jitters equal to a real $18 Hollywood horror movie.
The ride over this bridge includes about a thousand feet of switchback ramps and about 800 feet beside diesel-infused freeway congestion. The chainlink tunnel raises the "no way out " primal fear. Bring your inhaler, your body guard and attorney. Views at the top include peculiarly littered roofs, car crash debris and creosoted railroad tracks.
Streetsblog described this bike bridge as a hellscape that only a freeway designer could love.
It stands to reason, you’ll never find this bike bridge listed in a Burbank travel brochure unless of course it’s featured in a cult horror movie first.
118 Dangerous intersection. Accidents occur frequently and very dangerous to cross. With no sidewalks on either side of the street, it makes it nearly impossible to walk as well.
119 With few parking spaces and hundreds of units, the Empire project on Empire Ave. needs a complete street make over with accessible sidewalks, bike lanes, and supreme transit connections. The developer should take on much of the connectivity costs. 120
The median dividing Hollywood Way at the intersection of Cohasset is a barrier for cyclist turning south on Hollywood Way From Cohasset.
That said, the speed of cars through this section of Hollywood Way is the real issue. 121
The Empire Center is a consumer hellscape with strategically placed barriers, blindspots, and frantic congestion designed to kill off pedestrians of any age.
Don't enter this war zone in anything but an armored vehicle if you expect to survive. And speaking of surviving, don't get me started on how tree canopy compliance was met for one of the largest constructed heat islands in the city. 122
People speeding down Kenneth, not stopping at the stop signs. Especially witness this with cars w loud exhausts, they fly right through at fast speeds. I walk my dog and am always afraid of these speeders not coming to a complete stop. Can there be speed humps along Kenneth? Up olive?
123 Holy cannoli! Heading East on Empire Ave and having to merge from the bike lane into fast moving traffic ready to enter the 5-South just to continue straight is scary! I do this every day on my ebike commute and it's one of my many daily nerve wracking experiences 124 Glendale has bike lanes all along Glenoaks, but once it gets into Burbank they disappear. This is a major through-way, and should be set up for safe bicycling access. There's plenty of lanes for cars and parking, let's make some space for bikes! 125
This is a scary intersection for bikers. Whenever there are two lanes with a lot of fast moving traffic, it's very scare for bikers to try to merge over into the left lane to make a left turn, like here to get into the empire center. Many roads and intersections were clearly designed only with cars in mind, and not for cycling.
126 This is a very scary area to bike ride. It's difficult to get to the empire center via bicycle, especially because of this fast moving road that merges and then splits again.
127
Clark Ave connects 5 schools, 2 parks, a community garden, and hundreds of small local businesses. It was proposed to become a "bike boulevard" in Burbank’s 2009 Bicycle Master Plan. A “Bike Boulevard” is not a prescribed design, instead it’s an open approach for calming streets and enhancing safety for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users.
Enhanced safety and full access make good sense. Families gain safe routes to schools and local businesses. Neighborhoods gain slower speeds on residential streets and less congestion during school drop off & pick up. Over 3,000 students attend schools along Clark St.
Even though all residents would gain greater access and mobility options, neighbors in their own worst interest, opposed the improvement opportunities and BY DEFAULT defended car dependency, growing congestion, and high-speeds.
People who don’t depend on wheelchairs, don’t walk or bike through the city, or don’t believe they are serious forms of local transportation shouldn’t be impeding the health, safety benefits of others who do. Everyone benefits from safe, accessible, and joyous mobility.
We need improvements on Clark to reduce excessive driving and congestion. 128 Stops signs seem to be optional in this area from most cars and seems like all cyclists. Additionally, the one lane restricting of Olive is problematic and dangerous. Its too narrow and too close to parked cars posing a danger to people getting in and out of their vehicles with opening doors. This new setup is causing more traffic congestion, pollution and noise for residents due to slower moving traffic.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 112
129
Walking, this place is a mess and feels massively unsafe. Biking, this place is a place to avoid (despite the lovely sectioned off bike lanes in lower Front Street). Driving, the left turn from Empire Ave to Front Street is scary. So many drivers making right turns on red when they shouldn't. Too many lights and signs to pay attention to. This is a crazy location for all forms of transport and I don't envy the ones trying to make sense of it. It feels like it was designed for driver's first, making every other form of transport a life-threatening risk.
With the new apartments going up, this place will only get further snarled by traffic of all kinds, particularly foot traffic. Unless an alternate form of pathways are given to pedestrians and bikers, many drivers here are just doing what they want and risking everyone else's lives in the process.
130
I've seen way too many people get nearly hit by cars wishing to turn right on red, despite pedestrians having the signal to walk. The city has done a great job making Burbank Downtown walkable and I think that if driver's weren't allowed to make right turns on red, that'd help reduce how unsafe it still feels to walk in such a busy area. 131
E Elmwood Ave is a forgivably wide street. However, many drivers going up and down this street have been flooring it because of how safe it feels. I've been nearly t-boned many times emerging from the underground parking of my apartment because of how fast so many of the cars travel and how close cars are allowed to park to the exits of driveways, further limiting views. Some speed bumps or other researched solution would go a long way to making this street less desirable to speed down. 132
Chandler Bikeway is the premier east-west route connecting Burbank to NoHo Metro lines, and the west end of the Valley.
However, it is a north south barrier for wheelchairs, strollers, and bikes. it's about a half mile in some stretches between intersections with accessible ramps.
Chandler needs all-access ramped crossings for wheelchairs, strollers and bikes. Drivers hardly notice a half mile but people in wheelchairs, those pushing strollers, or peddling tired kids in cargo bikes really do; especially in bad weather.
We need to upgrade Chandler with north south access ramps for all. This could be a phased project over a number of years to spread the cost. Maybe residents or businesses would sponsor access ramps for naming rights. 133
A route connecting Chandler to the Metro station is being explored! Public support will keep it moving and ensure that it is fully accessible by all abilities and ages.
134
The Olive bridge was built in 1958, during Jim Crow, before the Civil Rights Act; the Voter Rights Act, and the Clean Water Act.
Cars burned leaded gas, doctors smoked in hospitals, and automobiles dominated the San Fernando Valley's sprawling suburban streets.
Like other bridges, Olive is a safety risk and a physical barrier to wheel chairs, bikes, and pedestrians 8-80 y/o. It was built during last century's car-dominated hubris. It is now outdated and in need of replacement, a drastic redesign, or an adjacent accessible bridge for wheelchairs, bikes and pedestrians.
The future successes of High Speed Rail, BRT, MetroLink, Metro, and Burbank Bus may be enhanced or encumbered by access from Olive Bridge.
People who don't depend on wheelchairs, don't walk or bike through Burbank, shouldn't be setting policy or designing active transportation elements for a livable community.
Human beings need and deserve healthy, safe, accessible, and joyous mobility. 135
Burbank is divided by the massive curves of the recently widened I-5 freeway. All of the I-5 pedestrian crossings are afterthoughts which prioritize cars and dismiss pedestrians' safety, full access, and the pursuit of happiness.
No one is allowed to drive a car on a runway dominated by cargo jets; so why would anyone want to walk wheelchair or bike next to semi trucks and 700 hp pompous drivers?
New or drastically redesigned bridges and underpasses are needed to clear the way for humane, enjoyable, local mobility . 136
Burbank BLVD is a freeway hellscape for pedestrians and cyclists. It completely fails the 8-80 y/o test. So much effort went into the horrifying results. Erase this mistake and build a real bridge fit for human beings of all ages and abiities.
This is a textbook case of car dominance and why people are so "armored" car dependent. 137
People who dismiss bikes (and wheelchairs) as serious local transportation have a history of blocking accessible corridors including planned & existing bike bridges across the LA River.
Driving is a privilege, not a right to dominate mobility.
Build a bike and pedestrian bridge across the LA River. 138 Drivers use Bob Hope Drive as a high speed connector between the freeway off ramp and Alameda. Biking northward along the west side of the park is especially dangerous because of driver disregard and high speeds 139
Alameda is a very tough street to bike on, to get to the existing bike lanes at Main/Alameda, or the burbank channel path. This connection is unsafe, making the burbank channel inaccessible for most. 140 please harden the 3rd street bike lanes to add protection. please also optimize the signals to be more dynamic. When there is no traffic on perpendicular streets, 3rd street queue builds, particularly if you are walking or biking.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 113
141 The T intersection at Alameda & Bob Hope Dr. is one of the few intersections connecting Johnny Carson Park with neighborhoods to the north. The intersection also typifies the dangers and disregard drivers demonstrate for pedestrians in crosswalks especially after exiting the freeway and continuing at high speed on surface streets. Pedestrians are often cut off or intimidated by impatient left turning drivers. 142 There needs to be more daylighting at the streets along Chandler because visibility is poor when trying to turn on to Chandler 143 35 MPH on Magnolia is way too fast because people usually drive 5-10 MPH higher. Therefore, you have drivers going 45-55 MPH on a street that is in a commercial/residential area.
144 Claim the large sidewalk on Magnolia to create a protected bike lane. 145 Lack of connectivity of bike lane along this stretch of Riverside. When traveling west at this corner, it is very blind for drivers coming up behind. I would like to see at least painted bike arrows on the right side lane to remind drivers of bikers presence. 146
Warner Ave is the only street that enters Pass Ave from the West in this part of Toluca Lake. It is a one lane "no entry" from the east.
While I see the good intention of this, no one obeys that rule. Cars come from arterial roads like Olive and Pass and have not yet slowed down so they enter Warner going 30 miles an hour at times. Very unsafe. I would rather it be closed off entirely. 147 The fact that Olive becomes 3 lanes here causes drivers to speed. I have seen the new speed counter here which is great but in the long run, I think a lane reduction and bike lane would be necessary to slow cars and allow connectivity to Forest Lawn Bike Lane. 148 There needs to be more speed control on this stretch of Pass Ave. Multiple times I have almost been hit crossing the street by cars turning right onto Olive.
149 Signal timing is inappropriate at this intersection (favors Alameda too heavily). 150 Remove parking and/or the center lane to maintain bike lane continuity in the eastbound direction. 151 Cat-track bike lanes across this complicated intersection. 152 Remove some parking to make bike lanes continuous across intersection and no breaks. 153 Remove some parking to make bike lanes continuous across intersection and no breaks. 154 WBLT visibility obstructed by hedges in median
155 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 156 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 157 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 158 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 159 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 160 Inappropriate signal timing (favors arterial street too heavily). 161
Signal timing which so heavily favors commuter traffic on Hollywood Way is grossly inappropriate. Run the signal free off-peak to facilitate reasonable wait times for peds and bikes on Jeffries. Run shorter more reasonable cycle lengths during peak. This comment applies to most arterial/minor street crossings in Burbank. 162 This interchange was also horrendously designed with respect to how it treats bicyclists and pedestrians. Requires major coordination with Caltrans. Especially gnarly is the N/B off-ramp dual right turn where motorists routinely ignore pedestrians. 163 This interchange was designed with motorist efficiency in mind. The EBRT is a high-speed wide right that encourages conflict. Striping adjustments should be made to protect the bike lanes and slow the turning traffic getting onto and off the freeway. 164 Drivers still make the NBLT into Target despite the restriction and bollards. Add additional bollards to the north. 165 Signal operation here is an MUTCD violation. See my comment for Chandler/Hollywood Way. 166
Signal operation here is an MUTCD violation. All turns across bike signals must be exclusive and separate from the bike green/clearance. That means when the bike green is on, no turns should be permitted across the bike path. At the very least, turn on the NRT LED signs for the right turns across the bike path during the bike green. 167 Bike lanes by the Airport should be protected (as an extension of the very nice facility north of the airport on the west side). 168 Some sidewalks around Burbank including this one are challenging for persons with mobility impairments due to vertical obstructions and/or broken tree wells.
169
This intersection has a prolific collision history (as many T intersections involving the stems as the termini of arterials often do). Vanowen should be road dieted in advance and/or feature more slowing/calming features approaching the intersection. Because there are few opportunities to cycle across the tracks, this is one of the few places to do it and other improvements should be made to facilitate a better safer bicycle crossing (to/from Pacific).
170 This intersection should be signalized. The existing bike crossing signs are woefully inadequate. 171 There is no ADA access for pedestrians using this underpass. There should be signage directing people with mobility impairments to use the crossings/ramps at the Burbank Airport South station. 172 Underpass is harrowing. Bike lanes should be protected with bollards/curbs. 173 This space is empty, giving drivers ability to turn north onto Toluca Park Drive at extreme high rate of speed from Pass Ave 174 Corner here is extremely unsafe for pedestrians. Due to how wide and blind this corner is, cars enter Jacaranda Ave at extreme high rates of speed and carel
essness. Stop sign and reducing the corner’s wide angle with will help immensely. 175 pedestrian crosswalk
176 Many people are asking about a roundabout here
177 Another popular stop sign roll-through intersection. Make America stop at stop signs again. 178 Stop signs - are they optional now? Sure seems like it all over Burbank, especially here. How can we get drivers to stop and look, not just look and roll through.
179 I live down the street and there are always accidents on BV between Victory and Vanowen. It's really bad and something needs to be done.
180 Cars coming from all directions don't stop for pedestrians or bikers. They often don't stop at the stop signs, they just keep turning slowly and if they don't see anyone coming just plow through the stop signs and speed up or down Amherst.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 114
181
I wish many intersections with bicycle lanes had more accessible "beg buttons" to change the light. Biking down 3rd st, if there's no cars to set off the sensor, the light will never change. Many intersections that do have buttons are only accessible on the sidewalk, which is difficult to get to on a large or heavy ebike.
182
Former route of my morning bicycle commute down 3rd Street. I had to stop taking this route because cars dropping off students in the morning aggressively and dangerously pulling in and out of the drop-off zone, or just stopping in the street and doors opening to let students out. Too many near misses due to drivers not looking when pulling in and out. It's an otherwise lovely and efficient bike lane all down 3rd street.
183 FedEx trucks often parked here between 3-6pm on weekdays. As a bicycle commuter, it's frustrating and dangerous to have large trucks parked in the bike lane for long periods of time, especially when they have their own parking lot. 184 UPS truck often parked here between 3-6pm on weekdays. As a bicycle commuter, it's frustrating and dangerous to have large trucks parked in the bike lane for long periods of time, especially when they have their own parking lot. 185
Crossing Buena Vista at Jeffries is hazardous-- no cross walk. I have to either 1) make a run for it or 2) make a fairly long trek to either Burbank Blvd. or Victory in order to cross with a light. I've also seen several vehicles making a left hand turn from Jeffries onto Buena Vista have a close call due to the speeding traffic on Buena Vista. 186
Vehicle on the south side of Ontario St. began to turn left onto Magnolia Blvd. in front of me. I was able to stop in time and not get hit, but only barely. I see many vehicles making turns at this intersection in unsafe ways, “rolling stops” + quick acceleration to match the traffic speed on Magnolia Blvd.
187 Similar to the Olive overpass, the guardrails on the overpass are so low, it feels like I could easily fall right over, and the narrow sidewalk means I'm forced to walk close to the guardrail. I wish there was a fence the way there is on the Burbank Blvd overpass. 188 The guardrails on the overpass are so low, it feels like I could easily fall right over, and the narrow sidewalk means I'm forced to walk close to the guardrail. I wish there was a fence the way there is on the Burbank Blvd overpass. 189
I'm too scared to cross this freeway on ramp. Drivers coming from the north side, taking a right-on-red onto the ramp, generally do not notice pedestrians trying to cross, and I found myself often having to shout or wave my hands to get noticed. I no longer think it's worth the risk, which prevents me from walking to the Empire Center. 190 Consistent aggressive driving and speeding from people generally traveling to the 134. 191 I was driving but saw a gentleman walking across H Way from portos when another driver sideswiped him when she changed her mind from turning into the portos parking lot to going back on Hollywood way. We stopped to check on him and he was thankfully okay 192
Almost hit by northbound drivers still trying to turn left into the target 193 Blind corner here for drivers. Makes it very dangerous for crossing. 194 Constant speeding and plowing through the stop signs all through edison. Was at a crosswalk and had someone completely go through the stop without even slowing
195
While biking with my daughter and waiting for light to change on pass traveling north, a person who was making a left onto Pass from burbank nearly hit us head first before serving to avoid us. This is because we were waiting within the traffic light circle to trigger the light and people who are parking on the west side of the street so close to the pass/burbank intersection make it seem more narrower to drivers who are turning onto that street and aren't paying attention for cyclists waiting for the light.
This happened again although less of a close call because the driver saw me faster while approaching and widened to avoid me.
The first incident was so scary that we literally both screamed as the driver was heading for us. 196 Cars frequently park right up to the ally entrance blocking all visibility when exiting the ally to the road turning left. Almost on several occasions by cross traffic or others entering the ally. 197 Cars regularly blow through this 4-way stop, especially in the morning when kids are walking to school (Disney and JBHS). 198 Traffic from off-ramp doesn’t yield. Dangerous to merge for 5 south onramp. Creates traffic in the morning. 199 Few safe walking routes in most of the center. Especially from the REI. 200 Extremely dangerous route for bikes interacting with fast moving vehicles. Unprotected across freeway entrances/exits. Has bikes switch lanes into the middle of a multi lane road where cars are moving at high speeds not expecting bikes. 201
A USPS mailbox placed directly in the sidewalk path. Needs to be moved. 202 There is some sort of box and poles in the middle of the sidewalk making it impossible to pass with a baby stroller and I’m guessing any wheelchair or similar. No way to go around and also don’t see until you begin heading down. 203 Please prioritize extending Chandler’s bike path to the Metrolink station and downtown. 204
Love the initiative to narrow this section of Olive! I drive this way nearly daily, and there's never any real amount of traffic, even during the busiest times. Yes, it feels tighter and slightly more claustrophobic to the parked cars, but that's the point: we're supposed to drive slower and more carefully in these smaller streets. And unless you're driving a doublewide hummer, there's plenty of space for your car, even with someone entering their parked car. Echoing the other comment on here: BRING ON THE GREENSPACE MEDIAN!! Would love to walk my dog or take a jog down here.
205
I live in the neighborhood north of Glenoaks and regularly walk directly down Palm Ave to the theater and restaurants in the promenade.
The walk is super pedestrian friendly with the exception of the intersection with Glenoaks, where there is no infrastructure for pedestrian crossing. I think a dedicated "yield to pedestrians" crosswalk with flashing yield lights when a pedestrian is present would significantly improve foot-traffic efficiency and safety for the members of this neighborhood with minimal impact to flow of traffic. I know there are dedicated stoplights/crosswalks at Magnolia and Orange Grove, but this neighboorhood has plenty of families with small children/strollers and elderly folks who would benefit from a more efficient route to their downtown area.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 115
206
Drivers are regularly speeding down Sixth St to avoid traffic on Glenoaks Blvd. Witnessed a car travelling way too fast collide with another car and take out a city hydrant on this corner, sending water cascading 40 feet into the air for hours. Incredibly dangerous driving that needs to be curbed with speed bumps!
207 Bulbouts / curb extensions are needed at the cross walks at Kenneth and Keystone. Speeding cars don't stop completely and don't see/yield to pedestrians. Even with reduced speed limits and school X-ing signs, the problem here near the school is getting worse. 208
Dangerous condition here with fast traffic exiting the freeway off ramp. Many vehicles fail to yield (yield sign exists) creating conflicts with pedestrians in sidewalk crossing and traffic in the #2 lane on southbound Buena Vista. Can we work with Caltrans to get a stop sign for the off ramp? The yield sign is not effective.
209 More enforcement of stop sign violations ESPECIALLY WITH CYCLISTS needed. Entitled cyclists often ignore stop signs even with other vehicles present. Burbank Police: please increase enforcement of cyclist scofflaws! 210 More enforcement of stop sign violations ESPECIALLY WITH CYCLISTS needed. Entitled cyclists often ignore stop signs even with other vehicles present. Burbank Police: please increase enforcement of cyclist scofflaws! 211 The new striping on Olive is problematic. The lanes are too narrow creating dangers with parked vehicles. Consider narrowing the center striped median and increasing the width of travel lanes to move traffic further away from vehicles parked along the street (potential for collisions with opening parked vehicle doors). Bike lanes in each direction along the travel lanes could also make sense here. 212 Consider traffic calming improvements and increased enforcement near Horace Mann Center. Speeding motorists often do not stop at the stop signs. This is a very dangerous condition with many young children present near the school. 213 Road diet (reduction to 1 lane each direction to fit bike lanes) on Verdugo creates severe impacts to motorists! Congestion, delays, and blocked intersection to tens of thousands of motorists to benefit dozens? of cyclists per day. Does this make sense? 214 Despite being a 2 way street this section gets unusually fast, there is little to no sidewalk so it's impossible to use for a pedestrian. Would like to see speed calming measures as well as raised sidewalks. 215 Sidewalk abruptly ends here on both sides of the street, essentially blocking this access off from anyone who does not own a car or bike.
Pedestrians are forced to walk a mile or more in the wrong direction to feel save traveling further up verdugo. 216 Since this is the busiest crosswalk in the immediate area it should have an all-cross signal 217 Move onto the next phase of the lane striping project and build the walking path down the median of the road. Need more green space in the center of the city!
218 Traffic on this road is far too fast to rely on paint for protection; need something physical. Flip bike lane to other side of parked cars and raise it to the sidewalk level.
219 Claim some of the large sidewalk to create a bike path similar to what is done up by the airport. Need a safe connection between where Chandler ends and the train station.
220 Create all-cross signal in preparation for BRT stop 221 Cars often almost get into accidents trying to park outside Porto’s or double parking in the travel lane. I would suggest removing the parking immediately on the corner and creating 10 minute parking spots further in 222
I've been hit twice (glancingly) by cars in the past 12 months while using this intersection as a pedestrian.
I live in downtown Burbank, near Third & Olive, and it is getting increasingly dangerous to walk to the library or anywhere in my neighborhood.
223
This intersection has been super dangerous lately as drivers keep driving over the walkway and not looking at walkers coming into traffic.
I think making the stop a "do not turn right of red" would help diminish hazards. On multiple ocassions drivers turning right have not looked once the walk light has turned on for walkers and drive into the crosswalk almost hitting me. 224
All crosswalks within 500 ft of a school should be raised to sidewalk level. When pedestrians are dipped to street level, it is an indication to drivers and pedestrians alike that they are in a car's space. We should prioritize our children's safety and require these spaces to be pedestrian first.
225
All crosswalks within 500 ft of a school should be raised to sidewalk level. When pedestrians are dipped to street level, it is an indication to drivers and pedestrians alike that they are in a car's space. We should prioritize our children's safety and require these spaces to be pedestrian first.
226
All crosswalks within 500 ft of a school should be raised to sidewalk level. When pedestrians are dipped to street level, it is an indication to drivers and pedestrians alike that they are in a car's space. We should prioritize our children's safety and require these spaces to be pedestrian first.
227
All crosswalks within 500 ft of a school should be raised to sidewalk level. When pedestrians are dipped to street level, it is an indication to drivers and pedestrians alike that they are in a car's space. We should prioritize our children's safety and require these spaces to be pedestrian first.
228
All crosswalks within 500 ft of a school should be raised to sidewalk level. When pedestrians are dipped to street level, it is an indication to drivers and pedestrians alike that they are in a car's space. We should prioritize our children's safety and require these spaces to be pedestrian first.
229 A lot of cars do not stop at this intersection, and there are a lot pedestrians nearby due to the elementary school and populated neighborhood. I have nearly been struck by cars here on at least 6 locations because drivers fail to stop at the stop signs. 230
Going to one lane on Olive at Glenoaks is problematic as there is often traffic from the light and emergency vehicles at the senior facility on the corner.
Additionally, the new striped lanes on Olive are to narrow and not comparable to the width of lanes on Palm or Magnolia 231 Because there is an elementary school down the street, there should be a cross walk and flashing pedestrian crossing sign here.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 116
232
This intersection is increasingly dangerous for pedestrians using the Chandler path. Pedestrian crosswalks are not marked when crossing to reach the Chandler bike path coming South down Whitnall Highway or coming North up N. Pass. Due to the number of stop signs and directions, drivers' are distracted and not focused on pedestrians, especially when it is dark.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 117
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
IN-PERSON COMMUNITY MEETING
The following pages include photos of the boards following each of the exercises. The comments on the Focus Network map were transcribed and added to the webmap after the meeting.
118
ATTACHMENT 2 - 118
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
119
ATTACHMENT 2 - 119
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
120
ATTACHMENT 2 - 120
TECHNICAL SUMMARY B: ENGAGEMENT
121
ATTACHMENT 2 - 121
From: M. Halliday
To: Transportation; Hess, Justin; City Council DL
Subject: SAFER STREETS BURBANK ACTION PLAN
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:50:50 PM
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members, City Manager, and Transportation Department members:
I have just read the "Safer Streets Burbank Action Plan" and am shocked at the total lack of
planning for equestrians.
I see much information for Bicyclists, and some for pedestrians, but only two weak mentions of equestrians, and NO action plan is detailed for them/us.
It appears the City is getting ready to spend a good amount of money implementing the proposed action plans.
This is not an action plan if Equestrian activities are not included.
I
note with interest the Transportation Department page has it's own section for "Bike Burbank", yet no tab or planning is shown for Equestrians.
Why?
The Burbank Rancho area is populated with many horses, both in private and commercial stables.
I suggest you take the Bicycle and Pedestrian plans and replace the words "Bike" and "Pedestrian" with "Equestrian".
Those needs are the same for Equestrians.
Ignoring the Rancho area and the horses regenerates the dangerous ongoing environment for riders and horses.
I would very much like to hear what plans you will provide for horses and their owners.
If you
have no plans, why not?
I have lived in Rancho for 37years.
Our bucolic neighborhood has
regularly been ignored as streets within the Rancho have had speed limits increased, bike lanes added, but no horse lanes provided and NO traffic or bike calming procedures put into place.
Happy to discuss further at your convenience.
Respectfully,
Mari Halliday
ATTACHMENT 2 - 122
From: Nathan Adair
To: Buonomo, Christopher
Subject: Question on Safer Streets Burbank Report
Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:40:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Chris,
I was perusing the Safer Streets Burbank report, but was having trouble understanding exactly what projects we were signing up for.
For instance, if I jump down to page 48 where the report depicts the San Fernando travel corridor…is this report saying that we would want to go to every current Signalized intersection and implement protected left turns, high visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, leading pedestrian intervals, rest in red, coordinate signals to posted speeds, and retro reflective backplates?
Or are some of those solutions being implemented at only a few of the intersections? It’s a great draft report and there seems to be some stuff in it to get very excited about! ATTACHMENT 2 - 123
From: Transportation
To: Kriske, David
Cc: Burant, Nicholas; Buonomo, Christopher
Subject: FW: Item 1 "Safer Streets Burbank"
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:41:58 AM
Please see the email we received this morning. I will print for the Commission meeting.
Natalie
From: Manny Rodriguez
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:16 AM
To: Transportation <[email protected]>
Cc: Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>; Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette <[email protected]>; Rizzotti, Christopher John <[email protected]>; Hess, Justin <[email protected]> Subject: Item 1 "Safer Streets Burbank"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Transportation Commission and Council Members,
As a driver and committed pedestrian (excluding the confusing and ugly Culver City- like section of San Fernando Blvd) the City of Burbank has a good, practical and a generally safe infrastructure that serves traffic and pedestrians well.
Enforcement of speed is crucial for safer streets. It’s evident the BPD takes that responsibly seriously. Please keep it up.
Areas of improvement include proactively removing illegal tall hedges that block pedestrian and vehicle view on alleyways and driveways, effectively prohibiting mini motorcycles on sidewalks and on Chandler Bike Path and stopping the same two guys from careening down the sidewalks of Magnolia Blvd on their bicycles.
Many communities have made conditions worse by implementing strange initiatives that have caused traffic chaos and ineffective safety measures. Let’s not do that in Burbank.
Respectfully,
ATTACHMENT 2 - 124
Verbal Comment
Received 7/23/25
What is the safety plan doing for audible and countdown crossing signals for people who are sight/disabled? Has staff talked to the Burbank Advisory Council on Disabilities? ATTACHMENT 2 - 125
1 ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4 122
ATTACHMENT 2 - 126
Countermeasure
Toolbox
C Safer Streets Burbank
Action Plan
Technical Summary C
41 1
ACTION PLAN
2 3
A
B
C
TECHNICAL
SUMMARIES
4123
ATTACHMENT 2 - 127
This technical summary details a comprehensive set of proven engineering and non- engineering countermeasures the City can implement to address roadway safety issues.
The toolbox was developed
with the City context
in mind and includes
priority strategies from
the Action Plan as well
as countermeasures to
consider down the line.
Countermeasures draw
from state and federal
safety resources such
as the Federal Highway
Administration Proven
Safety Countermeasures
and the Caltrans
Local Roadway Safety
Manual. These resources
provide additional guidance on Countermeasure applicability and possible magnitude of collision reduction (i.e., Crash Reduction Factor). 1 1 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual
countermeasure
A physical infrastructure change or
programmatic solution specifically designed to
address a collision type.
priority implementation
Many of the engineering countermeasures
in this toolbox represent priority treatments,
meaning they have design options that meet
most of the following: 1) use cost-effective
materials within the right-of-way, 2) have
been pre-screened to streamline engineering
design and departmental depth review, 3)
can be deployed at multiple locations, and 4)
are in alignment with the longer-term visions
outlined in Complete Our Streets Plan.
countermeasure toolbox
Introduction
Key Terms
ATTACHMENT 2 - 128
There are four core design principles to keep in mind when designing safe, comfortable, and intuitive roadways. These design principles are rooted in the Caltrans-adopted Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe System framework. countermeasure toolbox
Design Guidance
separate users in time
There are times where different roadway
users will need to occupy the same physical
space to continue on their journey, such as
when passing through an intersection or
crossing the street. This type of conflict can
be managed by separating users in time
through discrete and alternating opportunities
to navigate the intersection/crossing.
speed management
Kinetic energy (the combination of speed and
mass) is the primary indicator of the severity of
a crash. Managing speeds is critical to reducing
the likelihood and severity of crashes. Speeds
can be managed through countermeasures
such as speed feedback signs, coordinating
signals to the posted speed, and speed humps.
driver alertness
Increasing driver attentiveness and awareness
to roadway conditions can help mitigate crashes
related to distracted driving and alert drivers
to potential conflicts. Countermeasures such as
high-visibility crosswalks, object markers, and
retroreflective backplates fall in this category.
separate users in space
Separating users in space removes severe
conflicts through the elimination of high-risk
conditions like shared space of roadway users
travelling at different speeds or in different
directions. Countermeasures in this bucket
include separated bikeways and sidewalks.
The right combination of these tools will vary by intersection and roadway and will be dependent on several factors, including how much right-of-way is available, existing intersection control, surrounding land use, vehicle volumes and speeds, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and collision history. Picking treatments from each of these categories increases the redundancy, and therefore resilience, of City of Burbank roadways.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 129
Priority
Implementation
Measure
Street Type
Major Residential
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
Traffic Signal
All-Way Stop Control
Protected Left Turns
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Pedestrian Recall
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bike Detection
Rest-in-Red Signal
Improve Signal Timing
Separate Users in Space
Access Management
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Close Slip Lane
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Green Conflict Striping
Remove Bicycle Mixing Zones
Bike Box
Protected Intersection
Bus Boarding Island
Speed Management
Signage Noting that Signals Coordinate to Posted Speeds Roundabout
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Curb Extensions
Left Turn Calming
Skewed Intersection Redesign
Driver Alertness
Intersection Daylighting
Intersection Lighting
Retroreflective Backplates
Pavement Markings through Intersection
Recommended
countermeasure toolbox
Index and Countermeasure Suitability
ATTACHMENT 2 - 130
Priority
Implementation
Measure
Street Type
Major Residential
midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
Separated Bikeway
Bike Lanes
Bike Path
Roadway Reconfiguration
Curbside Management
Speed Management
Speed Limit Reduction
Speed Hump
Driver Alertness
Bicycle Boulevard
Curve Warning Signage
Speed Feedback Sign
Edge Line
Lane Narrowing
Segment Lighting
intersection/midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
New and Widened Sidewalks
Separate Users in Time
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Speed Management
Raised Crosswalk
Driver Alertness
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers
programmatic improvements
Targeted Enforcement and Deterrence
Safe Routes to School
Neighborhood Slow Zone
ATTACHMENT 2 - 131
Title
Description
Implementations
Considerations
Primary Crash
Types Addressed
• All
• Bicycle
• Hit object
• Night
• Pedestrian
• Red-light running
• Run off road
• Turn-related
• Unsafe speed
Implementation
TimelineRoad Type
Suitability
Photo
Image Source: City of Surrey
A protected left turn is a traffic signal
configuration that provides dedicated time
for vehicles to make left turns, minimizing
conflicts with oncoming traffic, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. Left turns are widely recognized
as the highest-risk movement at signalized
intersections due to the need of the driver
to make multiple judgement calls at once
(identify appropriate gap in traffic, presence
of bicyclists/pedestrians) and the higher
speeds they can be made at. Protected left
turns improve comfort of motorists and limit
exposure of both vehicles and pedestrians.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Protected left turns can be installed at existing
locations with left turn pockets and a mast arm
that can support an additional signal head. A
study will be required to determine impacts.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
Protected Left Turns
major street residential street
Priority Improvement
toolbox entry structure
Example of What You’ll See In This Toolbox
ATTACHMENT 2 - 132
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Image Source: Google Streetview
Installing traffic signals adds/expands
existing traffic control at an intersection.
The installation of traffic signals can break
up longer roadway segments to manage
vehicle speeds, provide pedestrian crossing
opportunities, and improve side-street
access.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
An all-way stop-controlled intersection
requires all vehicles to stop before crossing
the intersection. An all-way stop-controlled
intersection improves safety by removing
the need for motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians on a side-street stop-controlled
intersection to cross free-flowing lanes of
traffic, which reduces the risk of collision.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Installation should comply with
California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Traffic Signal All-Way Stop Control
major street residential street
Long-Term Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 133
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Surrey
Image Source: Gaston Gazette
A protected left turn is a traffic signal
configuration that provides dedicated time
for vehicles to make left turns, minimizing
conflicts with oncoming traffic, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. Left turns are widely recognized
as the highest-risk movement at signalized
intersections due to the need of the driver
to make multiple judgement calls at once
(identify appropriate gap in traffic, presence
of bicyclists/pedestrians) and the higher
speeds they can be made at. Protected left
turns improve comfort of motorists and limit
exposure of both vehicles and pedestrians.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Protected left turns can be installed at
existing locations with left turn pockets
and a mast arm that can support an
additional signal head. A study will be
required to determine impacts.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
A separate right-turn phase provides
a green arrow phase for right-turning
vehicles. It helps mitigate conflicts
between right-turning traffic and
bicyclists or pedestrians crossing
the intersection on their right.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
Protected Left Turns Separate Right-Turn Phasing
major street major street residential street residential street Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 134
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: UNC at Chapel Hill
Image Source: Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space (Pasadena, CA) Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements
should be considered at skewed
intersections, or where exclusive pedestrian
“WALK” phases, Leading Pedestrian
Intervals (LPIs), sight distance issues, or
high pedestrian volumes are present. It
can help prevent crashes between vehicles
turning right on red from one street and
through vehicles on the cross street,
and crashes involving pedestrians.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
An exclusive pedestrian phase is a form of
pedestrian “WALK” phase at a signalized
intersection in which all vehicular traffic
is required to stop, allowing pedestrians
to cross through the intersection in any
direction, sometimes including diagonally.
The pedestrian exclusive phase significantly
reduces conflicts between vehicles
and pedestrians at intersections and
provides maximum pedestrian visibility.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
major street residential street major street
Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 135
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: LA Walks
Image Source: City of Long Beach
At intersection locations that have a high
volume of turning vehicle and have high
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, a leading
pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the
opportunity to enter an intersection three
to seven seconds before vehicles are
given a green indication. With this head
start, pedestrians can better establish
their presence in the crosswalk before
vehicles have priority to turn left or right.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
Pedestrian recall is a traffic signal timing
function that causes a pedestrian walk
phase to activate automatically every
cycle. Pedestrian recall can benefit
pedestrians by reducing pedestrian delay.
Improved convenience of crossing in turn
can reduce unsafe crossing behavior.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Leading Pedestrian Interval Pedestrian Recall
major street major street residential street residential street Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 136
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Bike Portland
Image Source: City of Long Beach
A bicycle signal is specifically designed
to control the movement of bicycles at
intersections, operating either independently
or in coordination with traffic signal.
It separates bicycle movements from
conflicting motor vehicle, streetcar,
light rail, or pedestrian movements
enhancing safety and visibility for cyclist
navigating through an intersection.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Bike detection is a technology used to
identify the presence of a bicycle at
signalized intersections or along roadways,
either through use of push-buttons, in-
pavement loops, or by video or infrared
cameras, to call a green light for bicyclists
and reduce delay for bicycle travel. Provides
appropriate signal timing or priority for
bicyclists, which can discourage red light
running, increase convenience, and safety.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Bicycle Signal Bike Detection
major street
Long-Term ImprovementLong-Term Improvement
major street residential street
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 137
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of San Gabriel
Image Source: Irvine Standard
At certain hours (e.g. late night) a signal
remains red for all approaches until a vehicle
arrives at the intersection to encourage
lower travel speeds. Speed sensitive rest in
red signals will not turn green until after a
vehicle stops, if the vehicle is going faster
than the desired speed. If the vehicle is
going the desired speed the signal will
change to green before the vehicle arrives,
providing an operational benefit to drivers
traveling at the desired speed limit.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Rest-in-red can be implemented at any
fully actuated signal with existing loop
detection. New loops will add time an
expense, so will only be short term
where existing conditions allow.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Unsafe speeds
Rest-in-Red Signal
major street residential street
Priority Improvement
Traffic signal cycles have a significant impact on
the quality of the urban realm and consequently,
the opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit vehicles to operate safely along
a corridor. Signalization improvements may
include adding phases, lengthening clearance
intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-
risk movements, and coordinating signals
at multiple locations. These changes can
decrease exposure to conflicts, reduces
wait time, adjust signals for peak/off-peak
hours, and improves intersection capacity.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Red-light running
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
Improve Signal Timing
major street residential street
Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 138
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Long Beach
Image Source: Google Earth
Common forms of access management
include restricting left turns into/out of
driveways and side streets, particularly those
within 250 feet of intersections; restricting
left turns at major intersections where sight
distance needs cannot be accomodated;
and closing legs of complex intersections.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
The most effective form of access
management includes hardening the
centerline through raised curb or more
temporary materials. Mountable curb
can be used to maintain emergency
service access at these locations.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
A pedestrian refuge island is a raised
barrier in the center of the roadway
that provides a place for pedestrians
and bicyclists to wait if they are unable
to finish crossing the intersection. A
pedestrian refuge island improves safety
by reducing the exposure time for
pedestrians crossing the intersection and
reducing left-turning vehicle speeds.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Access Management Pedestrian Refuge Island
major street major street residential street
Priority Improvement Long-Term Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 139
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Streetsblog USA
Image Source: NACTO
Closing the slip lane modifies the corner of
an intersection to remove the sweeping right
turn lane for vehicles. It results in shorter
crossings for pedestrians, reduced speed
for turning vehicles, better sight lines, and
space for landscaping and other amenities.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists
with a means of making a left turn at a
multi-lane signalized intersection from a bike
lane or separated bikeway on the far right
side of the roadway. Bicyclists are separated
from the flow of traffic while waiting to turn.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Close Slip Lane Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
major street major street residential street residential street Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 140
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Image Source: Google Streeetview
Green conflict striping is dashed green
markings in bike lanes through conflict
areas such as at turn pockets, driveways,
and intersections. They signal to drivers and
bikers to take caution and look for conflicts.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
In locations where a bike lane is
dropped due to a right turn pocket,
the intersection approach may be
restriped to allow for bicyclists to move
to the left side of right turning vehicles
ahead of reaching the intersection.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Green Conflict Striping Remove Bicycle Mixing Zones
major street major street residential street residential street Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 141
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: NACTO
Image Source: Santa Monica Spoke
A bike box is a designated area between
the stop bar and intersection that provides
bicyclists with a safe and visible way
to get ahead of queuing traffic during
the red signal phase. They are most
effective on side streets or approaches
that don’t typically have the green, as
it gives bicyclists an opportunity to
position themselves appropriately.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Protected intersections use corner
islands, curb extensions, and colored
paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian
movements across an intersection. Slower
driving speeds and shorter crossing
distance increase safety for pedestrians.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Corner wedges can be designed to be
mountable for emergency service vehicles
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Bike Box Protected Intersection
major street residential street
Priority Improvement Long-Term Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 142
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: San Francisco Bike Coalition
Transit boarding islands allow for
bicycles to bypass the bus stop in
a separated space, provide transit
speed and reliability improvements by
allowing for in-lane stopping, and can
double as a pedestrian refuge island.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Bus Boarding Island
major street
Long-Term Improvement
intersection improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 143
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: The Wolf
Image Source: Google Earth
Coordinate signals on major roadways
to match posted speeds. Reinforce safe
driving behavior by providing drivers
travelling at the posted speed a “green
wave,” limiting their need to stop at
signals and improving their travel time.
Signage can be used to supplement signal
coordination to alert drivers of this benefit.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Unsafe speed
A roundabout is a type of circular
intersection in which traffic is permitted
to flow in one direction around a central
island, and priority is typically given to
traffic already in the junction. Left-turn
conflicts are not present in a roundabout
and the geometry of a roundabout
encourages drivers to reduce speeds as
they proceed through the intersection,
reducing the severity of crashes when
they do occur. Pedestrians only have to
cross one direction of traffic at a time at
roundabouts, thus reducing the potential
for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts as well.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Signage Noting that Signals
Coordinate to Posted Speeds
Roundabout
major street major street residential street
Priority Improvement Long-Term Improvement
intersection improvements
Speed Management
ATTACHMENT 2 - 144
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Burbank
Image Source: City of Beverly Hills
Traffic circles, also referred to as mini
roundabouts, are a type of roundabout
typically small in diameter and located
on residential streets. Traffic circles
decrease vehicle speeds and severity
of collisions while reducing congestion
and improving traffic flow.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
A curb extension is a traffic calming
measure that widens the sidewalk
for a short distance to enhance the
pedestrian crossing and reduce turning
vehicle speeds. For the pedestrian,
this reduces the crossing distance
and improves pedestrian visibility.
For the vehicle, this visual narrowing
encourages drivers to reduce speed
when approaching the intersection and
modifies the turning movement geometry
to encourage shaper, slower turns.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Materials used can be designed to
be fully mountable by emergency
service vehicles. Curb radii can also
be modified to be outside emergency
service vehicles’ effective turn radius.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
Neighborhood Traffic Circle Curb Extensions
major street residential street residential street
Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Speed Management
ATTACHMENT 2 - 145
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: IIHS
Image Source: Google Earth
Use paint and bollards to extend
the centerline and slow left turns at
intersections. Widening the turning
radii of left-turning vehicles expands
the field of vision for drivers and
increases the visibility of pedestrians.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Materials used can be designed to be
fully mountable to limit the effects
on emergency service vehicles. May
need to develop implementation
criteria to avoid overdeployment.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
• Pedestrian
• Bicycle
“Square up” skewed intersections to reduce
large curb radii that allow for higher turn
speeds by restriping approaches. A squared
up intersection provides better visibility
for all road users, reduces turning speeds,
and reduces pedestrian crossing lengths.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Left Turn Calming Skewed Intersection Redesign
major street residential street major street residential street Priority Improvement Long-Term Improvement
intersection improvements
Speed Management
ATTACHMENT 2 - 146
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Google Earth
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Adding intersection and/or pedestrian-
scale lighting at intersections improves
safety by increasing visibility of all road
users. This countermeasure improves safety
for all users by increasing the visibility of
pedestrians at intersections at night.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Night
Intersection Lighting
major street residential street
Long-Term Improvement
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear sightline.
This may include installing red curb at
intersection approaches to remove parked
vehicles (also called “daylighting”), trimming
or removing landscaping, or removing or
relocating large signs. This countermeasure
supports compliance with AB 413,
California’s daylighting law that prohibits the
stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle
within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side
of any unmarked or marked crosswalk.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Intersection Daylighting
major street residential street
Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 147
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Surrey
Retroreflective signal borders enhance the
visibility of traffic signals for aging and
color-vision-impaired drivers, enabling
them to understand which signal indication
is illuminated. Retroreflective borders
may also alert drivers to signalized
intersections during periods of power
outages when the signals would otherwise
be dark, and non–reflective signal heads
and backplates would not be visible.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Retroreflective Backplates
major street
Priority Improvement
Image Source: Google Earth
Adding clear pavement markings, also
known as “cat tracks,” can guide motorists
through complex intersections. Intersections
where the lane designations are not clearly
visible to approaching motorists and/
or intersections noted as being complex
and experiencing crashes that could
be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful
attempt to navigate the intersection
can benefit from this treatment.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Turn-related
Pavement Markings through
Intersection
major street
Priority Improvement
intersection improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 148
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Covina
Image Source: City of Burbank
A separated bikeway provides dedicated
street space, typically adjacent to
outer vehicle travel lanes, with physical
separation from vehicle traffic, designated
lane markings, pavement legends, and
signage. Physical separation may consist
of plastic posts, parked vehicles, or a curb.
Separated bikeways improve safety by
reducing conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles on the road and by creating a road-
narrowing effect with buffers or vertical
barriers, which may reduce vehicle speeds.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
A bike lane provides dedicated street
space, typically adjacent to outer vehicle
travel lanes, with designated lane markings,
pavement legends, and signage. Bike
lanes improve safety by reducing conflicts
between bicycles and vehicles on the road
and by creating a road-narrowing effect
with buffers or vertical barriers, which
may reduce vehicle speeds. They can
be paired with buffers to provide extra
width between moving vehicles, people
exiting parked vehicles, and bicyclists.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets
with daily traffic volumes below 6,500 and
auto speeds below 30 miles per hour.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
Separated Bikeway Close Bike Lane Gaps
major street residential street
Long-Term Improvement Priority Improvement
midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 149
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Orlando
Image Source: Streetsblog
A bike path provides a completely
separate right of way that is designated
for the exclusive use of people
riding bicycles and people walking
with minimal cross-flow traffic.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Bicycle
• Pedestrian
A roadway reconfiguration reduces
roadway space dedicated to vehicle
travel lanes to create room for bicycle
facilities, wider sidewalks, center turn lanes,
pedestrian refuge islands, or parking. A
roadway reconfiguration improves safety
by reducing vehicle speeds and creating
designated space for all road users.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Bike Path Roadway Reconfiguration
major street major street
Long-Term Improvement Long-Term Improvement
midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 150
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Curb IQ
Curbside management can better prioritize
reliable transit, safe bicycling infrastructure,
freight deliveries, passenger pick-ups/
drop-offs, green stormwater infrastructure,
public spaces, and parking management.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Curbside Management
major street
Priority Improvement
midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
ATTACHMENT 2 - 151
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Image Source: PEDBIKESAFE
Take advantage of flexibility provided to
local jurisdictions through AB 43 and CA
MUTCD updates to set speed limits to reflect
the surrounding land use context of the
roadway. Lower speed limits allow for shorter
stopping distances, reduce the likelihood of
collisions, decrease the severity of crashes,
and enhance the overall experience all users.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
A speed hump is a parabolic traffic calming
device that uses vertical defection to
raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle
and encourage motorists to travel at
slower speeds to avoid damage to the
undercarriage of an automobile. Speed
humps span the full width of the street
and are typically used to slow speeds
on low volume, low speed roads. They
should be spaced every 250 to 500 feet
for maximium efficacy. Speed hump
installation in Burbank is subject to the
City’s adopted Speed Hump Policy.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Speed Limit Reduction Speed Hump
major street residential street residential street
Priority Improvement Near-Term Improvement
midblock improvements
Speed Management
ATTACHMENT 2 - 152
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Los Angeles Eco-Village
Image Source: Google Earth
A bicycle boulevard is a street with low
vehicle traffic volumes and speeds,
designated to give bicyclists travel
priority and create a low-stress cycling
experience. Bike boulevards typically
feature various traffic calming measures
to reduce vehicle speeds and prioritize
bicycles, such as branded wayfinding,
pavement markings, traffic diverters,
and landscaping. Sharrows are the most
common pavement marker used on bike
boulevard. They should be centered in the
travel lane, at least three feet away from
parked cars (outside the “door” zone).
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
Implement traffic calming features every 250
feet to encourage slow, attentive driving.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• All
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to
warn drivers of an approaching curve
and provide tracking information and
guidance to the drivers. Install chevron
signs at major curves in the roadway to
alert drivers to the change in curvature.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Run off road
• Hit object
Bicycle Boulevard Curve Warning Signage
major street residential street
Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
midblock improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 153
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Covina
Image Source: Google Streetview
A speed feedback sign notifies drivers of
their current speed, usually followed by
a reminder of the posted speed limit. A
speed feedback sign improves safety by
providing a cue for drivers to check their
speed and slow down, if necessary.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Unsafe speeds
Edge lines are striping between the travel
lane and the parking lane and are used
to narrow a driver’s visual field, which
can help lower speeds. Edge lines and
other striping (centerline, striped median,
etc.) can be a lower-cost traffic calming
alternative to vertical and horizontal
traffic displacement devices like speed
humps/speed tables and lateral shifts.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Unsafe speeds
Speed Feedback Sign Edge Line
major street major street residential street residential street Priority Improvement Priority Improvement
midblock improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 154
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Research Gate
Image Source: City of Burbank
Providing roadway lighting improves
safety during nighttime conditions by
increasing driver awareness, increasing
sight distance, and improving visibility
of pedestrians and bicyclists.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Night
Segment Lighting
Long-Term Improvement
major street residential street
Lane narrowing reduces lane widths
to encourage motorists to travel at
slower speeds. Caltrans recommends
lanes as narrow as 10.5 feet.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Unsafe speeds
Lane Narrowing
major street
Priority Improvement
midblock improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 155
countermeasure toolbox
intersection/midblock improvements
Separate Users in Space
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
New and widened sidewalks provide a
more comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high volumes
of pedestrians, and provides space to
accommodate people in wheelchairs.
New and widened sidewalks improve
safety by minimizing collisions with
pedestrians walking in the road.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
New and Widened Sidewalks
Long-Term Improvement
major street residential street
ATTACHMENT 2 - 156
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of San Luis Obispo
A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is used
at unsignalized intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists
to stop with a series of red and yellow
lights. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests
in dark until a pedestrian activates it via
pushbutton or other form of detection
providing enhanced pedestrian visibility.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
major street
Long-Term Improvement
intersection/midblock improvements
Separate Users in Time
ATTACHMENT 2 - 157
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: New York City Street Design Manual
intersection/midblock improvements
Speed Management
A raised crosswalk is a pedestrian crosswalk
that is typically elevated 3-6 inches above
the road or at sidewalk level. A raised
crosswalk improves safety by increasing
crosswalk and pedestrian visibility and
slowing down motorists. To be considered
in combination with other appropriate traffic
control devices at mid-block crossings.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Raised Crosswalk
Long-Term Improvement
major street residential street
ATTACHMENT 2 - 158
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: City of Covina
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
are pedestrian safety devices installed at
crosswalks to enhance visibility and alert
drivers to the presence of pedestrians.
Activated by pedestrians, these beacons
emit a rapid, alternating flash pattern,
capturing drivers’ attention and prompting
them to yield. RRFBs improve crosswalk
visibility, increase driver compliance with
yielding to pedestrians, and thereby
enhance pedestrian safety. RRFBs are most
appropriate on lower speed, lower volume
roadways with no more than three lanes.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
residential street
Priority Improvement
Image Source: NACTO
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped
pattern with ladder markings made
of high-visibility material, such as
thermoplastic tape, instead of paint. A
high-visibility crosswalk improves safety
by increasing the visibility of marked
crosswalks and provides motorists a cue
to slow down and yield to pedestrians.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Pedestrian
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Priority Improvement
major street residential street
intersection/midblock improvements
Driver Alertness
ATTACHMENT 2 - 159
countermeasure toolbox
intersection/midblock improvements
Driver Alertness
Delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers are intended to warn drivers of
an approaching curve or fixed object
that cannot easily be removed.
PRIMARY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED:
• Hit object
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or
Object Markers
major street
Priority Improvement
residential street
Image Source: City of Burbank
ATTACHMENT 2 - 160
countermeasure toolbox
Image Source: Adobe Stock
Image Source: Adobe Stock
A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program
identifies specific street safety interventions
near schools and for students traveling.
to school. This type of program typically
involves a partnership between City
transportation staff and the school district.
Targeted enforcement and deterrence
allocates police resources toward the most
dangerous driver behaviors and highest-
collision locations in the City using a data-
driven approach aimed at safety corridors.
These campaigns can include highly visible
deterrence policies such as publicized
sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrol,
and other high-visibility enforcement
efforts. To ensure equitable and effective
implementation, targeted enforcement
should be supported by activities such
as outreach notifying the public of the
campaign; law enforcement training on
enforcement procedures and pedestrian and
crosswalk laws; and training prosecutors
and judges on the campaign’s purposes
in preparation for increased citations.
Safe Routes to SchoolTargeted Enforcement and
Deterrence
programmatic improvements
ATTACHMENT 2 - 161
countermeasure toolbox
programmatic improvements
Image Source: Streetsblog
A neighborhood slow zone program
allows specific neighborhoods or blocks
of a street to request treatments to
slow motor vehicles to 15 to 20 miles
per hour using traffic calming features,
signs, and markings. Selected locations
are typically in areas serving children,
seniors, public transit users, commercial
activity, and pedestrian/bicycle activity.
Neighborhood Slow Zones
ATTACHMENT 2 - 162