Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, March 21, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

The following activities are recommended for Mendota as they move forward on implementing the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify staff appropriate to attend a presentation by Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Appropriate staff members include staff associated with transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
▪ Work with school districts to distribute print materials and offer school-related transportation resources. Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish.

335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

8.0 CITY OF MENDOTA

291
▪ Work with public information or communications staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout Mendota through the following channels:
o Repost and link to Fresno COG posts that refer to the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. o Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
o Print posters for posting at governmental buildings such as City Hall, libraries, DMV, and other facilities that the public regularly uses.
o Work with the Fresno COG to identify a radio station to air a Safe Roads Save Lives radio public service announcement (PSA).
o Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website on the City’s website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves Mendota – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ Mendota staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.

336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

8.0 CITY OF MENDOTA

292
Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher-than-average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

The following enforcement strategies should be considered for Mendota:
▪ Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior) enforcement checks during strategic times of the year, such as when students return to school or the beginning of fog season. ▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high crash rates. ▪ Utilize existing trailers for speed feedback and messaging. ▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs, especially in school zones.
▪ Identify opportunities to engage community members as crossing guards to improve roadway safety for students.

The effectiveness of each strategy should be measured and evaluated, considering the number of staff hours and amount of resources needed. The results should be reviewed and used to refine future enforcement activities.

Enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and evaluated to determine the strategy’s impact. More details about equitable enforcement can be found on page 8 (Introduction).

337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

8.0 CITY OF MENDOTA

293

EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A key part of achieving the City’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the City’s goals. The City will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of Mendota update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

Activities for implementing the plan include:
▪ Identifying countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the crash data. ▪ Utilizing the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices.
▪ Exploring funding opportunities to implement priority strategies. ▪ Identifying activities to support the regional Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. ▪ Identifying enforcement strategies to implement and evaluate. ▪ Regularly coordinating with safety partner agencies to assess progress, identify opportunities to implement countermeasures and strategies, and identify opportunities for citizen involvement. ▪ Regularly collecting and organizing data to support evaluation of the LRSP. 338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

294

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE
The City of Orange Cove has an approximate population of 9,460.51 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 43,754, and the City maintains approximately 35 total roadway centerline miles. The main roadways in the City include Sumner Avenue/Park Boulevard, which runs east to west, and Jacobs Avenue and Hill Valley Road, which both run north to south. The top three collision types in Orange Cove were broadside, rear end, and hit object crashes; the top three primary collision factors were driving under the influence, automobile right of way, and improper turning. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to Orange Cove’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s vision for roadway safety is:

The City’s goals in support of the roadway safety vision are:

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury crashes on the City roadways.

2. Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.

3. Improve crash data available.

4. Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.

5. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

51 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Maintain and enhance safety on the City’s roadways through regular evaluation and identification of feasible improvements. 339
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

295

While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include the Fresno Council of Governments and City of Orange Cove Building, Planning, Inspection & Engineering Department.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top nine priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top nine priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
▪ Opportunities provided for citizen engagement (e.g. meetings held, public campaigns launched) ▪ Coordination on crash data processes and reporting (e.g. meetings held, changes made) As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan.

340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

296

DATA SUMMARY
The primary data sets used to inform the technical analyses for the City’s local road safety plan were crash data and roadway network information. As noted below, future updates could incorporate traffic volume data if widely available for locations across the City. In addition, feedback from a publicly available survey was documented for consideration in identifying issues and improvement strategies.

Public Survey Feedback
Toole Design Group worked with Fresno COG to develop an online survey and interactive webmap to provide the opportunity for public engagement on the LRSP. The goal was to collect both general and geographically specific feedback on safety problems, desired safety improvements in jurisdictions that are part of the MLRSP, as well as voluntary demographic information for Title IV reporting. Both activities were open from August 16, 2021 to September 20, 2021 and sought public feedback on spatial patterns of traffic safety concerns and desired improvements.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap specific to Orange Cove. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.

1 PERSON

RESPONDED
0 LOCATIONS

IDENTIFIED
Live in Orange Cove
and work/study outside
of Orange Cove
100%

WHERE PARTICIPANTS

WORK AND LIVE

MOST NEEDED SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS

• Maintenance of existing
roads and streets
• Rural road
improvements to
prevent run-off-road
crashes
• Sidewalks
• Speed enforcement
341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

297
▪ The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top road safety improvements needed in their communities. While the survey prompted participants to pick three improvements, some selected more than three responses. A total 4 responses were received for Orange Cove, including from one participant:
o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (1 response) o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (1 response) o Sidewalks (1 response)
o Speed enforcement (1 response)
▪ Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. No locations were identified for Orange Cove. ▪ The survey asked participants where they live and work or study, with the option to select from a list of jurisdictions or outside of Fresno County. The participants who selected Orange Cove included one individual who lives in Orange Cove and works/studies outside of Orange Cove.

Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the City of Orange Cove using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this report, crashes are associated with a jurisdiction based on the reporting officer’s assessment of location.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of three reported crashes are located in Orange Cove. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non -visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

As noted in the introduction, the crash data used in the descriptive analysis were sorted into jurisdictions based on the information available in the SWITRS and TIMS databases. This information is derived from a 342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

298
reporting officer’s judgment and may be inconsistent with true boundaries, especially near city/county borders.

In the process of locating data into a geographic information system (GIS) for spatial analysis, Kittelson reviewed the available information and relocated some crashes to a more precise coordinate location. In so doing, Kittelson relocated some crashes to different jurisdictions than originally listed in the database.

Thus, some disparities in total crash count by jurisdiction exist between the descriptive analysis and spatial analysis even though each is internally consistent.

In the case of Orange Cove, there is a notable difference in the two analyses due to the low numbers of reported crashes. Three crashes were reviewed in the descriptive analysis, while nineteen crashes were considered in the spatial analysis.

Roadway Network Data
Kittelson developed a linear referencing system of all public roadways using the Fresno County roadway centerline file. This dataset was updated to develop a measurement system based on the total road length (as determined by roadway name) to locate crashes to a specific mile point along the network.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volume data was not consistently available at a sufficient level to be able to incorporate into the safety analysis. Future updates to the City’s local road safety plan could incorporate traffic volume data, if available, to understand how crash frequency, severity, and type vary at different levels of traffic.

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
There were three total reported crashes in Orange Cove in the period between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. Therefore, patterns and trends are not applicable to this jurisdiction. Each crash is described below.

All Road Users
The first reported crash occurred during the hour of 10 PM in January of 2017 and resulted in one fatality.

The collision type is rear end with a primary collision factor of an unsafe lane change. A truck collided with a parked motor vehicle, and the driver of the truck was killed. The crash took place on Anchor Avenue just north of South Avenue. The reported lighting condition is dark with streetlights, the weather clear, and the road condition dry. There was alcohol involved.
343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

299
The second reported crash occurred during the hour of 4 PM in March of 2018 and resulted in one fatality.

The collision type is broadside with a primary collision factor of traffic signals and signs. The crash occurred at the Hills Valley Road/Adams Avenue intersection. The reported lighting condition is dusk-dawn, the weather clear, and the road condition dry.

The third reported crash occurred during the hour of 2 PM in November of 2019 and resulted in property damage only. The collision type is broadside with a primary collision factor of other improper driving. The crash occurred at Citrus Mini Mart at Park Boulevard and 10th Street. The lighting condition was daylight, the weather clear, and the road condition dry.

Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments using the annualized crash severity scores and excess predicted crashes described in the Data Summary and Analysis Approach sections (see the Introduction). As previously noted, this spatial analysis involved relocating some crashes to a more precise coordinate location, and thus includes additional crashes than the three crashes described above.

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the five years) to 45.68. Figure 130 shows the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 131 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 32.93. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 132. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 133. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

Members of the Focus Group for Orange Cove noted that the intersections of Adams Avenue/4th Street and Adams Avenue/Jacobs Avenue could be priority locations for improvement, as well as areas around schools, especially for pedestrian improvements.

344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

300
Table 60 presents the top nine locations with the highest crash severity scores.

Table 60. Top 9 Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Com-
plaint
of Pain
PDO
1 MONSON AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 45.68 5 0 1 3 1 0 2 HILLS VALLEY RD FROM C ST TO NORTH
OF AVENUE 464 Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 ANCHOR AVE FROM PARLIER AVE TO
NORTH OF SOUTH AVE Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 MANNING AVE FROM WEST OF HILL AVE
TO ANCHOR AVE Segment 3.43 7 0 0 0 2 5
5 SUMMER AVE FROM MONSON AVE TO
ANCHOR AVE Segment 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
6 MONSON AVE FROM NORTH OF

MANNING AVE TO SOUTH OF MANNING
AVE
Segment 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
7 MONSON AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
8 TENTH ST & PARK ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 PARLIER AVE FROM WEST OF ANCHOR
AVE TO EAST OF ANCHOR AVE Segment 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only

345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 130
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
346
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !!!!!!! !!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!! ! ! !
!!!!! !!!!!! !! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !!!! !!! !!!
!
! !!!!! !!! !!!!
!!!!!!!! !! !!
! !
!!!!!!!! !!! !
! !! !!!! !!!! ! !!
!
!!! !!! !!!!!!
!
!!! !!!!!! !!
!!!! !!
!!
!
! !!!!
!
! !!!!!
Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 131
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

S HILLS VALLEY RD

E SOUTH AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST

E SUMNER AVE

S HILL AVE

E ADAMS AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 132
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

S HILLS VALLEY RD

E SOUTH AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST

E SUMNER AVE

S HILL AVE

E ADAMS AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 133
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

305

EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of Orange Cove include broadside crashes, driving under the influence, and improved data collection. Each of these areas is further discussed below.

Broadside Crashes
A broadside crash occurs when the front of one vehicle hits the side of another vehicle. Broadside crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to the frequency and severity of these collision types. Two of the three crashes in the descriptive analysis were broadside crashes, including one fatal crash. Broadside crashes are most common at intersections where the risk of conflict is increased.

The California SHSP includes intersections as one of the six high priorities in California. These crashes are a high priority due to their severity level often as a result of rear-end, broadside, and hit object collision types. “Intersections significantly increase driver workload because they are a natural point of conflict. If present, traffic control devices help to mitigate that workload by providing clear rules of right-of-way” (Caltrans SHSP). As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, several intersection countermeasures are available targeted at improving the roadway to minimize risk of crashes and can be applied systemically.

Driving Under the Influence
Driving under the influence is included in the top collision types based on the spatial analysis. One of the three crashes detailed in the descriptive analysis noted alcohol was involved and the crash resulted in a fatality. This suggests there are opportunities to address driver behavior through education and enforcement.

The California SHSP also identified impaired driving as one of the six high priorities in California, reflecting the potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by addressing this challenge area.

Improved Data Collection
Improved crash data collection is identified as an emphasis area as there was limited crash data available from the City. The descriptive analysis included about one-sixth the number of crashes as the spatial analysis findings. High quality data is an essential component of understanding safety trends, priority locations, and systematically implementing safety countermeasures. 350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

306

STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety across the City.

Engineering Strategies
The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Orange Cove were broadside, rear end, and hit object crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were driving under the influence, automobile right of way, and improper turning. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 61.

Table 61. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R1 Crashes at night
Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Broadside, Hit object Intersection
Countermeasures
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Backplates with
Retroreflective Border, Mounting Size, Number S2 Broadside, rear end Convert Intersection to Roundabout NS4/NS5 Broadside
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10/NS9 Unsafe speed, rear end, broadside
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Intersection Warning/
Regulatory Signs NS6 Broadside
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings NS7 Broadside
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Approaches NS13 Broadside, rear end Note: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.

The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. The City of Orange Cove can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 71.

Figure 134 and Figure 135 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 136 and Figure 137 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Orange Cove\Intx_CrashType_OrangeCove.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 134
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3MilesCollision Type
! Rear End
! Broadside
! Hit Object
352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Orange Cove\Intx_PCF_OrangeCove.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Driving Under the Influence
! Automobile Right of Way
! Improper Turning
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 135
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
353
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Orange Cove\Rdwy_CrashType_OrangeCove.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 136
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3MilesCollision Type
! Rear End
! Broadside
! Hit Object
354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Orange Cove\Rdwy_PCF_OrangeCove.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 137
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

311
Table 62 and Table 63 provide information for the top two intersection locations (based on crash severity score), including control type (signalized or unsignalized), crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 62. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Rear End Broadside Hit Object Other
1 MONSON AVE & MANNING
AVE Unsignalized 45.68 5 1 3 1 0
2 TENTH ST & PARK ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 63. Priority Intersections with Primary Collision Factor based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
DUI Auto ROW Improper
Turning Other
1 MONSON AVE & MANNING
AVE Unsignalized 45.68 5 1 2 1 1
2 TENTH ST & PARK ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence
Table 64 and Table 65 provide information for the top seven roadway segments (based on crash severity score), including roadway classification, crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 64. Priority Roadways Segments with Collision Type based on Top Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Type # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Rear
End
Broad-
side
Hit
Object Other
1 S Hills Valley Rd (city limits to B St) Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 0 1 0 0 2 S Hills Valley Rd (Adams Ave to C St) Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 0 1 0 0 3 S Anchor Ave (north of Whittier Ave to
north of Parlier Ave) Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 4 S Monson Ave (north of E Manning Ave
to south of E Manning Ave) Arterial/Collector 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 5 E Sumner Ave (S Monson Ave to west of
Anchor Ave) Arterial/Collector 1.22 1 0 0 1 0
6 E Manning Ave (S Hill Ave to S Monson
Ave) Arterial/Collector 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
7 E Parlier Ave (east of Orange Ave to
west of S Jacobs Ave) Arterial/Collector 0.20 1 1 0 0 0 Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types

356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

312
Table 65. Priority Roadways Segments with Primary Collision Factors based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
DUI
Auto
Right of
Way
Improper
Turning Other
1 S Hills Valley Rd (city limits to B St) Arterial/ Collector 32.93 1 0 0 0 1 2 S Hills Valley Rd (Adams Ave to C St) Arterial/ Collector 32.93 1 0 0 0 1 3 S Anchor Ave (north of Whittier Ave to
north of Parlier Ave) Arterial/ Collector 32.93 1 0 0 0 1 4 S Monson Ave (north of E Manning Ave
to south of E Manning Ave) Arterial/ Collector 1.22 1 0 0 1 0 5 E Sumner Ave (S Monson Ave to west of
Anchor Ave) Arterial/ Collector 1.22 1 0 0 1 0
6 E Manning Ave (S Hill Ave to S Monson
Ave) Arterial/ Collector 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
7 E Parlier Ave (east of Orange Ave to
west of S Jacobs Ave) Arterial/ Collector 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence

Education Strategies
Driving under the influence is one of the emphasis areas for Orange Cove given the prevalence of this primary collision factor in the spatial analysis conducted for the City. In addition, information from the Focus Group Meeting for Orange Cove suggest opportunities to address driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, over a safe speed limit, or while distracted.

The Safe Roads Save Lives campaign is a marketing effort led by the Fresno COG, with the goals of:
▪ Educate all road users on safe transportation behaviors ▪ Increase safety for people walking and biking
▪ Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in
Fresno County—speeding and distracted driving
The campaign Includes branding, social media strategies, print materials, radio and video resources, school resources, and a campaign website. Unincorporated Fresno County may find these materials helpful, especially those that address driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, speeding, or while distracted.

357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

313
The following activities are recommended for Orange Cove, as resources allow, to implement the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify staff appropriate to attend a presentation by Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Appropriate staff members include people associated with transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
▪ Work with schools to distribute print materials and offer school-related transportation resources.

Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish. ▪ Work with public information or communications staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout Orange Cove through the following channels:
o Repost and link to Fresno COG posts that refer to the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign o Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
o Work with the Fresno COG to identify a radio station to air a Safe Roads Save Lives radio public service announcement (PSA).
o Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website on the City’s website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves Orange Cove – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ Orange Cove staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.
358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

314
Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher- than-average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

The following enforcement strategies should be considered for Orange Cove:
▪ Add additional crossing guards at high-concern locations. If needed, train community members to serve as crossing guards.
▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts at locations with high crash rates. ▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras, and speed feedback signs along major corridors.
▪ Work with schools to conduct “alternative enforcement,” such as having students write “tickets” that they hand to community members to highlight positive and negative behaviors on the roadways.

359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

9.0 CITY OF ORANGE COVE

315

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of Orange Cove update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

316

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN
The City of San Joaquin has an approximate population of 4,144.52 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 9,416, and the City maintains approximately 14 total roadway centerline miles. The main roadways in the city include S Colorado Ave, which runs from north to south, and Main Street, which runs from east to west. The top four collision types in San Joaquin were hit object, broadside, rear end, and sideswipe crashes; the top three primary collision factors were automobile right of way, driving under the influence, and improper turning. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to San Joaquin’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s roadway safety vision is:

The City’s roadway safety goals in support of the vision are:

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury crashes on the City roadways.

2. Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.

3. Improve available crash data.

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

5. Prioritize improvements on school routes and on roadways adjacent to schools.

6. Perform regular reviews of roadway conditions to prioritize locations for repair.

7. Identify opportunities to improve railroad crossings for all users.

52 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Provide an opportunity for safe roadway travel for all. 361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

317

SAFETY PARTNERS
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. San Joaquin’s goals reflect the importance of fathering input from the community and traffic safety stakeholders. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ Caltrans
▪ Fresno Council of Governments
▪ Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
▪ Golden Plains Unified School District
▪ San Joaquin Police Department

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top nine priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top nine priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed, city-wide and on school routes or railroad crossings) ▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed, city-wide and on school routes or railroad crossings) ▪ Investments made in improving roadway conditions (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
▪ Coordination on crash data processes and reporting (e.g. meetings held, changes made) As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan. 362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

318

Crash Data
Kittelson worked with the Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the city of San Joaquin using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of two reported crashes are located in San Joaquin. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non-visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

319
In the process of locating data into a geographic information system (GIS) for spatial analysis, Kittelson reviewed the available information and relocated some crashes to a more precise coordinate location. In so doing, Kittelson relocated some crashes to different jurisdictions than originally listed in the database.

Thus, some disparities in total crash count by jurisdiction exist between the descriptive analysis and spatial analysis even though each is internally consistent.

In the case of San Joaquin, there is a notable difference in the two analyses due to the low numbers of reported crashes. Two crashes were reviewed in the descriptive analysis, while fourteen crashes were considered in the spatial analysis.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
There were two total reported crashes in the City of San Joaquin in the period between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. Therefore, patterns and trends are not applicable to this jurisdiction. The crashes are described below.

All Road Users
The first reported crash occurred in the hour of 1 PM in April of 2017 and resulted in property damage only.

The collision type is a hit object with a primary collision factor of improper turning. The crash took place at the Idaho Avenue/9th Street intersection. The reported lighting condition is daylight, the weather cloudy, and the road condition dry. There was alcohol involved.

364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

320
The second reported crash occurred in the hour of 12 AM in December of 2018 and resulted in a complaint of pain. The collision type is a hit object with a primary collision factor of driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The crash took place on South Main Street immediately North of West Colorado Avenue. The reported lighting condition was dark with streetlights, the weather clear, and the road conditions dry.

In addition, the following locations were noted by members of the Focus Group as locations to consider improvements:
▪ Colorado Avenue: desire to improve crossings for routes to schools, especially at Main Street and 9th Street;
▪ Manning Avenue and Sutter Avenue: priorities due to housing developments and the need for pedestrian improvements; and
▪ California Avenue: priorities at 5th Street, 6th Street and 8th Street where there are apartments.

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the 5 years) to 2.74. Figure 138 shows the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 139 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 0.20. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 140. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 141. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

321
Table 66 presents the top nine locations with the highest crash severity scores.

Table 66. Top Nine Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
1 ELM AVE & PLACER AVE* Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 0 1 0 3
2 MAIN ST & COLORADO RD Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
3 MANNING AVE & PLACER AVE* Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 NINTH ST & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 0 2
5 MANNING AVE & SUTTER AVE* Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 MANNING AVE & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 MANNING AVE & COLORADO
RD Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1
8 DENVER AVE & PINE AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 RAILROAD AVE FROM MANNIN
GAVE TO PINE ST Segment 0.20 1 0 0 0 0 1
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only

366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
! !
!
!
!
!
!San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 138
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!! !
! !
!
!!
! !!
! !! !!
!! !!
! ! !!!!!
!!!
! !! !! !! ! !
!!!!
!
!
!! !
!!!! !
! !
! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! ! San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 139
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S SUTTER AVE

S PLACER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 140
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.27Miles
369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S SUTTER AVE

S PLACER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 141
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.27Miles
370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

326

EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of San Joaquin include hit object crashes, driving under the influence, focus on school routes and railroad crossings, and improved data collection.

Hit Object Crashes
Hit object crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to their frequency. The two crashes described in the descriptive analysis were both hit object crashes and hit object crashes are the most frequent collision type based on the spatial analysis. A variety of roadway countermeasures are available targeted at reducing hit object crashes.

The California SHSP includes lane departures as one of the six high priorities in California. As indicated in the Caltrans SHSP, “the Lane Departures Challenge Area includes head-on, hit object, and overturned crashes. This includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the collision.” These crashes are a high priority due to their severity level.

Driving Under the Influence
The influence of alcohol was cited in the two crashes reviewed in the descriptive analysis for San Joaquin and driving under the influence is one of the top primary collision factors based on the spatial analysis. This suggests there are opportunities to address driver behavior through countermeasures that encourage education and enforcement.

School Routes and Railroad Crossings
San Joaquin’s goals reflect the desire to prioritize improvements on school routes and on roadways adjacent to schools, as well as at railroad crossings. In a focus group meeting held with the City’s safety partners, participants expressed the importance of improving routes that kids can take to school, such as Colorado Avenue. In addition, it was noted that there are two trains per day through San Joaquin, and may be opportunities to improve safety around railroad crossings.

371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

327
Improved Data Collection
Improved crash data collection is identified as an emphasis area as there was limited crash data available from the City. The descriptive analysis included a portion of the number of crashes as the spatial analysis findings. High quality data is an essential component of understanding safety trends, priority locations, and systematically implementing safety countermeasures.

STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety across the City.

Engineering Strategies
The top four collision types in San Joaquin were hit object, broadside, rear end, and sideswipe crashes; the top three primary collision factors were automobile right of way, driving under the influence, and improper turning. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 67.

Table 67. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R1 Crashes at night
Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear
Recovery Zone R2 Hit object
Install Guardrails R4 Hit object
Road Diet R14 Hit object
Widen Shoulder R15 Hit object, sideswipe
Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface
Treatment) R21 Hit object, rear end
Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Hit object, sideswipe Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Sings R26 Hit object Install Edgelines and Centerlines R28 Hit object
Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes R30 Sideswipe
Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes R31 Hit object
Intersection
Countermeasures Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night Notes: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety There were no high priority roadway countermeasures listed for San Joaquin. Roadway countermeasures listed were given a medium priority.

372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

328
Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.

The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. San Joaquin can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 67.

Figure 142 and Figure 143 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 144 and Figure 145 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\San Joaquin\Intx_CrashType_SanJoaquin.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 142
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
*Tied for third
Collision Type
! Hit Object
! Broadside
! Rear-end*
! Sideswipe*
374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\San Joaquin\Intx_PCF_SanJoaquin.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Automobile Right of Way
! Driving Under the Influence
! Improper Turning
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 143
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\San Joaquin\Rdwy_CrashType_SanJoaquin.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Collision Type
! Sideswipe
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 144
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\San Joaquin\Rdwy_PCF_SanJoaquin.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 145
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

333
Table 68 and Table 69 provide information for the top seven intersection locations (based on crash severity score), including control type (signalized or unsignalized), crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 68. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 4 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Hit
Object
Broad-
side
Rear
End
Side-
swipe Other
1 ELM AVE & PLACER AVE Unsignalized 2.74 4 3 1 0 0 0
2 MAIN ST & COLORADO RD Unsignalized 1.22 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 MANNING AVE & PLACER AVE Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 NINTH ST & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.40 2 1 0 0 1 0
5 MANNING AVE & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 MANNING AVE & COLORADO RD Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 DENVER AVE & PINE AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top four collision types Table 69. Priority Intersections with Primary Collision Factor based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Auto
Right of
Way
Improper
Turning DUI Other
1 ELM AVE & PLACER AVE Unsignalized 2.74 4 1 2 0 1
2 MAIN ST & COLORADO RD Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 1 0
3 MANNING AVE & PLACER AVE Unsignalized 0.40 2 1 0 0 1 4 NINTH ST & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 1 0 1
5 MANNING AVE & IDAHO AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 1 0 0 0
6 MANNING AVE & COLORADO RD Unsignalized 0.20 1 1 0 0 0 7 DENVER AVE & PINE AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence
Table 70 and Table 71 provide information for the top two roadway segments (based on crash severity score), including roadway classification, crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 70. Priority Roadways Segments with Collision Type based on Top 4 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Type # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Hit
Object
Broad-
side
Rear
End
Side-
swipe Other
1 Railroad Ave (Boston Ave to south of
Main St) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 0
2 Railroad Ave (north of 9th St to
Manning St) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top four collision types 378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

334
Table 71. Priority Roadways Segments with Primary Collision Factors based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors
# Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Auto Right
of Way
Improper
Turning DUI Other
1 Railroad Ave (Boston Ave to south of
Main St) Local 0.20 1 0 1 0 0
2 Railroad Ave (north of 9th St to
Manning St) Local 0.20 1 0 1 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence

Education Strategies
Driving under the influence is one of the emphasis areas for San Joaquin given the prevalence of this primary collision factor in the analysis conducted for the City. In addition, information from the Focus Group Meeting for San Joaquin suggest opportunities for education around railroad crossings and schools, as well as speeding.

The Safe Roads Save Lives campaign is a marketing effort led by the Fresno COG, with the goals of:
▪ Educate all road users on safe transportation behaviors ▪ Increase safety for people walking and biking
▪ Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in
Fresno County—speeding and distracted driving
The campaign Includes branding, social media strategies, print materials, radio and video resources, school resources, and a campaign website. Unincorporated Fresno County may find these materials helpful, especially those related to speeding, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, watching for pedestrians, and driving appropriately near schools.

The following activities are recommended for San Joaquin, as resources allow, to implement the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify staff appropriate to attend a presentation by Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Appropriate staff members include people associated with transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
▪ Work with schools to distribute print materials and offer school-related transportation resources.

Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish.

379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

335
▪ Work with public information or communications staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout San Joaquin through the following, at minimum:
o Repost and link to Fresno COG posts that refer to the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. o Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
o Work with the Fresno COG to identify a radio station to air a Safe Roads Save Lives radio public service announcement (PSA).
o Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website on the City’s website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves San Joaquin – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ San Joaquin staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.

380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

336
Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher-than-average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

The following enforcement strategies should be considered for San Joaquin:
▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts at locations with high crash rates and/or community member concerns.
▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras and speed feedback signs, along major corridors.

381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

10.0 CITY OF SAN JOAQUIN

337

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of San Joaquin update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

Activities for implementing the plan include:
▪ Identifying countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the crash data. ▪ Utilizing the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategie s and share best practices.
▪ Exploring funding opportunities to implement priority strategies. ▪ Identifying activities to support the regional Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. ▪ Identifying enforcement strategies to implement and evaluate. ▪ Regularly coordinating with safety partner agencies to assess progress, identify opportunities to implement countermeasures and strategies, and identify opportunities for citizen involvement. ▪ Regularly collecting and organizing data to support evaluation of the LRSP.

382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

338

11.0 CITY OF SELMA
The City of Selma has an approximate population of 24,402.53 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 167,390, and the City maintains approximately 83 total roadway centerline miles. The major roadways in the city include Golden State Highway and S Highland Avenue, which both run north to south, and Floral Avenue, which runs from east to west. Based on the review of crash data conducted as part of the LRSP, pedestrians and bicyclists are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Selma were vehicle-pedestrian, rear end, and hit object crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were pedestrian violation, automobile right of way, and driving under the influence. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to Selma’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s vision for roadway safety is:

The City’s roadway safety goals in support of the vision are:

1. Perform regular reviews of crash data to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk.

2. Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community.

3. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury crashes across all public City roadways by 50 percent by 2026.

4. Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes on public City roadways by 50 percent by 2026.

53 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance A roadway network that supports safe travel for our community. 383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

339

5. Coordinate with traffic safety stakeholders such as fire, police, schools, and parks to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies.

6. Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety.

SAFETY PARTNERS
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. Selma’s goals reflect the importance of partnering with local agencies, engaging with citizens, and coordinating with traffic safety stakeholders to identify issues and implement solutions. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ Selma Rotary
▪ Adventist Health
▪ Bringing Broken Neig hborhoods Back
to Life (BBNBTL)
▪ Caltrans
▪ Fresno Council of Governments
▪ Fresno County Rural Transit
▪ Kings View Community Services
▪ Selma Department of Engineering
▪ Selma Department of Public Works
▪ Selma District Chamber of Commerce
▪ Selma Fire Department
▪ Selma Police Department
▪ WestCare Foundation

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of rear end crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of hit object crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of unsafe speed (city-wide) ▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (city-wide)
384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

340
▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
▪ Opportunities provided for citizen engagement (e.g. meetings held, public campaigns launched) ▪ Coordination between first responders and City staff (e.g. meetings held, programs implemented, strategies deployed)
As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap specific to Selma. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.
385
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

341

▪ The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top road safety improvements needed in their communities. While the survey prompted participants to pick three improvements, some selected more than three responses. A total of 41 responses were received for Selma from 13 participants, with the most common desired improvement types including o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (10 responses) o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (6 responses) o Speed enforcement (6 responses)
o Bike lanes/bikeways (5 responses)
▪ Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. When leaving a point, participants could select from a list of traffic safety concerns and the kinds of travel impacted, with the ability to select as many responses as applicable. A text box gave participants the option to note what they think would make the location safer. A total of 6 locations were noted in Selma, noting the following traffic safety concerns:
o Lack of safe places to walk, bike, or wait for the bus (5 responses) o Lack of safe opportunities to cross the street (3 responses) o Poor lighting or poor visibility (3 responses)
o Crashes or near misses happen here (3 responses)
o Speeding or aggressive driving (2 responses)
o People driving do not obey red lights, stop signs, or turn signals (1 response) ▪ The survey asked participants where they live and work or study, with the option to select from a list of jurisdictions or outside of Fresno County. The participants who selected Selma included:
o 4 who live and work/study in Selma
o 6 who live in Selma and work/study outside of Selma
o 3 who work/study in Selma and live outside of Selma
13 PEOPLE

RESPONDED
6 LOCATIONS

IDENTIFIED
Live and work/study
in Selma
31%
Live in Selma and
work/study outside
of Selma
46%
Work/study in
Selma and live
outside of Selma
23%

WHERE PARTICIPANTS

WORK AND LIVE

MOST COMMON SAFETY

CONCERNS

• Lack of safe places to
walk, bike, or wait for
the bus
• Lack of safe
opportunities to cross
the street
• Poor lighting or poor
visibility
386
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

342
Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the City of Selma using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of 629 reported crashes are located in Selma. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non-visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

387
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

343

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
The findings in this section are based on the crash database, which includes reported crashes from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. It is organized as follows:
▪ All Road Users
o Severity by Road User
o Year, Month, and Weather
o Collision Type
o Location, Collision Type, and Severity
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting
o Time of Day
▪ Pedestrian-involved Crashes
o Year and Month
o Pedestrian Action and Location
o Lighting
▪ Bicyclist-involved Crashes
o Collision Type
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting

388
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

344
All Road Users
This section includes analysis and findings for all reported crashes. Subsequent sections focus exclusively on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

SEVERITY BY ROAD USER
Table 72 presents reported crashes, organized by severity level and road user. Five of the 11 fatal crashes are vehicle-only crashes; pedestrians or bicyclists were involved with the remaining six fatalities. The most common severity type for both pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes is visible injury.

Table 72: Crash Severity by Road User Involved
Road Users Involved Fatal
(% of column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 11 (38%) 10 (35%) 2 (7%) 29 (4.5%) Bicycle Involved 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 12 (41%) 9 (31%) 4 (15%) 29 (4.5%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object 5 (1%) 6 (1%) 50 (9%) 140 (24%) 370 (65%) 571 (91%) Reported Crashes 11 (100%) 10 (100%) 73 (100%) 159 (100%) 376(100%) 629 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Crashes 2% 2% 11% 25% 60% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

389
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

345
California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes 16 challenge areas to focus statewide resources and efforts. Three of those challenge areas are crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists.

The SHSP analyzed the share of fatal and severe injury crashes involving each of these road users. Figure 146 compares crash trends in Selma to the statewide trends reported in the SHSP. ▪ There is a higher proportion of pedestrian and bicycle crashes among fatal/severe injury crashes in Selma compared to the statewide average.
▪ City of Selma has no reported fatal/severe motorcycle crashes.

Figure 146: City of Selma Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Shares by Road User Compared to Statewide Trends

Source: SHRP, SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Crash Share
Selma Statewide Average
390
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

346

YEAR, MONTH, AND WEATHER
Figure 147 shows year-over-year trends in the data by severity. The annual average number of reported crashes is 126. Except for a notably low number of reported crashes in 2017, year-over-year trends generally indicate an increase in crashes over time. Fluctuations from a single year to the next tend to represent the degree of randomness in crash occurrence and are not necessarily indicative of an overall trend.

Figure 147: Year-over-Year Trends in Crash Data by Severity Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
391
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

347
Figure 148 shows the total monthly crash trends by severity. The average monthly crash frequency is 52.

There is some fluctuation in each month near the average. Higher frequencies are observed in March and May and lower frequencies in February.

Figure 148: Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
392
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

348
Figure 149 illustrates crashes by month weather condition. The most common weather condition, clear weather, is not shown in the chart below to highlight the weather’s factor on crash trends. Most crashes occurred in clear conditions (85 percent), while 8 percent in cloudy conditions, 4 percent in rainy conditions, and 1 percent in foggy conditions. Crashes in cloudy conditions are higher in winter between November and March, and rainy conditions peak in the same months to a lesser extent.

Figure 149: Crashes by Month and Weather Condition

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: Only select conditions shown to improve legibility for less frequent weather conditions.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Crashes by Weather
Cloudy Fog Raining
393
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

349

COLLISION TYPE
Figure 150 presents the collision types by severity.
▪ The most frequent collision types are rear end (53 percent of crashes), hit object (23 percent), and sideswipe (16 percent).
▪ Among fata/severe injury crashes, the most frequent collision types are vehicle/pedestrian (29 percent), rear end (29 percent), and hit object (19 percent).

Figure 150: Crashes by Collision Type and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Rear End
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Head-On
Broadside
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Not Stated
Overturned
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Crash Frequency
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury PDO
394
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

350

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each crash. It is up to the officer’s judgement and information available at the scene for them to select the factor that is most relevant. Officers select one from among a list of PCFs based on California Vehicle Code (CVC) and road user behavior. Figure 151 presents the most frequently cited PCFs in crashes in Selma. ▪ The three most common PCFs for all collision types are improper turning54 (18 percent), unsafe speed55 (17 percent), and automobile right of way56 (15 percent). ▪ The three most frequently reported PCFs among fatal/severe injury crashes are pedestrian violation57, automobile right of way56, and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs58.

Figure 151: Crashes by Reported PCF

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

54 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without r easonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
55 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe speeding on a highway. 56 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 57 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a pedestrian failure to yield the right of way to other vehicles. 58 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating driver was under the influence of alcohol.

Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Not Stated
Wrong Side of Road
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other Improper Driving
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Other Hazardous Violation
Following Too Closely
Other Equipment
Improper Passing
Impeding Traffic
Hazardous Parking
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Crash Frequency
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury PDO
395
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

351

LIGHTING
Figure 152 shows crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. Over half of reported crashes occurred in daylight and 30 percent of all crashes occurred in the dark with streetlights. Most fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in daylight.

Figure 152: Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - No Street
Lights
Dusk - Dawn
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
396
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

352

TIME OF DAY
Figure 153 shows crashes by time of day. Crashes are highest between the hours of 3 PM and 6 PM.

Crashes are lowest overnight between 11 PM and 7 AM.

Figure 153: Crash Share by Time of Day

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Pedestrians
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving pedestrians. Table 73 shows the distribution of pedestrian crashes by severity. Crashes resulting in fatalities or severe injuries represent 20 percent of reported pedestrian-involved crashes. Most crashes resulted in some level of injury, while 8 percent resulted in property damage only.

Table 73: Severity by Pedestrians Involved
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Other Injury
(% of Total)
Property Damage
Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 21 (72%) 2 (8%) 29 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
3%
2% 2%
3%
1%
2% 2%
4%
4%
2%
4%
3%
3%
5%
6%
8%
8% 7% 7%
5%
4%
5%
5%
2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
Crash Share
Hour
397
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

353

SEVERITY AND MONTH
Figure 154 shows pedestrian crashes by month and type. Pedestrian crashes are highest during May, June and December, and lowest in August with no crashes. Fatal/severe injury crashes are reported in January, May, June, September, and December.

Figure 154: Pedestrian Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
398
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

354

PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
For pedestrian crashes, data is recorded according to the reporting officer’s best judgment about the pedestrian’s action and location preceding the crash.

Figure 155 reports these trends in the City of Selma. All reported fatal and severe injury crashes occurred when a pedestrian was either crossing not in a crosswalk or crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.

Figure 155: Pedestrian Crashes by Reported Action/Location and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
399
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

355

LIGHTING
Figure 156 shows reported pedestrian crashes by lighting condition. Nearly half (45 percent) of crashes occurred in daylight, while 24 percent occurred in the dark with streetlights, 21 percent occurred in the dark with no streetlights, and 10 percent occurred in dusk-dawn.

Figure 156: Pedestrian Crashes by Lighting Condition and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Bicyclists
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving bicyclists. Table 74 presents bicyclist-involved crashes organized by severity level. Of the 29 bicyclist crashes in the Selma, 11 percent resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. Most crashes resulted in other injury, and four crashes resulted in property damage only.

Table 74: Bicycle User Involved Crashes by Severity
Fatal
(% of total)
Severe Injury
(% of total)
Other Injury
(% of total)
Property Damage
Only
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Bicycle Involved 3 (10%) 1 (4%) 21 (72%) 4 (14%) 29 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Dusk- Dawn
Dark - No Street
Lights
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
400
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

356

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Figure 157 shows bicycle-involved crashes by reported PCF. ▪ The most frequent PCF is wrong side of road 59 at ten crashes followed by automobile right of way60 at six crashes.
▪ The most severe outcomes occu rred with the PCFs wrong side of road 59, automobile right of way60, and unsafe lane change61.

Figure 157: Bicycle Crashes by Primary Collision Factor and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

59 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating the driver/rider was on the wrong side of the road. 60 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 61 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating driver performed unsafe lane change.

Wrong Side of Road
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Lane Change
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
401
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

357

LIGHTING
Figure 158 shows bicycle crashes by lighting condition. Just over two thirds of crashes occurred in daylight, while about a third occurred in the dark with streetlights. The majority of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred in daylight.

Figure 158: Bicycle Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - No Street Lights
0 5 10 15 20 25
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
402
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

358
Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments using the annualized crash severity scores and excess predicted crashes described in the Data Summary and Analysis Approach sections (see the Introduction).

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the five years) to 77.51. Figure 159 shows the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 160 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 70.02. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 161. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 162. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

Members of the Focus Group for Selma noted that at-grade crossings should also be considered as priority locations for improvement.

Table 75 presents the top twenty locations with the highest crash severity scores.

Table 75. Top 20 Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Com-
plaint of
Pain
PDO
1 MCCALL AVE & GOLDRIDGE ST Unsignalized 77.51 4 0 2 0 1 1 2 FLORAL AVE FROM WEST OF DE

WOLF AVE TO EAST OF LEONARD
AVE
Segment 70.02 8 2 0 1 1 4
3 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE FROM WEST OF

MCCALL AVE TO EAST OF MCCALL
AVE
Segment 68.40 5 1 1 1 0 2
4 WHITSON ST & GAITHER ST Unsignalized 40.88 5 1 0 0 2 2 5 SECOND ST & YOUNG ST Unsignalized 40.06 6 0 1 0 1 4
6 FLORAL AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.86 5 1 0 0 1 3
7 THOMPSON AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.46 3 0 1 0 1 1 8 MITCHELL AVE & NELSON BLVD Unsignalized 38.65 4 1 0 0 0 3 9 MCCALL AVE & VALLEY VIEW AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 0 1 0 0 2 10 THOMPSON AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 0 1 0 0 2 11 WRIGHT ST & ASPEN ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 1 0 0 0
12 WRIGHT ST & NORTHHILL ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 1 0 0 0 13 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE FROM EAST OF

MCCALL AVE TO WEST OF STATE
ROUTE 99
Segment 37.29 15 1 0 4 1 9
14 HIGHLAND AVE FROM NEBRASKA
AVE TO ROSE AVE Segment 36.58 7 1 1 0 3 2
403
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

359
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Com-
plaint of
Pain
PDO
15 WHITSON ST FROM CINEMA WY TO
FRONT ST Segment 35.07 2 1 0 1 0 0
16 HIGHLAND AVE FROM STATE ROUTE
99 to FRONT ST Segment 34.55 4 1 0 0 1 2
17 DITCH RD FROM DINUBA AVE TO
NORTH OF DINUBA AVE Segment 33.53 4 1 0 0 0 3
18 WHITSON ST FROM GOLDEN STATE
BLVD TO 3RD ST Segment 33.13 2 0 1 0 0 1
19 WRIGHT ST & FLORAL AVE Signal 32.24 8 1 0 2 3 2
20 HIGHLAND AVE & FRONT ST &
GOLDEN STATE BLVD Signal 26.73 10 1 0 0 1 8
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only

404
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
! !!
!
! !
!!
!!!!
!!
!! !
!
!! ! !!
! !! !!!!! !
! !! !!
! !
!
! !
!!
!!!
!
! !
!
!! !
!! ! !!!
!
!!
! !! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!
! !!
!!
! !!! !
!!! !
!! !!
! !!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 159
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
405
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !!
! !
! !
!! !
! !!!!! !! !
! !! !!! !! !!! !
! !
! ! !!! !
! ! ! !!!! !! !!
! ! !! !!!!! !! ! !! !
!! ! !! !! !! !
! ! !!!!
! !! !
! ! !!
! ! ! ! !!!! !
! !
! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !
! !
! !
! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! !!!! !!
!
!! !!!
! ! ! !! !! ! !! !
! !
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! !!!
!! !! !! ! !
!! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !
! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !
!!! ! !!
!!! !
!! ! !! !!
!! ! !! !
! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!!
! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!
! !! !
! !! !! !
! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !!! !! !
!
Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 160
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
406
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler E MANNING AVE

S BETHEL AVE

SECOND ST

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE
W

WHITSONST
ORANGE
AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST
S ACAD
EM
Y
AVE

E KAMM AVE

S HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

E FLORAL AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 161
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
407
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler

S BETHEL AVE

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE
W

WHITSONST
ORANGE
AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

E MANNING AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST
S ACAD
EM
Y
AVE

E KAMM AVE

S HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

E FLORAL AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 162
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
408
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

364

EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of Selma include pedestrian and bicycle crashes, rear end crashes, hit object crashes, and strategies aimed at unsafe speed and driving under the influence. Each of these areas is further discussed below.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Pedestrian and bicycle crashes were identified as a focus area given the overrepresentation of pedestrians and bicyclists in fatal and severe crashes. Of the eleven fatal crashes, three involved a pedestrian and three involved a bicyclist. Of the ten severe injury crashes, three involved a pedestrian and one involved a bicyclist. The most common pedestrian action preceding a crash was crossing the roadway outside a crosswalk, followed by crossing the roadway in a crosswalk. The most frequently cited primary collision factor in bicycle crashes was wrong side of road driving/riding, which could indicate bicyclists riding in the opposite direction from traffic along a shoulder or sidewalk depending on their options for crossing a street to access adjacent land uses. These pedestrian actions and bicyclist behaviors suggest opportunities for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Pedestrians and bicyclists are identified as two of the six high priority challenge areas in the California SHSP. These challenge areas “were identified through historical data evaluations and feedback from traffic safety stakeholders across the state” (Caltrans SHSP). The high priorities represent “the greatest opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the state” (Caltrans SHSP).

Rear End Crashes
Rear end crashes were identified as a focus area due to the frequency and severity of these collision types. Rear end crashes are the most common collision type and include two of the eleven fatal crashes and four of the ten severe injury crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at rear end crashes.

Hit Object Crashes
Hit object crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to their frequency and severity. They are the second most common collision type and comprise three of the eleven fatal crashes. A variety of roadway countermeasures are available targeted at slowing traffic speeds and reducing hit object crashes.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

365
Driver Behavior
Unsafe speed is the second most frequently reported PCF among all reported crashes and was cited in one fatal crash and one severe injury crash. Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs is the third most common PCF cited in fatal/severe injury crashes. This suggests there are opportunities to address driver behavior through countermeasures that encourage lower speeds and education and enforcement.

The California SHSP also identified speed management/aggressive driving and impaired driving as two of the six high priorities in California, reflecting the potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by addressing these challenge areas.

STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety across the City.

Engineering Strategies
The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Selma were vehicle-pedestrian, rear end, and hit object crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were pedestrian violation, automobile right of way, and driving under the influence. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors in Table 76.

Table 76. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R1 Crashes at night
Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear
Recovery Zone R2 Hit Object
Install Guardrails R4 Hit Object
Road Diet R14 Hit Object
Widen Shoulder R15 Hit Object
Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface
Treatment) R21 Rear end, hit object
Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Hit Object Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Sings R26 Hit Object Install Edgelines and Centerlines R28 Hit Object
Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes R31 Hit Object
Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed Warning Signs Hit Object 410
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

366
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Intersection
Countermeasures
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Backplates with
Retroreflective Border, Mounting Size, Number S2 Rear end Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection S4 Rear end
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10/NS9 Rear end No Right-Turn on Red Vehicle-pedestrian
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Intersection Warning/
Regulatory Signs NS6 All
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings NS7 All
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Approaches NS13 Rear end Pedestrian/Bicycle
Countermeasures
Install Bike Lanes R32PB Overrepresented bicycle
collisioncrashes
Install Sidewalk/Pathway R34PB Vehicle-pedestrian
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced
Features R35PB Vehicle-pedestrian
Install Raised Medians (or Refuge Islands) NS19PB Vehicle-pedestrian Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (with Enhanced Safety Features) NS21PB Vehicle-pedestrian Bike Lane Extension Through Intersections Overrepresented bicycle crashes Bike Boxes Overrepresented bicycle crashes
Note: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.

The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. Selma can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 76.

Figure 163 and Figure 164 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 165 and Figure 166 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

411
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL S T

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Selma\Intx_CrashType_Selma.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 163
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Type
Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45MilesCollision Type
! Vehicle/Pedestrian
! Rear End
! Hit Object
412
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Selma\Intx_PCF_Selma.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Pedestrian Violation
! Automobile Right of Way
! Driving Under the Influence
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 164
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
413
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL S T

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Selma\Rdwy_CrashType_Selma.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 165
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Type
Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45MilesCollision Type
! Vehicle/Pedestrian
! Rear End
! Hit Object
414
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Selma\Rdwy_PCF_Selma.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Pedestrian Violation
! Automobile Right of Way
! Driving Under the Influence
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 166
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
415
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

371
Table 77 and Table 78 provide information for the top fifty intersection locations (based on crash severity score), including control type (signalized or unsignalized), crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 77. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Vehicle/
Ped
Rear
End
Hit
Object Other
1 MCCALL AVE & GOLDRIDGE ST Unsignalized 77.51 4 0 3 1 0 2 WHITSON ST & GAITHER ST Unsignalized 40.88 5 2 0 1 2 3 SECOND ST & YOUNG ST Unsignalized 40.06 6 0 6 0 0
4 FLORAL AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.86 5 0 2 2 1
5 THOMPSON AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.46 3 0 1 0 2 6 MITCHELL AVE & NELSON BLVD Unsignalized 38.65 4 0 1 1 2 7 MCCALL AVE & VALLEY VIEW
AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 0 0 1 2
8 THOMPSON AVE & NEBRASKA
AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 1 1 0 1
9 WRIGHT ST & ASPEN ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 1 0 0 0
10 WRIGHT ST & NORTHHILL ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 1 0 0 11 WRIGHT ST & FLORAL AVE Signal 32.24 8 0 3 1 4
12 HIGHLAND AVE & FRONT ST &
GOLDEN STATE BLVD Signal 26.73 10 1 0 5 4
13 THOMPSON AVE & FLORAL AVE Signal 11.98 10 1 5 1 3
14 FLORAL AVE & HIGHLAND AVE Signal 11.13 21 1 10 0 10
15 THOMPSON AVE & DINUBA AVE Signal 10.47 8 2 3 0 3
16 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE & VAN
HORN AVE & CA-99 SB OFFRAMP
OFF
Unsignalized 10.41 22 0 9 0 13
17 MCCALL AVE & HICKS ST Unsignalized 10.07 6 2 3 0 1
18 SECOND ST & WHITSON ST Signal 7.08 10 0 3 4 3
19 HIGHLAND AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 7.02 6 0 5 1 0 20 MCCALL AVE & NELSON BLVD Unsignalized 6.71 4 0 3 0 1 21 MCCALL AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 6.57 13 0 3 3 7 22 SECOND ST & BAUDER ST Unsignalized 6.39 7 1 1 2 3
23 DOCKERY AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 5.99 5 1 2 1 1
24 ORANGE AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 5.79 4 0 3 0 1
25 SECOND ST & CA-99 SB ONRAMP
ON & CA-99 SB OFFRAMP OFF Unsignalized 5.77 9 1 2 2 4
26 WHITSON ST & FLORAL AVE Signal 5.07 5 1 2 1 1
27 GAITHER ST & MCCALL AVE Unsignalized 4.77 4 0 3 0 1
28 ARRANTS ST & MCCALL AVE Signal 4.36 7 1 1 2 3
29 FLORAL AVE & MCCALL AVE Signal 4.23 11 0 6 3 2
30 CA-99 NB OFFRAMP OFF &
MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE Unsignalized 3.96 5 0 1 2 2
416
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

372
# Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Vehicle/
Ped
Rear
End
Hit
Object Other
31 SECOND ST & SYLVIA ST Unsignalized 3.85 4 0 3 0 1
32 MCCALL AVE & BARBARA ST Signal 3.85 4 1 2 0 1
33 WRIGHT ST & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 3.76 4 0 1 2 1
34 SECOND ST & WILSON ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 0 1 2
35 MCCALL AVE & ALTON ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 2 0 1
36 THOMPSON AVE & CHANDLER ST Unsignalized 3.36 2 0 0 0 2 37 HIGHLAND AVE & NORTHHILL ST Unsignalized 3.36 2 0 1 1 0 38 THOMPSON AVE & WHITSON ST Signal 3.23 6 1 3 0 2
39 HIGHLAND AVE & STILLMAN ST &
PEA SOUP ANDERSEN BLVD Signal 3.23 6 0 3 1 2
40 FIRST ST & WHITSON ST Unsignalized 3.03 5 0 3 0 2
41 MCCALL AVE & ROSE AVE &
GRANT ST Signal 3.03 5 0 3 0 2
42 NORTH ST & WHITSON ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 0 1 1 2
43 FLORAL AVE & WILLOW AVE Unsignalized 2.83 4 0 3 0 1 44 WRIGHT ST & BARBARA ST Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 1 2 1
45 FIRST ST & YOUNG ST Unsignalized 2.54 3 0 1 0 2
46 HUNTSMAN AVE & GAYNOR ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 2 0 47 DINUBA AVE & MITCHELL AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 1 1 48 MAGNOLIA ST & SAN CARLOS ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0 49 LOCUST ST & GROVE ST &
CENTER ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
50 LOCUST ST & MILL ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 78. Priority Intersections with Primary Collision Factor based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Ped
Violation
Auto
Right of
Way
DUI Other
1 MCCALL AVE & GOLDRIDGE ST Unsignalized 77.51 4 0 0 1 3 2 WHITSON ST & GAITHER ST Unsignalized 40.88 5 1 0 2 2
3 SECOND ST & YOUNG ST Unsignalized 40.06 6 0 3 0 3
4 FLORAL AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.86 5 0 2 0 3
5 THOMPSON AVE & FRONT ST Unsignalized 39.46 3 0 0 1 2
6 MITCHELL AVE & NELSON BLVD Unsignalized 38.65 4 0 1 0 3 7 MCCALL AVE & VALLEY VIEW
AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 0 0 1 2
8 THOMPSON AVE & NEBRASKA
AVE Unsignalized 38.45 3 1 0 1 1
9 WRIGHT ST & ASPEN ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1
10 WRIGHT ST & NORTHHILL ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 1 0 0 417
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

373
# Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Ped
Violation
Auto
Right of
Way
DUI Other
11 WRIGHT ST & FLORAL AVE Signal 32.24 8 0 1 1 6
12 HIGHLAND AVE & FRONT ST &
GOLDEN STATE BLVD Signal 26.73 10 1 0 3 6
13 THOMPSON AVE & FLORAL AVE Signal 11.98 10 0 3 0 7
14 FLORAL AVE & HIGHLAND AVE Signal 11.13 21 1 0 2 18
15 THOMPSON AVE & DINUBA AVE Signal 10.47 8 1 5 0 2
16 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE & VAN
HORN AVE & CA-99 SB OFFRAMP
OFF
Unsignalized 10.41 22 0 7 1 14
17 MCCALL AVE & HICKS ST Unsignalized 10.07 6 1 3 0 2
18 SECOND ST & WHITSON ST Signal 7.08 10 0 1 2 7
19 HIGHLAND AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 7.02 6 0 2 1 3
20 MCCALL AVE & NELSON BLVD Unsignalized 6.71 4 0 0 0 4 21 MCCALL AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 6.57 13 0 4 1 8 22 SECOND ST & BAUDER ST Unsignalized 6.39 7 0 1 3 3
23 DOCKERY AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 5.99 5 1 1 0 3
24 ORANGE AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 5.79 4 0 3 0 1
25 SECOND ST & CA-99 SB ONRAMP
ON & CA-99 SB OFFRAMP OFF Unsignalized 5.77 9 0 2 1 6
26 WHITSON ST & FLORAL AVE Signal 5.07 5 1 1 0 3
27 GAITHER ST & MCCALL AVE Unsignalized 4.77 4 0 1 0 3
28 ARRANTS ST & MCCALL AVE Signal 4.36 7 1 2 0 4
29 FLORAL AVE & MCCALL AVE Signal 4.23 11 0 0 1 10
30 CA-99 NB OFFRAMP OFF &
MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE Unsignalized 3.96 5 0 1 1 3
31 SECOND ST & SYLVIA ST Unsignalized 3.85 4 0 3 1 0
32 MCCALL AVE & BARBARA ST Signal 3.85 4 0 1 1 2
33 WRIGHT ST & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 3.76 4 0 0 0 4
34 SECOND ST & WILSON ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 0 0 3
35 MCCALL AVE & ALTON ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 0 0 3
36 THOMPSON AVE & CHANDLER ST Unsignalized 3.36 2 0 0 0 2 37 HIGHLAND AVE & NORTHHILL ST Unsignalized 3.36 2 0 0 0 2 38 THOMPSON AVE & WHITSON ST Signal 3.23 6 0 1 0 5
39 HIGHLAND AVE & STILLMAN ST &
PEA SOUP ANDERSEN BLVD Signal 3.23 6 0 0 1 5
40 FIRST ST & WHITSON ST Unsignalized 3.03 5 0 2 1 2
41 MCCALL AVE & ROSE AVE &
GRANT ST Signal 3.03 5 0 1 1 3
42 NORTH ST & WHITSON ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 0 1 1 2
43 FLORAL AVE & WILLOW AVE Unsignalized 2.83 4 0 1 0 3
44 WRIGHT ST & BARBARA ST Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 0 1 3
418
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

374
# Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Ped
Violation
Auto
Right of
Way
DUI Other
45 FIRST ST & YOUNG ST Unsignalized 2.54 3 0 1 0 2
46 HUNTSMAN AVE & GAYNOR ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2 47 DINUBA AVE & MITCHELL AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 2 0 48 MAGNOLIA ST & SAN CARLOS ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0 49 LOCUST ST & GROVE ST & CENTER
ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
50 LOCUST ST & MILL ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
Notes: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence
Table 79 and Table 80 provide information for the top eight roadway segments (based on crash severity score), including roadway classification, crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 79. Priority Roadways Segments with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Vehicle/
Ped Rear End Hit
Object Other
1 E Floral Ave (east of S De Wolf Ave
to west of SR 99) Local 70.02 8 2 3 1 2
2 E Mountain View Ave (S Dockery
Ave to SR 99 SB on ramp) Arterial/Collector 37.29 8 1 1 1 5 3 S Highland Dr (Rose Ave to
Nebraska Ave) Arterial/Collector 36.58 4 1 3 0 0
4 Whitson St (W Front Rd to north of
Gaither St) Arterial/Collector 35.07 2 0 1 0 1
5 S Highland Ave (Art Gonzales Pkwy
to SR 99 NB on ramp) Arterial/Collector 34.55 7 0 2 4 1 6 W Whitson St (3rd St to W Front St) Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 0 0 1 1 7 E Mountain View Ave (SR 99 to SR
99 NB off ramp) Arterial/Collector 11.58 14 0 14 0 0
8 Floral Ave (west of Willow Ave to
Wright St) Arterial/Collector 6.71 4 0 4 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types

419
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

375
Table 80. Priority Roadways Segments with Primary Collision Factors based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors
# Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Ped
Violation
Auto
Right of
Way
DUI Other
1 E Floral Ave (east of S De Wolf Ave
to west of SR 99) Local 70.02 8 2 1 0 5
2 E Mountain View Ave (S Dockery
Ave to SR 99 SB on ramp) Arterial/Collector 37.29 8 1 4 0 3 3 S Highland Dr (Rose Ave to
Nebraska Ave) Arterial/Collector 36.58 4 1 0 1 2
4 Whitson St (W Front Rd to north of
Gaither St) Arterial/Collector 35.07 2 0 0 1 1
5 S Highland Ave (Art Gonzales Pkwy
to SR 99 NB on ramp) Arterial/Collector 34.55 4 0 0 2 2 6 W Whitson St (3rd St to W Front St) Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 0 0 0 2 7 E Mountain View Ave (SR 99 to SR
99 NB off ramp) Arterial/Collector 11.58 14 0 7 0 7
8 Floral Ave (west of Willow Ave to
Wright St) Arterial/Collector 6.71 4 0 2 1 1
Notes: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence

Education Strategies
Education strategies for Selma are targeted at unsafe speed and driving or bicycling under the influence of drugs or alcohol, given the prevalence of these primary collision factors in fatal/severe crashes. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle crashes were identified as a focus area given the overrepresentation of pedestrians and bicyclists in fatal and severe crashes.

The Safe Roads Save Lives campaign is a marketing effort led by the Fresno COG, with the goals of:
▪ Educate all road users on safe transportation behaviors ▪ Increase safety for people walking and biking
▪ Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in
Fresno County—speeding and distracted driving
The campaign Includes branding, social media strategies, print materials, radio and video resources, school resources, and a campaign website. Unincorporated Fresno County may find these materials helpful, especially those related to speeding, watching out for pedestrians, and not using the roadway under the influence of drugs or alcohol. 420
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

376
The following activities are recommended for Selma as they move forward on implementing the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify staff appropriate to attend a presentation by Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Appropriate staff members include staff associated with transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
▪ Work with school districts to distribute print materials and offer school-related transportation resources. Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish. ▪ Work with public information or communications staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout Selma through the following channels:
o Repost and link to Fresno COG posts that refer to the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. o Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
o Post materials at governmental buildings such as City Hall, libraries, DMVs, and other facilities that the public regularly uses.
o Work with the Fresno COG to identify a radio station to air a Safe Roads Save Lives radio public service announcement (PSA).
o Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website on the City’s website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves Selma – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ Selma staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.
421
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

377
Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher- than-average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.
▪ The following enforcement strategies should be considered for Selma:
▪ Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior) enforcement checks during strategic times of the year, such as when students return to school or the beginning of fog season. ▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high crash rates. ▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs, especially in school zones.
▪ Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high crash rates or speeding citations.

422
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 CITY OF SELMA

378

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of Selma update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

January 2022
424
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS
Appendix A provides materials documenting the stakeholder engagement throughout development of the LRSP. It includes:
▪ Local Working Group Roster
▪ Local Working Group Meeting Notes
▪ Local Working Group Meeting Materials
▪ Web-Based Survey and Interactive Map Results
▪ Focus Group Participant Lists
▪ Focus Group Meeting Notes
▪ Focus Group Meeting Materials

425
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Local Working Group Roster
City Staff Local Working
Group
City of Clovis
Ryan Burnett
Colleen Vidinoff
Shelby Elia
LWG A
City of Coalinga Sean Brewer
Larry Miller LWG C
City of Firebaugh Danny Reed
Ben Gallegos LWG B
City of Huron Paul Serano LWG C
City of Kerman Jerry Jones LWG B
City of Mendota Michael Osborn LWG B
City of Orange Cove Angela Hall LWG C
City of San Joaquin
Danny Reed
Elizabeth Nunez
Matt Flood
LWG B
City of Selma Isaac Moreno
Philip Romero LWG C
County of Fresno Wendy Nakagawa LWG A

426
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Local Working Group Meeting Notes

427
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 27, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 27th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Clovis

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Clovis.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Scott Mozier, City of Fresno
• Steven White, County of Fresno
• Michael Navarro, Caltrans
• Glen Eastes, Clovis Department of Public Utilities
• Tim Barker, City of Clovis Engineering
• Mike Harrison, City of Clovis Engineering
• Sean Smith, City of Clovis Engineering
• John Holt, Clovis City Manager Office
• Coleen Vidinoff, LWG member
• Stephanie Babb, Clovis Community College
• Denver Stairs, Clovis Unified School District
• Tina Sumner, Fresno Cycling Club
• Richard Ashcraft, Clovis Police Department
• Chad McCollum, Clovis Public Affairs and Information
Meeting Notes
- Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Wide
 Fast
 Pretty good
 Good condition
428
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan September 27, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Safe
 Fair
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
 Bike lanes or bikeways
 Traffic signals
- What locations do you have safety concerns about? What other locations are priorities for the City to improve?
o Consider HAWK installations for mid-block train crossings (i.e., Peach, Alluvial, Fowler, etc.)
o Clovis Unified is not in favor of the HAWK signals – having issues training people on how to use it. Also seems sporadic because there’s little to no use over the summer and with low school attendance because of COVID
o Can install HAWK signals at places that don’t traditionally trigger full signal installation
o Highest complaint from the call-in line is residential speeding in neighborhoods, red light running, and “jaywalking” around elementary schools. - Education Materials
o Messaging
 Soft touch is great, especially for students
 Messaging around being considerate to your neighbors will resonate well  “I don’t speed in your neighborhood, don’t speed in mine”  Diversity in people depicted
 Wants to see info on safe cycling
 “We’re all in this together” – need to make people feel something  Sharing statistics could be helpful – localize them to a neighborhood level • Including how speed impacts fatality rates of crashes o Motivators
 Fines and fees aren’t working well as motivators
- Enforcement
o Alternatives
 Automatic enforcement has worked well in school zones – don’t want to overdo it and need to be selective about how to deploy them  Speed feedback signs on a trailer are sometimes deployed in areas that have speeding issues
 Crossing guards – difficult to recruit and train volunteers

429
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 29, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 29th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Coalinga

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Coalinga.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manger
• Larry Miller, Utilities Coordinator
• Darren Blevins, Police Chief
• Katie Delano, Director of Transportation
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Coalinga?  Wide
 Fast
 Pretty good
 Good condition
 Safe
 Fair
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
 Bike lanes or bikeways
 Traffic signals
• What locations do you have safety concerns about? What other locations are priorities for the City to improve?
430
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan September 29, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
o Consider HAWK installations for mid-block train crossings (i.e., Peach, Alluvial, Fowler, etc.)
o Clovis Unified is not in favor of the HAWK signals – having issues training people on how to use it. Also seems sporadic because there’s little to no use over the summer and with low school attendance because of COVID
o Can install HAWK signals at places that don’t traditionally trigger full signal installation
o Highest complaint from the call-in line is residential speeding in neighborhoods, red light running, and “jaywalking” around elementary schools. • Education Materials
o Messaging
 Soft touch is great, especially for students
 Messaging around being considerate to your neighbors will resonate well  “I don’t speed in your neighborhood, don’t speed in mine”  Diversity in people depicted
 Wants to see info on safe cycling
 “We’re all in this together” – need to make people feel something  Sharing statistics could be helpful – localize them to a neighborhood level  Including how speed impacts fatality rates of crashes o Motivators
 Fines and fees aren’t working well as motivators
• Enforcement Alternatives
o Automatic enforcement has worked well in school zones – don’t want to overdo it and need to be selective about how to deploy them
o Speed feedback signs on a trailer are sometimes deployed in areas that have speeding issues
o Crossing guards – difficult to recruit and train volunteers

431
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 5, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 5th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Firebaugh

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Firebaugh.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Mario Gouveia, City Engineer
• Danny Reed, City Engineer
• Sal Raygoza, Police Chief
• Freddy Valdez, Mayor and behavior intervention specialist for school district • Danny Barragan, MOT Director, High School District
• Pio Martin, Finance Director
• Brady Jenkins, Mayor Pro Tem
• John Borboa, Fire Chief
• Ben Gallegos, City Manager
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Bumpy
 Rough
 Dippy
 Holes
 Needs improvements
 Good
 Craters
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Traffic signals
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
432
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 5, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Street lighting

• Vision and Goals
o Good goals – need to keep the roads safe, especially related to crossing o Ped facilities and crossings are especially important to the school district (focus on crossings at Hwy 33 and Avenue 7)

• Collision Analysis
o Prior to 2017, the data wasn’t necessary being reported to the state. The state said that past data (2016 and prior) couldn’t be added. Staff will ask again with the context of needing information for grant funding.
o Can use local data for HSIP application – it would be included, but would need to be noted that it’s not in the state database
o Most of the crashes are happening on the roadways that enter into Firebaugh o Top crash location for 2021 is 12th and Ninth St
o Some kind of crossing needed at West Hills College. Parking lot is on one side of the street, campus is on the other side.

• Survey results
o Would like to see more traffic lights – there are quite a few areas backed-up from the high school.
o Drivers not obeying bus stop signage – could be added as an educational piece o Need traffic lights at Clyde Fannon and Hwy 33 – there is increased traffic during tomato and cantaloupe seasons in the summer during harvest, creating traffic jams in the mornings and late afternoons (“even worse than some of the worst streets in Fresno”)

• Educational campaign
o Videos with leaders in the community, both on television and social media o Message: doing something to make things better – that’s the motivator. Important to tell community that the City is taking action to make things better. When people see that change is happening, it makes people feel more comfortable about their own safety.
o People who appear in graphics should look like the people in the community

• Enforcement Alternatives
o Crossing guards are all staff. Would be able to get community members, if needed. o Could use traffic lights (13th and P St.)
o Youth letter writing could work – youth are watching
o Make a map so the kids know where the crosswalks are at – make it clear what the safest routes to school are

433
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 30, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 30th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – Unincorporated Fresno County

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for Unincorporated Fresno County.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Moses Stites, Fresno County Rural Transit
• Mike Leonardo, Fresno County Transportation Authority • Bill Maines, BNSF Railroad - Manager Signals
• Ofc. Vance Wedeking, California Highway Patrol
• Ofc Justice Jones, California Highway Patrol
• Wendy Nakagawa, Supervising Engineer Fresno County Maintenance • Greg Reinke, Fresno County CAO office
• Ray Bradshaw, BNSF Railroad – Signal Advisor
• Ryan California Highway Patrol
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter Results
- Describe travelling in Fresno County:
- Dangerous
- Challenging
- Unnerving
- Various conditions
- Broken
- Sad
- Congested

• Road safety improvements that are most needed
- Maintenance
434
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan September 30, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
- Rural road improvements

• Safety Analysis
- Concerned about liability for flashing lights, etc. If they are vandalized or broken, there are liability issues.
- Congestion is a big part of the problem - people trying to avoid traffic end up on roads they don’t know, and end up going way too fast
- Majority of the crashes that are issues at Auberry/Frazier are DUI-involved - Front Road corridor is going to have a lot of growth
• Education Campaign
- Materials should be translated into Spanish - there's a large Spanish-speaking population in rural areas
- Use as many universal signs as possible.
- Important to include messaging around safety restraints - lots of injuries are from people who aren't wearing their seatbelts. CHP has done PSAs on distracted driving and DUIs. Is currently working on "drive and stay alive" campaign - hard to measure impact.
- Including videos and visual aids can be really effective. - Transit authority has had no at-fault accidents in last 3 years. Safety is a priority focus.
- Messaging needs to be catchy and easy to remember

• Enforcement
- Crossing guards are usually school faculty staff.
- There are a few speed feedback signs, but they run off of solar so they may not be operational 24/7.
- County would love to download any available data from speed cameras. - CHP would consider all alternatives to enforcement - consider them to be education efforts.

435
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 27, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 27th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Huron

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Huron.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Roberto Pimentel, Mayor Pro Term, Huron City Council
• Rey León, Mayor Pro-Term and Educator
• Sophie Phin-Rizo – Huron Elementary School Principal
• Francisco Hernandez – Huron Middle School Principal
• Ben Silva, Huron Resident
• Alfonso Manrique, City Engineer
• Paul Sereno, LWG Member
• Katie Delano – Coalinga-Huron School District Transportation Director Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Rough
 Uneven
 Dangerous
 Stressful
 Difficult
 No speed limit signs
 Anxiety inducing
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Street lighting
436
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan September 27, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Speed enforcement or treatments to slow down drivers
 Traffic signals
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
• Traffic signals Safety analysis
o Area around school on 4th St- There are only two crosswalks, not near the school.

Heavily trafficked street, no speed limit signs.
 Could have RRFB or signalized crossing
 Need more safety around the school zone
o Foot traffic on Lassen Ave has increased on the school route  150 students who had been using transit are now walking to school o M and 11th St should have ped crossing improvements
o Need a crossing for the middle school
o The following ATP bike lane crossing projects will go in:
 RRFBs
 Pedestrian bulb outs
 Crossing at Lassen and Tornado, Cherry, 4th/Myrtle
 Hybrid beacon on 9th St.
• Education campaign
o Likes keeping it simple, limiting text
o Outreach suggestions:
 Could distribute messages through school on-call system and distribute digital flyers
 Often the city goes “old school” and posts flyers around town  Messaging also sometimes included in water bill
 Lots of migrant families are not tech savvy/don’t have internet access  Social media could be a good method for outreach
o Behaviors that need targeted messaging for:
 Obeying lights and stop signs
 Ped crossing safety (jaywalking is an issue)
 Driving under the influence (majority of tickets in Huron are for DUIs) • City is really small and doesn’t have transit, TNCs, or taxis, which may contribute to decisions to drive under the influence o Communities to message to:
 Migrant workers
 Youth
• Enforcement
o Used to have speed feedback signs, no longer operational. City needs new ones.

Would like to see permanent speed feedback signage.
o Had a school crossing guard volunteer for a few days. City is short-staffed and has no one who can act as school crossing guards.
o Lead officers have sometimes taken on traffic safety/ped crossings, but not often o Coalinga Parks and Rec: Could they spare staff/volunteers to help with ped crossings?

437
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 25, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 25th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Kerman

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Kerman.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Sgt Jeff Belving, Kerman Police Department
• John Jansons, City Manager
• Robert Felker, Planning Commission
• Jesus Orozco, Community Development Director
• Kraig Magnussen, Business Services for School District • Moses Stites, General Manager for Fresno County Rural Transit Agency • Michael Barajas, Public Works Director
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Slow
 Patient
 Safe
 OK
 Too fast
 Rural
 Cautious
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements
 Speed enforcement or treatments to slow down drivers
 Wayfinding and signage
 Bike lanes and bikeways
438
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 25, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Maintenance of existing facilities

• Vision and Goals
o Might not want to constrain ourselves with the “low-cost” language o Is Goal 1 – “Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions…” – is that feasible? o Kerman has two state routes – Are the goals including state routes? The transitions between local and state roads are when most of the conflict is.

• Collision Analysis
o Sunset Avenue off of 1st St/Madera Ave: Concerns around collisions and speeding o 2nd, 3rd, and 4th St intersections have no stop/yield signs o Much of 180 between Siskiyou and Goldenrod – open suicide lane in the middle, needs fully constructed medians and dedicated left turn lanes o California St and Madera Ave: Particularly chaotic and dangerous for drivers o Goldenrod and California: Had to reconfigure intersection and change stop signs due to concerns around stacking of vehicles encroaching on railroad crossing.

People are still getting used to it.
o School district is planning improvements directly north of 1st Street. School district is doing improvements north of 1st St. Envision a full intersection at 1st St and Whitesbridge – need to keep tracking. School district is looking at a variety or treatments – HAWK, roundabout, or signalized light. HAWK signal would increase traffic on surrounding streets.
o Would look to see what/why the driving is happening – time of day, purpose (e.g., to school/work), volumes – can help to delineate a better safety strategy o Madera – surprised that there aren’t any rear-end collisions reported because there’s no left-hand turn lane
o Should be adding more medians with dedicated left-hand runs vs. “suicide lanes”

• Survey results
o California and Siskiyou – don’t get a lot of collision complaints  It’s a four-way stop, so interesting that it’s getting a lot of attention. But it is near the school and a park, so probably gets more attention from users because of high ped usage.
o California and Goldenrod – hot topic lately
 Not sure it it’s before the stop sign reversing or because of the stop sign reversing
o Overarching issues with Whitesbridge is speed
o Rumble strips don’t seem to be in the right location – should be on the white line, not on the shoulder, or else they impede bicycling. 180 is set up nicely for biking. o Have had three deaths of people in wheelchairs – crossing streets

• Educational campaign
o Thinks there should be a flyer with just a few points o Make sure there’s not too much text
o Driver’s test – should think about/ask questions about crash-inducing o Would prefer images instead of graphics/cartoony
439
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 25, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 3

• Enforcement Alternatives
o Speed feedback signs – could there be audio with it?
o Have a speed deployment trailer that we deploy with neighbor complaint o Do have crossing guards near campus
o Maybe work with youth groups/partnerships or parks department for “good tickets” or driving reminders
o Don’t have a large capacity built for a “Neighborhood Playbook” approach

440
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 6, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 6th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Mendota

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Mendota.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Mark, Public Works Superintendent
• John Liu, Caltrans District Director for Maintenance Operations • Dan Urias, Batallion Chief for Fire Department
• Jessica Sanchez, Serves on Recreation and Planning Commissions • Colleen Vidinoff, HSIP Coordinator for District 6
• Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager
• Jennifer Lekumberry, Director of Administrative Services • Michael Osborn, City Engineer
• Nancy Diaz, Finance Director
• Joseph Amadore, member of the public safety committee • Kevin Smith,
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Awkward
 Calm
 Rough
 Rough roads
 Bumpy
 Familiar
 Dangerous
 Congested
441
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 6, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Dusty
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
 Pedestrian crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Wayfinding and signage
 Speed enforcement or treatments to slow down drivers

• Vision and Goals
o Instead of “improving existing,” it should just be “improving” to account for sidewalks that need to be added
o The goals and visions are specific to the City
o Safety with truck traffic should be considered as a regional safety goal, versus a specific City goal.
o Change from “low cost” improvements to “cost effective” or simply “improvements” to be cost agnostic

• Collision Analysis
o Second and Bass: RRFB and pedestrian refuge installed near the school o Belmont and 9th – have ATP funding to put in a RRFB/improved crossing at this location
o Caltrans is working on pedestrian improvements on Oller and Derrick o Interested in roundabout at Derrick and 180
o - Derrick and 7th is a location of interest
o - 7th and Oller also a location of interest - had a fatality in the past year

• Survey results
o Agree with the survey results
o A lot of unlicensed drivers – don’t know all the rules o Alder St – people slowing down in the number 2 lane to slow down to let people cross, but often the driver in lane number 1 doesn’t slow down

• Educational campaign
o Ability to achieve campaign goals always come down to staffing, but this is doable o City willing to try to implement
o Importance of translating materials into Spanish
o New roundabout built and City created a basic flyer to promote and educate people on how to use it
o UC Davis implemented a bingo safety program for rules of the road. Mendota implemented it but has not continued due to lack of funding. It was successful in getting cross-departmental support.

• Enforcement Alternatives
o City looking to add radar feedback signs on Oller and Derrick 442
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 6, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 3
o City can also provide trailers with speed feedback and messages. People tend to get used to the trailers if they're in wone location for too long - does not reduce speeding. City moves them to random locations or areas where they've received complaints about speed.
o Involving schools would be huge - would be great to get community members as crossing guards.

443
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 5, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 5th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Orange Cove

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Orange Cove.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Rudy Fernandez, Interim City Manager
• Andy Valencia, Interim Public Works Superintendent
• Angela Hall, LWG Member, Assistant Engineer
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Terrible
 Bumpy – lack of maintenance
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Need additional streetlights
 Stop signs (not very noticeable, many get knocked down), maybe solar stop signs?
 Trying to get folks to stop on the way in off the entrances to the City  Adams Ave stop sign – it’s on the way into the City, hard to notice  Potentially more speed bumps needed
 Sierra Mountain View – speed bumps would help slow down traffic

• Visions and Goals comments:
o Goals where a general summary of what was found on the website, will confirm whether they were adopted by City County.

444
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 5, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
• Safety Analysis
o There is at least one additional pedestrian collision that was not available in SWITRS/TIMS database
o Lots of collisions within the City were on the border between Fresno and Tulare County – might have been reported as not taking place in Orange Cove, but unincorporated county areas
o Recent collisions not captured in SWITRS/TIMS: Adams and Hills Valley, South and Hills Valley, East Railroad and Hills Valley
o Locations
 City has RRFB going in near library on Park Blvd
 Intersection of Anchor and Park will have a new traffic signal  Adams and Center/Jacobs – Good place for a flashing beacon (there’s a new subdivision going in)
 4th and Adams – Near the school, church, and housing authority development. Speed limit is 35 mph, but no stop control  Schools are priority locations for crosswalks
• Education Campaign
o Is there surveillance included in safety campaigns?
o Importance of bilingual materials – most residents speak Spanish o Getting attention of people in Orange Cove is difficult  City has sent out flyers, people tend to say they didn’t get them  Promotional materials should look important
 Mass-mailing flyers that were created by county public health for COVID was great
 Schools are great way to distribute messaging
 Flyers in the police department could be helpful
 Radio ads in Spanish
• Enforcement
o Would like to have automatic enforcement and speed feedback signs (Orange Cove doesn’t have this right now)
o Schools do have crossing guards currently, but limited staffing o Interested in getting youth involved in letter-writing – could work with school district to coordinate but may be difficult due to staffing issues

445
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 14, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 14th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of San Joaquin

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of San Joaquin.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Elizabeth, City Manager
• Matt Flood, Assistant City Manager
• Brent Stalker, Police Lt.
• Danny Reed, City Engineer
• Martin Macias, School Superintendent
• Colleen Vidinoff, CalTrans District 6 HSIP Coordinator • Manual Chavez, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Bumpy
 Rough pavement
 Caution
 Improving
 Acceptable
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
 Speed enforcement or treatments to slow down drivers

• Vision and Goals
o Aren’t that many recorded collisions – as such, is roadway safety that much of an issue?
446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 14, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
o Conditions of the roads are the issues – all of the roads are in need of repair. o Make sure that crossing Colorado Ave is improved as part of improving routes that kids can take to school
o The roadway condition makes them unsafe – focus should be on roadway condition, not necessarily safety (although student safety is important) o The railroad runs through San Joaquim – how is RR safety considered? There are two trains/day and people seem to know. No crashes known, but just one would make a significant impact on the community.

• Collision Analysis
o How many locations could be submitted? – Would need to be prioritized but can submit as a group.
o Manning and Sutter are a priority due to housing developments – sidewalks are on north side, but housing is on the other side. Manning has 55 mph speed limit. o Interested in looking at routes to school to promote safety for students walking  Colorado/Main and Colorado/9th are major intersections for students traveling to school
 Outside of school times, students are still walking around in the area o California St – 5th, 6th, and 8th St are where apartments are – hard to prioritize since they all are equally important
o Developments are not required to do additional crossing improvements

• Survey results
o Speeding and not respecting stop signs are the most common complaint at Council o Assistance around the school would be helpful
o Manning is a throughfare for trucks getting on to I-5 – need the correct signage to keep things safe

• Educational campaign
o Appreciate tone – it’s a community effort
 Getting word out is important – they use school district to get info to parents/students, but there is also a large senior community  Message is good
 Important to focus on family – “your mother expects you to get home safely today”
 Getting spots on Spanish-language media (radio and TV)

• Enforcement Alternatives
o School does have crossing guards at school boundaries o Interested in automatic enforcement - sheriffs have deployed it previously o Speed feedback signs would work well
o Law enforcement is supportive of all potential alternatives

447
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 22, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 22nd, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Selma

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Selma.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• David Padilla, CarTrans Planning
• Fernando Santillan, Deputy City Manager
• Phillip Romero, City Engineer
• Moses Stites, General Manager for Fresno Regional Transit Agency • Delfina Vasquez, BBNBTL (Bringing Broken Neighborhoods Back to Life) Meeting Notes
• Warm-up questions:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Congested
 Potentially unsafe for people walking and biking
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Bike and pedestrian infrastructure
 Additional traffic signals
 On-ramp and off-ramp improvements
 Ay-grade crossing improvements
 Lack of stop signs, leads to crashes
 Bottleneck into town from Manning and McCollum

• Vision and Goals
o Existing goals are accurate and comprehensive

• Collision Analysis
448
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 22, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
o Nots: the data only looks at local roads in Selma, not Hwy 99 o Should look at at-grade crossings – there are a lot of commercial operations along the Golden State corridor, which leads to heavy truck traffic o Need more stop signs/signals on 2nd St. Currently, there are no stop signs from Nebraska to Woodson St, and there have been fatalities near Berry Park

• Survey results
o Dinuba between Highland and McCall could use improvements, especially around Thompson – existing signal, but could be improved
o Survey results align with what’s happening on the roadways

• Educational campaign
o Materials are well-thought out
o Messages specific to school children and keeping kids safe is always a helpful motivator for behavioral change
o Need for Spanish translation

• Enforcement Alternatives
o Fernando would know the most about this topic and couldn’t stay to the end of the meeting. He will follow-up.

449
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Local Working Group Meeting Materials

450
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
April 1, 2021 Project# 26012
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) April 8, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88931962793?pwd=V09OQWhQRDM2amdZRkk rd2xsdjBQdz09
Meeting ID: 889 3196 2793
Passcode: 416334
+16699009128,,88931962793#,,,,*416334# US (San Jose)
Topic: Local Working Groups: Kick-Off Meeting

Agenda:

1. Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting Overview (10 minutes)

2. Purpose and Scope of MLRSP (30 minutes)
a. Motivation for the MLRSP
b. Task and Activities within the MLRSP

3. Relationship of the MLRSP to the Regional Safety Plan (10 minutes)

4. Organization of and Role of the Local Working Groups (LWGs) (30 minutes) a. Organized into three LWGs (draft groupings below)
i. LWG – A

1. Unincorporated County

2. Clovis
ii. LWG – B

1. Firebaugh

2. San Joaquin

3. Mendota

4. Kerman
iii. LWG – C

1. Coalinga
451
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan April 1, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2

2. Huron

3. Selma

4. Orange Cove
b. Focused on local agency participation

5. Schedule (5 minutes)

6. Next Steps (5 minutes)
452
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Kick-Off Meeting
April 8, 2021
Welcome, Introductions, & Meeting Overview
NAME

ORGANIZATION

DESIRED OUTCOME

FROM MLRSP

EXPERIENCE WITH

HSIP FUNDING
1 2
453
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
2 Meeting Overview
• Purpose and Scope of MLRSP
• Relationship of the MLRSP to the Regional Safety Plan • Organization of and Role of the Local Working Groups
• Overview of Regional Safety Plan Existing Conditions
• Schedule
• Next Steps
Purpose and Scope of MLRSP
• Purpose
• Produce LRSPs for local agencies currently without one • Position local agencies for HSIP funding for HSIP Cycle 11 • Agencies Included
• Unincorporated Fresno County
• Coalinga
• Clovis
• Huron
• Firebaugh
• San Joaquin
• Orange Cove
• Kerman
• Mendota
• Selma
3 4
454
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
3 Scope of the MLRSP
Task 1:

Stakeholder
Engagement
Task 2: Data
Collection
and Plan
Review
Task 3:

Localized and
Expanded
Counter-
measures
Task 4:

MLRSP
Report
Task 5: HSIP
Applications
Task 6:

Presentation
to Approving
Bodies
Scope of MLRSP
Stakeholder Engagement
Local Working Groups: Agency Stakeholders
Community Engagement
• Virtual Engagement
• In-Person Focus Group Meetings
Key Deliverables
Local Existing Conditions Report
Safety Strategies Memorandum
MLRSP Documentation and Presentations
HSIP Applications
5 6
455
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
4 Relationship to
Regional Safety
Plan
• Information Sharing
• MLRSP Tailored to Each
Local Agency
Local Working Groups
Role: Inform the content specific to each agency in the MLRSP Organization: Three sub-groups that each meet three times LWG Meeting #1: Existing Conditions Analysis
LWG Meeting #2: Safety Strategies and Priority Locations LWG Meeting #3: Draft MLRSP and HSIP Applications
7 8
456
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
5 Local Working Groups
LWG – A:

Unincorporated County
Clovis
LWG – B:

Firebaugh
San Joaquin
Mendota
Kerman
LWG – C:

Coalinga
Huron
Selma
Orange Cove
Regional Safety Plan – Existing Conditions
• 39,054 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 6% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal
(% of
column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 138 (23%) 195 (14%) 388 (9%) 350 (4%) 142 (1%) 1,213 (3%) Bicycle Involved 31 (5%) 78 (6%) 290 (7%) 299 (4%) 148 (1%) 846 (2%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object 424 (72%) 1,150 (81%) 3,699(84%) 8,039 (93%) 23,748 (99%) 39,107 (95%) Reported Collisions
(% of total) 592 (2%) 1,412 (4%) 4,358 (11%) 8,666 (22%) 24,026 (62%) 39,054 (100%) 9 10
457
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
6 Collisions by Crash Type
• Top 3 collision types
overall: 71% of collisions
• Rear-end – 26%
• Hit Object – 23%
• Broadside – 22%
• Top 3 collision types
resulting in fatal and
severe collisions
• Broadside – 26%
• Hit Object – 21%
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 15%
27%
23%
22%
13%
5%
4%
3%
3%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Rear End
Hit Object
Broadside
Sideswipe
Head-On
Overturned
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Not Stated
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury
Other Injury
PDO
Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
• Top 3 Collision Factors Overall
• Unsafe Speeding – 24%
• Improper Turning – 21%
• Automobile Right of Way – 14%
• Top 3 Collision Factors for Fatal and Severe Collisions • Improper turning – 23%
• Unsafe speed – 23%
• Automobile Right of Way – 14%
11 12
458
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
7 Collisions by Weather
• Collisions reported in fog, cloudy, or rainy conditions increased from October to March 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Collisions by Weather
Cloudy Fog Rain
Collisions by Lighting
• 32% of collisions
occurred in the dark
• 44% of fatal and
severe collisions
• 318 fatal collisions
occurred in the dark
• 168 of fatal collisions
occurred where there
were no streetlights
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Collision Frequency
Fatal/ Severe Crashes Injury/ PDO Crashes
13 14
459
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
8 Pedestrian Collisions
• 1,123 reported pedestrian collisions
• 11% resulted in death or severe injury
• 40% of fatal and severe injury collisions occurred when pedestrian was not in crosswalk
• 113 (82%) reported fatal pedestrian collisions occurred in the dark
• 45 (39%) collisions occurred where there was no streetlights Bicycle Collisions
• 846 reported bicycle collisions
• 4% resulted in death or severe injury
• Top reported collision type among bicyclist collisions was broadside collisions (36%)
• Top reported PCF among bicyclist collisions was wrong side of road driving/riding (21%)
• Data does not indicate whether drivers or bicyclists were on the wrong side of the road
15 16
460
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
9 Schedule
• April – May 2021
• Existing Conditions Report
• June – September 2021
• Safety Strategies and Priority Locations
• October 2021 – January 2022
• Draft and Final MLRSP
• Presentations
• December 2021 - March 2022
• HSIP Applications
Next Steps
• Local Existing Conditions Report
• Set-up LWG Meetings #1
17 18
461
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Kick-Off Meeting
10 Questions?
19 462
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan May 7, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

5. Upcoming Work Activities (5 minutes)

6. Adjourn
463
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
May 7, 2021 Project# 26012
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) May 24, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Zoom Meeting
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86090561174?pwd=OFpkZUNXaCtNQ1hndHIwL zk3UEJPQT09
Meeting ID: 860 9056 1174
Passcode: 157574
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,86090561174#,,,,*157574# US (San Jose)
Topic: Local Working Group A – Meeting #1

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (5 minutes)

2. Approach to LWG Group A Meetings (10 minutes)
a. Meeting structure
b. Unique considerations and intentions
i. County
ii. City of Clovis
c. Upcoming outreach through focus groups

3. Existing Conditions for Unincorporated Fresno County (35 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

4. Existing Conditions for City of Clovis (35 minutes)
a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
464
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group A –
Meeting #1
May 24, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for Unincorporated Fresno County
• Existing Conditions for City of Clovis
• Upcoming Work Activities
1 2
465
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
2 Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Meeting structure
• Unique considerations and intentions
• What are the considerations or intentions as it relates to the LRSP that the County has in mind?
• What are the considerations or intentions as it relates to the LRSP that the City of Clovis has in mind?
• Upcoming outreach through focus groups
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for Unincorporated Fresno County
• Existing Conditions for City of Clovis
• Upcoming Work Activities
3 4
466
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
3 Unincorporated Fresno County – Existing
Conditions
• 18,314 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 7% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal
(% of
column)
Severe
Injury
(% of
column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property Damage
Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 35 (10%) 39 (4%) 42 (2%) 24 (1%) 4 (0%) 144 (1%) Bicycle Involved 14 (4%) 23 (3%) 51 (2%) 29 (1%) 11 (0%) 128 (1%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-Fixed
Object 308 (86%) 830 (93%) 2,348 (96%) 3,566 (98%) 10,990 (100%) 18,042 (98%) Reported Collisions
(% of total)
357 (100%) 892 (100%) 2,441 (100%) 3,619 (100%) 11,005 (100%) 18,314 (100%) Severity Share of Reported
Collisions 2% 5% 13% 20% 60% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
• 9% lower share of
pedestrian collisions vs.
statewide
• 4% lower share of bicycle
collisions vs. statewide
• 3% lower share of
motorcycle collisions vs.
statewide
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Unincorporated County Statewide Average
5 6
467
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
4 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
• Average of 3,663
total collisions
per year
• Average of 250
fatal/severe
injury collisions
per year
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
Collisions by Month
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
7 8
468
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
5 Collisions by Weather
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Collisions by Weather
Cloudy Fog Raining
Collisions by Type
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Overturned
Other
Head-On
Vehicle/Pede…
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
9 10
469
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
6 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Driving or Bicycling Under the…
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Lane Change
Wrong Side of Road
Unknown
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
0% 10% 20% 30%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
Collisions by Lighting
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
11 12
470
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
7 Collisions by Time of Day
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Collision Share
Hour
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 144 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 74 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved collisions (52%)
Fatal
(% of
Total)
Severe
Injury
(% of
Total)
Visible
Injury
(% of
Total)
Complaint
of Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage
Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian
Involved 35 (24%) 39 (27%) 42 (29%) 24 (17%) 4 (3%) 144 (100%) 13 14
471
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
8 Pedestrian Collisions by Month
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Not in Road
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
15 16
472
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
9 Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Dark - No Street Lights
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Pedestrian Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Bicyclist Collisions
• There were 128 total bicyclist-involved collisions
• There were 35 fatal/severe injury bicyclist-involved
collisions (29%)
Fatal
(% of total)
Severe
Injury
(% of total)
Visible
Injury
(% of total)
Complaint
of Pain
(% of total)
Property
Damage
Only
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Bicycle Involved 14 (11%) 23 (18%) 51 (40%) 29 (23%) 11 (9%) 128 (100%) 17 18
473
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
10 Bicyclist Collisions by Type
Broadside
Rear End
Other
Sideswipe
Overturned
Head-On
Hit Object
Vehicle/Pedestrian
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Bicyclist Collisions by PCF
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol…
Lights
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Other Improper Driving
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
19 20
474
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
11 Bicyclist Collisions by Lighting
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Daylight
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Bicycle Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
1 LAC JAC AVE & DINUBA AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 201.09 15 0 5 3 3 4
2 FRANKWOOD AVE & CENTRAL AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 164.99 14 0 4 4 3 3
3 ACADEMY AVE & ADAMS AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 162.93 18 1 3 2 4 8
4 BETHEL AVE & DINUBA AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 157.25 49 1 2 7 20 19
5 AUBERRY RD & FRAZIER RD
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 154.92 8 2 2 1 0 3
6 MILLERTON RD FROM MILLERTON

LAKE ACCESS (WEST) TO SKY
HARBOUR RD Segment 145.02 21 2 2 3 4 10
7 AUBERRY RD FROM EAST OF OLD

AUBERRY RD TO SOUTH OF OLD
AUBERRY RD Segment 144.23 18 1 3 5 0 9
8 KINGS CANYON RD WEST OF HILLS
VALLEY RD Segment 141.08 13 1 3 3 4 2
9 KEARNEY BLVD & CORNELIA AVE &

MADISON AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 139.01 29 0 3 7 6 13
10 CLOVIS AVE & MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Rural 137.94 19 1 2 8 5 3
21 22
475
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
12 Discussion & Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for Unincorporated Fresno County
• Existing Conditions for City of Clovis
• Upcoming Work Activities
23 24
476
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
13 Clovis – Existing Conditions
• 3,507 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved Fatal (% of
column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only (%
of column)
Total (% of
column)
Pedestrian Involved 4 (40%) 11 (24%) 25 (9%) 41 (4%) 9 (1%) 90 (3%) Bicycle Involved 1 (10%) 4 (9%) 31 (11%) 59 (6%) 23 (1%) 118 (3%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object 5 (50%) 31 (67%) 221 (80%) 941 (90%) 2,101 (98%) 3,300 (94%) Reported Collisions 10 (100%) 46 (100%) 277 (100%) 1,041 (100%) 2,133 (100%) 3,507 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Collisions 1% 1% 8% 30% 60% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
• 10% higher share of
pedestrian collisions
• 2% higher share of
bicycle collisions
• 3% higher share of
motorcycle collisions 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Clovis Statewide Average
25 26
477
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
14 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
• Average of 701 total
collisions per year
• Average of 11
fatal/severe injury
collisions per year
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Other Injury Property Damage Only
Collisions by Month
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
27 28
478
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
15 Collisions by Weather
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Collisions by Weather
Cloudy Fog Raining
Collisions by Type
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Not Stated
Overturned
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
29 30
479
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
16 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol…
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Pedestrian Violation
Not Stated
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Collision Share
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury PDO
Collisions by Lighting
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
31 32
480
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
17 Collisions by Time of Day
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Collision Share
Hour
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 90 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 15 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved collisions (16%)
Fatal (%) Severe Injury
(%)
Visible Injury
(%)
Compliant of
Pain (%)
Property
Damage Only (%) Total (%)
Pedestrian
Involved 4 (4%) 11 (12%) 25 (28%) 41 (46%) 9 (10%) 90 (100%) 33 34
481
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
18 Pedestrian Collisions by Month
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Not Stated
Not in Road
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
35 36
482
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
19 Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Bicyclist Collisions
• There were 118 total bicyclist-involved collisions
• There were 5 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (4%)
Fatal (%) Severe Injury
(%)
Visible Injury
(%)
Compliant of
Pain (%)
Property Damage
Only (%) Total (%)
Bicycle Involved 1 (1%) 4 (3%) 31 (26%) 59 (50%) 23 (19%) 118 (100%)
37 38
483
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
20 Bicyclist Collisions by Type
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rear End
Head-On
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Broadside
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Bicyclist Collisions by PCF
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Hazardous Violation
Unsafe Speed
Pedestrian Right of Way
Lights
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Not Stated
Impeding Traffic
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
39 40
484
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
21 Bicyclist Collisions by Lighting
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not Stated
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
1 CLOVIS TRFY & SANTA ANA
AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban

90.35 28 0 2 1 7 18
2 WILLOW AVE & SHAW AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 85.66 94 0 1 6 31 56
3 FOWLER AVE & SHAW AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 74.88 38 0 2 5 10 21
4 HERNDON AVE & FOWLER AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 73.39 49 0 2 1 14 32
5 ASHLAN AVE & FOWLER AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 68.03 37 0 2 0 13 22
6 CLOVIS AVE & BARSTOW AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 64.63 26 0 2 2 8 14
7 BARSTOW AVE & SUNNYSIDE
AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 59.06 18 0 2 1 6 9
8 VILLA AVE & SHAW AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 57.93 51 0 1 4 16 30
9 PEACH AVE & SHAW AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 51.27 38 0 1 4 12 21
10 WILLOW AVE & BULLARD AVE Intersection
(Signalized) 48.39 43 0 1 2 12 28
41 42
485
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
22 Discussion & Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for Unincorporated Fresno County
• Existing Conditions for City of Clovis
• Upcoming Work Activities
43 44
486
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #1
23 Upcoming Work Activities
• Your comments on existing conditions
• Please provide by June 3, 2021
• Our activities
• Finalize existing conditions
• Start identifying countermeasures and strategies
• Continue conversations on high priority locations
Questions?
45 46
487
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
May 7, 2021 Project# 26012
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) May 25, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84025064802?pwd=WjNkK1BNZ0xHcG5ib2F0MU hJaWxyZz09
Meeting ID: 840 2506 4802
Passcode: 724620
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,84025064802#,,,,*724620# US (San Jose)

Topic: Local Working Group B – Meeting #1

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (3 minutes)

2. Approach to LWG Group B Meetings (10 minutes)
a. Meeting structure
b. Unique considerations and intentions
i. City of Firebaugh
ii. City of Kerman
iii. City of San Joaquin
iv. City of Mendota
c. Upcoming outreach through focus groups

3. Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh (18 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

4. Existing Conditions for City of Kerman (18 minutes)
a. Highlight Key Findings
488
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan May 4, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

5. Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin (18 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

6. Existing Conditions for City of Mendota (18 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

7. Upcoming Work Activities (5 minutes)

8. Adjourn
489
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group B –
Meeting #1
May 25, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh
• Existing Conditions for City of Kerman
• Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin
• Existing Conditions for City of Mendota
• Upcoming Work Activities
1 2
490
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
2 Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Meeting structure
• Unique considerations and intentions
• What are the considerations or intentions as it relates to the LRSP that you have in mind?
• City of Firebaugh
• City of Kerman
• City of San Joaquin
• City of Mendota
• Upcoming outreach through focus groups
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh
• Existing Conditions for City of Kerman
• Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin
• Existing Conditions for City of Mendota
• Upcoming Work Activities
3 4
491
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
3 Firebaugh – Existing Conditions
• 130 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 5% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal
(% of
column)
Severe
Injury
(% of
column)
Visible
Injury
(% of
column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of
column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of
column)
Pedestrian Involved 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (11%) 1 (1%) 7 (5%) Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-
Fixed Object 1 (25%) 2 (100%) 8 (89%) 15 (83%) 96 (99%) 122 (94%) Reported Collisions 4 (100%) 2 (100%) 9 (100%) 18 (100%) 97 (100%) 130 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Collisions 3% 2% 7% 14% 75% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
• 33% higher shares
of pedestrian
collisions
• No reported bicycle
or motorcycle
collisions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Firebaugh Statewide Average
5 6
492
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
4 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
Collisions by Type
Rear End
Sideswipe
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Other
Vehicle/Pedest…
Overturned
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
7 8
493
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
5 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Automobile Right of Way
Other Improper Driving
Unknown
Following Too Closely
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of…
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Hazardous Violation
Wrong Side of Road
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Improper Passing
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 7 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 3 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (43%)
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Visible Injury
(% of Total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 7 (100%) 9 10
494
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
6 Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
• Two fatal collisions occurred as pedestrians were crossing not in a crosswalk
• One fatal collision occurred as a pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection
• Two reported injury collisions occurred as pedestrians were in the road, including the shoulder
Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
• Two fatal collisions occurred in the dark with streetlights while one occurred during dusk-dawn
• The remaining pedestrian-involved collisions occurred in daylight
11 12
495
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
7 Bicyclist Collisions
• There was one bicycle-involved collision reported, which resulted in an injury
• This collision had a PCF of “other than driver or pedestrian” at the fault of the bicyclist, and it occurred during dusk-dawn High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 N ST & SAIPAN AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 43.12 7 1 0 2 0 4
2 N ST & NINTH ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
3 THIRTEENTH ST FROM P ST TO
CITY LIMITS Segment 33.13 2 1 0 0 0 1
4 N ST FROM SEIERRA AVE TO
NORTH OF SIERRA AVE Segment 33.13 2 0 1 0 0 1
5 THIRTEENTH ST & N ST
Intersection
(Signalized) 28.16 7 1 0 0 3 3
6 TWELFTH ST & N ST
Intersection
(Signalized) 25.71 10 1 0 0 0 9
7 N ST & CLYDE FANNON RD
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 5.47 7 0 0 0 4 3
8 N ST & ELEVENTH ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 4.36 7 0 0 1 1 5
9 TWELFTH ST & M ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 2.74 4 0 0 1 0 3
10 N STREET FROM CLYDE FANNON
RD TO CORDEL AVE* Segment 2.54 3 0 0 1 0 2
13 14
496
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
8 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh
• Existing Conditions for City of Kerman
• Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin
• Existing Conditions for City of Mendota
• Upcoming Work Activities
15 16
497
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
9 Kerman – Existing Conditions
• 200 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
(% of column) (% of column) (% of
column)
(% of
column)
(% of
column)
(% of
column)
Pedestrian Involved 1 (33%) 1 (50%) 6 (19%) 3 (8%) 1 (1%) 12 (6%) Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-Fixed Object 2 (67%) 1 (50%) 25 (78%) 38 (88%) 118 (98%) 184 (92%) Reported Collisions 3 (100%) 2 (100%) 32 (100%) 43 (100%) 120 (100%) 200 (100%)(% of total) Severity Share of Reported Collisions 1% 1% 16% 22% 60% 100% Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Kerman Statewide Average
17 18
498
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
10 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Count
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Collisions by Type
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Broadside
Overturned
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
19 20
499
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
11 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence…
Following Too Closely
Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian Violation
Other Hazardous Violation
Improper Passing
Other Improper Driving
Wrong Side of Road
0 20 40 60 80
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 12 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 2 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (16%)
Fatal Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total
(% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Pedestrian Involved 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 6 (51%) 3 (25%) 1 (8%) 12 (100%) 21 22
500
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
12 Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
• The two fatal pedestrian collisions occurred in daylight • One pedestrian collision occurred in the dark with
streetlights
23 24
501
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
13 Bicyclist Collisions
• There were four total bicycle collisions
• Three of the collisions resulted in some level of injury • Two of the collisions were reported as rear end collisions and both resulted in injury
• All reported collisions occurred in daylight
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 WHITESBRIDGE AVE FROM
SISKIYOU AVE TO VINELAND AVE Segment 42.58 10 1 0 3 2 4 2 FIRST ST & C ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 38.05 1 0 1 0 0 0
3 MERLOT AVE & STANISLAUS AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 38.05 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 MADERA AVE FROM NORTH OF

NEILSON AVE TO WHITESBRIDGE
RD* Segment 35.07 6 1 1 1 1 2
5 GOLDENROD AVE FROM KEARNEY
BLVD TO WHITESBRIDGE RD Segment 32.93 1 1
6 KEARNEY BLVD & MADERA AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 14.1 16 0 0 3 5 8
7 MADERA AVE & WHITESBRIDGE
AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 11.52 22 0 0 0 7 15
8 GOLDENROD AVE & CALIFORNIA
AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 10.87 10 0 0 3 3 4
9 MADERA AVE & A ST &

CALIFORNIA AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 10.33 17 0 0 2 3 12
10 GOLDENROD AVE &
WHITESBRIDGE AVE*
Intersection
(Signalized) 7.81 9 0 0 1 4 4
25 26
502
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
14 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh
• Existing Conditions for City of Kerman
• Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin
• Existing Conditions for City of Mendota
• Upcoming Work Activities
27 28
503
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
15 San Joaquin – Existing Conditions
• There were two reported collisions within City of San Joaquin between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019
• This is based on what was cited by the responding officer • In relocating crashes for the purpose of spatial analysis, it appears some collisions did occur within the City but were recorded as having occurred in unincorporated county
Collision A
• Severity of property damage only
• Hit-object collision
• PCF of improper turning
• Lighting condition of daylight
• Cloudy weather, dry road condition
• Alcohol was involved
• Occurred in the month of April and in the hour of 1 PM to 2 PM
29 30
504
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
16 Collision B
• Severity of complaint of pain
• Hit-object collision
• PCF of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs • Lighting condition of dark with street lights
• Clear weather, dry road condition
• Occurred in the month of April and in the hour of 12 AM to 1 AM
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 ELM AVE & PLACER AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 2.74 4 0 0 1 0 3
2 MAIN ST & COLORADO RD
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
3 MANNING AVE & PLACER AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.4 2 0 0 0 0 2
4 NINTH ST & IDAHO AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.4 2 0 0 0 0 2
5 MANNING AVE & SUTTER AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Rural 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
6 MANNING AVE & IDAHO AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
7 MANNING AVE & COLORADO RD
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
8 DENVER AVE & PINE AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 RAILROAD AVE FROM MANNIN
GAVE TO PINE ST Segment 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
31 32
505
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
17 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group B Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Firebaugh
• Existing Conditions for City of Kerman
• Existing Conditions for City of San Joaquin
• Existing Conditions for City of Mendota
• Upcoming Work Activities
33 34
506
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
18 Mendota – Existing Conditions
• 348 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property Damage
Only Total
(% of column) (% of column) (% of column) (% of column) (% of column) (% of column) Pedestrian
Involved 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 7 (29%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) 13 (4%)
Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (.3%) 1 (.3%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
1 (33%) 2 (66%) 17 (71%) 49 (94%) 265 (99.7%) 333 (98%) Reported
Collisions 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%) 52 (100%) 266 (100%) 348 (95.7%) (% of total)
Severity Share of
Reported
Collisions
1% 1% 7% 15% 76% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
35 36
507
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
19 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Count
Year
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Collisions by Type
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Overturned
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Broadside
Hit Object
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
37 38
508
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
20 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Improper Turning
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Following Too Closely
Unknown
Other Improper Driving
Not Stated
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence…
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Lane Change
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Passing
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 13 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 3 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (22%)
Fatal Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total
(% of
Total)
(% of
Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of
Total)
Pedestrian Involved 2 (15%) 1 (7%) 7 (53%) 3 (23%) 0 (0%) 13 (100%) 39 40
509
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
21 Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury
41 42
510
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
22 Bicyclist Collision
• The one collision involving a bicyclist resulted in property damage only
• The driver was under the influence of alcohol
• The collision occurred in the dark with streetlights
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 BETHEL AVE & DINUBA AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) –
Urban 157.25 49 1 2 7 20 19
2 SIERRA AVE & BLACKSTONE AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 121.69 40 0 4 5 9 22
3 PALM AVE & ASHLAN AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 116.62 63 1 2 7 19 34
4 DERRICK AVE FROM LOZANO ST
TO NORTH OF LOZANO ST Segment 99.00 4 1 2 0 0 1
5 WILLOW AVE & SHAW AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 85.66 94 0 1 6 31 56
6 MAROA AVE & SHAW AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 80.54 45 1 1 3 18 22
7 FIRST ST & SHAW AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 73.50 50 0 2 2 12 34
8 HERNDON AVE & FOWLER AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 73.39 49 0 2 1 14 32
9 SHIELDS AVE & BLACKSTONE AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 72.23 40 1 1 5 7 26
10 BLACKSTONE AVE & HERNDON
AVE
Intersection
(Signalized) 71.77 46 0 2 1 13 30
43 44
511
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
23 Discussion and Questions
Upcoming Work Activities
• Your comments on existing conditions
• Please provide by June 3, 2021
• Our activities
• Finalize existing conditions
• Start identifying countermeasures and strategies
• Continue conversations on high priority locations
45 46
512
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #1
24 Questions?
47 513
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
May 7, 2021 Project# 26012
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) May 26, 2021 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88264453935?pwd=dGt6ZDUwSFFMOFZhU0tW WVFKYUFEQT09
Meeting ID: 882 6445 3935
Passcode: 148752
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,88264453935#,,,,*148752# US (San Jose)
Topic: Local Working Group C – Meeting #1

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (3 minutes)

2. Approach to LWG Group C Meetings (10 minutes)
a. Meeting structure
b. Unique considerations and intentions
i. City of Coalinga
ii. City of Huron
iii. City of Selma
iv. City of Orange Cove
c. Upcoming outreach through focus groups

3. Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga (18 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

4. Existing Conditions for City of Huron (18 minutes)
a. Highlight Key Findings
514
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

5. Existing Conditions for City of Selma (18 minutes)
a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

6. Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove (18 minutes) a. Highlight Key Findings
b. Discussion
i. Unexpected findings or things missing
ii. Thoughts on goals and objectives related to safety

7. Upcoming Work Activities (5 minutes)

8. Adjourn
515
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group C –
Meeting #1
May 26, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
1 2
516
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
2 Approach to LWG Group C Meetings
• Meeting structure
• Unique considerations and intentions
• What are the considerations or intentions as it relates to the LRSP that you have in mind?
• City of Coalinga
• City of Huron
• City of Selma
• City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming outreach through focus groups
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
3 4
517
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
3 Coalinga – Existing Conditions
• 378 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal
(% of
column)
Severe
Injury
(% of
column)
Visible Injury
(% of
column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (23%) 5 (13%) 1 (0%) 15 (4%) Bicycle Involved (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-
Fixed Object (0%) 7 (78%) 19 (63%) 34 (85%) 298 (100%) 358 (95%) Reported Collisions
(% of total)
(0%) 9 (100%) 30 (100%) 40 (100%) 299 (100%) 378 (100%) Severity Share of Reported
Collisions 0% 2% 8% 11% 79% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
• 5% higher shares of
fatal/severe
pedestrian collisions
• No reported
fatal/severe injury
bicycle collisions
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Coalinga Statewide Average
5 6
518
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
4 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
Collisions by Type
Rear End
Sideswipe
Broadside
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Overturned
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury
Other Injury
PDO
7 8
519
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
5 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other Improper Driving
Unsafe Speed
Following Too Closely
Traffic Signals and Signs
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the…
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Passing
Hazardous Parking
0% 10% 20% 30%
Collision Share
Fatal/Severe Injury
Other Injury
PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 15 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 2 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (13%)
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe
Injury
(% of Total)
Visible
Injury
(% of Total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian
Involved 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 7 (47%) 5 (33%) 1 (7%) 15 (100%) 9 10
520
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
6 Pedestrian Collisions by Reported
Action and Location
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Collision Frequency
Pedestrian Action
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - No Street Lights
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
11 12
521
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
7 Bicyclist Collisions
• There were 5 total bicycle collisions
• There were no fatal/severe injury bicycle collisions
• Three collisions were rear-end collisions that resulted in a visible injury
Fatal
(% of total)
Severe
Injury
(% of total)
Visible
Injury
(% of total)
Complaint
of Pain
(% of total)
Property
Damage
Only
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 ELM AVE & SEVENTH
ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 44.02 11 0 1 1 2 7
2 ELM AVE & FIFTH ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 41.78 10 0 1 1 0 8
3 ELM AVE &

CAMBRIDGE AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 40.58 4 0 1 1 0 2
4 ELM AVE & FIRST ST &

VAN NESS ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 39.65 9 0 1 0 0 8
5 LONGHOLLOW WAY &

POPPY MEADOW CT
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
6 POLK STREET FROM

HAYES ST TO
HACHMAN ST Segment 35.27 3 0 1 1 0 1
7 DURIAN AVE & THIRD
ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
8 SR 198 FROM LUCILLE
AVE TO 7TH ST Segment 33.33 3 0 1 0 0 2
9 ELM AVE & PHELPS

AVE & OIL CITY RD
Intersection
(Signalized) 27.45 9 0 1 1 0 7
10 FOREST AVE & FIFTH
ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 7.79 14 0 0 1 3 10
13 14
522
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
8 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
15 16
523
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
9 Huron – Existing Conditions
• 18 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 5% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal (% of
column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain (% of
column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total (% of
column)
Pedestrian Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%0 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
1 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 3 (100%) 11 (100%) 17 (95%)
Reported Collisions
(% of total) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 3 (23%) 3 (17%) 11 (61%) 18 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Collisions 5% 0% 23% 17% 60% 100%
Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2015 2016 2017
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
17 18
524
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
10 Collisions by Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Not Stated
Rear End
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
0 1 2 3 4 5
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Unknown
Other Improper Driving
Automobile Right of
Way
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
Pedestrian Violation
Other Hazardous
Violation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
19 20
525
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
11 Collisions by Lighting
Daylight
Dark - No
Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 2 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• Both collisions resulted in other visible injuries
• One collision occurred in January and the other
occurred in October
• The reported actions and locations are:
• Crossing in a crosswalk not at an intersection
• Crossing not in a crosswalk
21 22
526
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
12 Bicyclist Collisions
• There were no bicyclist involved collisions reported in Huron from the study time period
High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 PALMER AVE & GIFFIN
AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.05 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 LASSEN AVE FROM

PALMER AVE TO CITY
LIMITS (NORTH) Segment 6.3 7 0 0 2 1 4
3 LASSEN AVE &

ELEVENTH ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 2.63 3 0 0 0 2 1
4 MYRTLE AVE &

ORANGE AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 0
5 FOURTH ST & CENTRAL
AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 0
6 PALMER AVE & LASSEN
AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 0
7 NINTH ST & M ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
8 SEVENTH ST & M ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 M ST & FIFTH ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
10 STANFORD AVE & LOS

ANGELES ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
23 24
527
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
13 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
25 26
528
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
14 Selma – Existing Conditions
• 629 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 4% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users Involved
Fatal
(% of
column)
Severe
Injury
(% of
column)
Visible Injury
(% of
column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 11 (38%) 10 (35%) 2 (7%) 29 (4.5%) Bicycle Involved 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 12 (41%) 9 (31%) 4 (15%) 29 (4.5%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-
Fixed Object 5 (1%) 6 (1%) 50 (9%) 140 (24%) 370 (65%) 571 (91%) Reported Collisions
(% of total)
11 (100%) 10 (100%) 73 (100%) 159 (100%) 376(100%) 629 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Collisions 2% 2% 11% 25% 60% 100%
Fatal/Severe Collisions Compared to
Statewide Trends
• Higher share of both
pedestrian and
bicycle collisions
• No reported
motorcycle collisions
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Collision Share
Selma Statewide Average
27 28
529
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
15 Year-Over-Year Collision Trends
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Collisions by Type
Rear End
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Head-On
Broadside
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Not Stated
Overturned
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Collision Frequency
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury PDO
29 30
530
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
16 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Pedestrian Violation
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Collision Share
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions
• There were 29 total pedestrian-involved collisions
• There were 6 fatal/severe injury pedestrian-involved
collisions (20%)
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Other Injury
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 21 (72%) 2 (8%) 29 (100%) 31 32
531
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
17 Pedestrian Collisions by Reported Action and
Location
• All reported fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions occurred when a pedestrian was crossing not in a crosswalk or crossing at a crosswalk in an intersection
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting
Dusk- Dawn
Dark - No Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Collision Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
33 34
532
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
18 Bicyclist Collision
• There were 29 reported bicycle collisions
• 4 collisions (14%) resulted in a fatality or severe injury Fatal
(% of total)
Severe Injury
(% of total)
Other Injury
(% of total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Bicycle Involved 3 (10%) 1 (4%) 21 (72%) 4 (14%) 29 (100%) High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage Only
Collisions
1 MCCALL AVE & GOLDRIDGE
ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 77.51 4 0 2 0 1 1
2 FLORAL AVE FROM WEST OF

DE WOLF AVE TO EAST OF
LEONARD AVE Segment 70.02 8 2 0 1 1 4
3 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE FROM

WEST OF MCCALL AVE TO
EAST OF MCCALL AVE Segment 68.40 5 1 1 1 0 2
4 WHITSON ST & GAITHER ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 40.88 5 1 0 0 2 2
5 SECOND ST & YOUNG ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 40.06 6 0 1 0 1 4
6 FLORAL AVE & FRONT ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 39.86 5 1 0 0 1 3
7 THOMPSON AVE & FRONT ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 39.46 3 0 1 0 1 1
8 MITCHELL AVE & NELSON
BLVD
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.65 4 1 0 0 0 3
9 MCCALL AVE & VALLEY VIEW
AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.45 3 0 1 0 0 2
10 THOMPSON AVE &

NEBRASKA AVE
Intersection
(Unsignalized) - Urban 38.45 3 0 1 0 0 2
35 36
533
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
19 Discussion and Questions
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
37 38
534
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
20 Orange Cove – Existing Conditions
• There were three reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019
• This is based on what was cited by the responding officer • In relocating crashes for the purpose of spatial analysis, it appears some collisions did occur within the City but were recorded as having occurred in unincorporated county
Collision A
• Severity of fatality
• Rear-end collision
• PCF of unsafe lane change
• A truck collided with a parked motor vehicle
• Alcohol was involved
• Lighting condition of dark with street lights
• Occurred in the month of January and in the hour of 10 PM to 11 PM
39 40
535
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
21 Collision B
• Severity of fatality
• Broadside collision
• PCF of traffic signals and signs
• Lighting condition of dusk-dawn
• Clear weather, dry road condition
• Occurred in the month of April and in the hour of 4 PM to 5 PM
Collision C
• Severity of property damage only
• Broadside collision
• PCF of other improper driving
• Lighting condition of daylight
• Clear weather, dry road condition
• Occurred in the month of November and in the hour of 2 PM to 3 PM
41 42
536
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
22 High Priority Locations
# Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total Number
of Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other Visible
Injury
Collisions
Complaint of
Pain
Collisions
Property
Damage
Only
Collisions
1 MONSON AVE & MANNING AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 45.68 5 0 1 3 1 0
2 HILLS VALLEY RD FROM C ST TO
NORTH OF AVENUE 464 Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 ANCHOR AVE FROM PARLIER AVE
TO NORTH OF SOUTH AVE Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 MANNING AVE FROM WEST OF
HILL AVE TO ANCHOR AVE* Segment 3.43 7 0 0 0 2 5
5 SUMMER AVE FROM MONSON
AVE TO ANCHOR AVE Segment 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
6 MONSON AVE FROM NORTH OF

MANNING AVE TO SOUTH OF
MANNING AVE* Segment 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
7 MONSON AVE & SOUTH AVE*
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
rural 1.22 1 0 0 0 1 0
8 TENTH ST & PARK ST
Intersection
(Unsignalized) -
Urban 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 PARLIER AVE FROM WEST OF

ANCHOR AVE TO EAST OF ANCHOR
AVE* Segment 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 1
Discussion and Questions
43 44
537
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
23 Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Approach to LWG Group A Meetings
• Existing Conditions for City of Coalinga
• Existing Conditions for City of Huron
• Existing Conditions for City of Selma
• Existing Conditions for City of Orange Cove
• Upcoming Work Activities
Upcoming Work Activities
• Your comments on existing conditions
• Please provide by June 3, 2021
• Our activities
• Finalize existing conditions
• Start identifying countermeasures and strategies
• Continue conversations on high priority locations
45 46
538
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #1
24 Questions?
47 539
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group A –
Meeting #2
August 24, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Reminder: Provide names and contact
information for focus group meeting
participants by August 31st.
1 2
540
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
2 Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• Countermeasures from the Fresno Regional Safety Plan
toolbox
• Priority assigned based on effectiveness to address local agency’s top collision types and primary collision factors • Summary of high priority countermeasures and associated collision locations
High Priority Countermeasures
Roadways
Countermeasure Crash Type Clovis County
Street Lighting Night ● ●
Remove/Relocate Fixed Objects Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● Install Guardrails Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ●
Install Raised Median Improper Turning ●
Road Diet Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ●
Widen Shoulder Sideswipe, Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ●
High Friction Surface Treatment Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Install/Upgrade Fluorescent Signs Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Install Edgelines and Centerlines Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed Warning
Signs
Poor Weather Conditions ●
3 4
541
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
3 High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type Clovis County
Street Lighting Night ●
Improve Signal Hardware Broadside ●
Install Advanced Warning Flashing Beacons Unsafe Speed ● Roundabout Broadside ●
Signalized Intersections
High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type Clovis County
Street Lighting Night ●
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Warning/
Regulatory Signs
Broadside ●
Upgrade Intersection Markings Broadside ●
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Broadside ●
Unsignalized Intersections
5 6
542
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
4 High Priority Countermeasures
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Countermeasure Crash Type Clovis County
Install Sidewalk / Pathway Pedestrian ●
Install Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian ●
Install/Upgrade Enhanced Pedestrian
Crossings
Pedestrian ●
Install Pedestrian Countdown Heads Pedestrian ●
Install Raised Median Refuge Islands Pedestrian ●
Install Bike Lanes Overrepresented Bicycle ●
Bike Lane Extensions Through Intersections Overrepresented Bicycle ● Bike Boxes Overrepresented Bicycle ●
Clovis – Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Broadside – 23%
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 23%
• Hit Object – 18%
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Pedestrian Violation – 20%
• DUI – 16%
• Unsafe Speed – 13%
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Exceeds Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
7 8
543
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
5 Clovis – Top Locations
Clovis – Top Collision Type Locations
9 10
544
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
6 Clovis – Top PCF Locations
Unincorporated Fresno County - Collision
Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Broadside – 30%
• Hit Object – 25%
• Overturned– 14%
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Improper Turning – 27%
• DUI – 21%
• Unsafe Speed – 15%
Does not Exceed Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
11 12
545
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
7 Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Locations
Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Locations
13 14
546
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
8 Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Locations
Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Collision
Type Locations
15 16
547
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
9 Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Collision
Type Locations
Unincorporated Fresno County – Top Collision
Type Locations
17 18
548
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
10 Unincorporated Fresno County – Top PCF
Locations
Unincorporated Fresno County – Top PCF
Locations
19 20
549
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
11 Unincorporated Fresno County – Top PCF
Locations
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
21 22
550
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
12 HSIP Strategy Development
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR) Projects
• Reliant on crash history to quantify benefit
• Countermeasures have a crash reduction factor to quantify benefit
• Can combine multiple countermeasures
• Cost is estimated through concept development
• Low-cost countermeasures help increase BCR
• Minimize non-safety-related components to help increase BCR • Needs to address a Statewide Challenge Area
• Highest BCRs are typically selected
HSIP Strategy Development
Set-asides
• Not reliant on a BCR
• Past Categories:
• Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements ($250k max award)
• Installing Edgelines ($250k max award)
• Guardrail Upgrades ($1M max award)
• Tribes ($250k max award)
23 24
551
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
13 HSIP Strategy Development
LRSP Project Scope
• Identify up to two strategies per local agency
• Prepare corresponding HSIP applications for each local agency Unincorporated Fresno County – Existing
Conditions
• 18,314 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 7% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
35 (10%) 39 (4%) 42 (2%) 24 (1%) 4 (0%) 144 (1%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 14 (4%) 23 (3%) 51 (2%) 29 (1%) 11 (0%) 128 (1%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
308 (86%) 830 (93%) 2,348 (96%) 3,566 (98%) 10,990 (100%) 18,042 (98%) Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
357 [2%] 892 [5%] 2,441 [13%] 3,619 [20%] 11,005 [60%] 18,314 [100%] 25 26
552
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
14 Unincorporated Fresno County – HSIP
Strategies
Strategy 1: Systemic Roadway Segment Treatments
This strategy would include a combination of edgeline striping, rumble strips, and curve warning signs.

Why?
Hit object and overturned vehicles were top collision types that can be addressed with these countermeasures.

Many roadways within Unincorporated Fresno County are two lanes with a rural setting. This applies low-cost improvements that can benefit many historical crashes.

We successfully received HSIP grant funding for Stanislaus County using a similar approach.

Where?
Applied across multiple roads in Unincorporated Fresno County. We would identify miles of roadways prone to run-off road and night time crashes using a data evaluation tool and develop the extents of the roadways to include.

Unincorporated Fresno County – HSIP
Strategies
Strategy 2: Systemic Unsignalized Intersection Treatments This strategy would include a combination of improved signing and marking, transverse rumble strips, advanced warning signs, and median island splitters.

Why?
Broadside was a top collision type that can be addressed with these countermeasures. Many intersections within Unincorporated Fresno County are unsignalized and on high speed roadways. This applies low-cost improvements that can benefit many historical crashes.

We successfully received HSIP grant funding for Stanislaus County using a similar approach.

Where?
Applied at numerous unsignalized intersections in Unincorporated Fresno County. We would identify locations with certain typologies prone to broadside and rear-end crashes using a data evaluation tool and develop a list of intersections to include.
27 28
553
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
15 Unincorporated Fresno County – HSIP
Strategies
Strategy 3: Single Site
This strategy would focus an improvement project on a location with a high crash severity score.

Why?
Providing countermeasures to a single location that has a high crash severity score based on historical crashes can fund needed improvements. Reasons for improvement vary by location. More than one location can potentially be combined if the treatments are similar and the BCR remains competitive.

Where?
Potential options based on the crash severity score rankings include:
a. Auberry Road / Frazier Road: unsignalized intersection enhancements specific to the triangle of intersections at this location.
b. Auberry Road / Old Auberry Road: provide roadway and unsignalized intersection enhancements. c. McCall Ave / Jensen Ave: provide signalized intersection and pedestrian enhancements.

Other locations of interest to the County that does not have a recent or planned improvement.

Discussion & Questions
29 30
554
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
16 Clovis – Existing Conditions
• 3,507 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
4 (40%) 11 (24%) 25 (9%) 41 (4%) 9 (1%) 90 (3%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 1 (10%) 4 (9%) 31 (11%) 59 (6%) 23 (1%) 118 (3%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
5 (50%) 31 (67%) 221 (80%) 941 (90%) 2,101 (98%) 3,299 (94%) Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
10 [1%] 46 (1%) 277 [8%] 1,041 [30%] 2,133 [60%] 3,507 [100%] Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: Site Specific
This strategy would focus an improvement project on one location with a high crash severity score.

Why?
Providing countermeasures to locations that have a high crash severity score based on historical crashes can fund needed improvements. This strategy would combine signalized intersection enhancements and pedestrian enhancements specific to the location.

Where?
One or more of the three locations identified in the Regional Safety Plan:
a. Fowler Avenue / Ashlan Avenue
b. Clovis Avenue / Barstow Avenue & Railroad Avenue / Barstow Avenue c. Sunnyside Avenue / Barstow Avenue
31 32
555
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
17 Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Systemic Signalized Intersection Improvements This strategy would provide improvement projects at multiple signalized intersection locations that would benefit from similar treatments. This strategy would combine signalized intersection enhancements and pedestrian enhancements specific to these locations.

We would need to confirm the 29 signalized intersections that received HSIP Cycle 9 funding for pedestrian push button and countdown heads and determine if and how those locations could be included.

Why?
Providing countermeasures to locations that have a high crash severity score based on historical crashes can fund needed improvements. In particular, pedestrian-related collisions at signalized intersections was reviewed.

Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Systemic Signalized Intersection Improvements (continued) Where?
A list of potential locations that could be combined in the package are provided in the table and represent those with high fatal and severe injury crash history.

This project could also be expanded to an even more systemic approach that includes a much longer list of signalized intersections in the City that have an intersection of two roadways each having at least four lanes. The exact locations and competitiveness for HSIP would be further developed if of interest.

Intersection Fatal Severe Injury Other Injury Total
Fowler Ave / Ashlan Ave 0 2 0 2
Clovis Ave / Barstow Ave & Railroad Ave
/ Barstow Ave
0 2 2 4
Sunnyside Ave / Barstow Ave 0 2 1 3
Bullard Ave / Villa Ave 1 0 3 4
Herndon Ave / Villa Ave 1 0 1 2
Fowler Ave / Barstow Ave 1 0 2 3
33 34
556
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
18 Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: Street Lighting Improvements
This strategy would provide pedestrian-level street lighting at several locations.

Why?
A majority of the pedestrian collisions occurred at night time, some with street lights present but potentially not adequate lighting.

Where?
A list of potential locations that could be combined in the package would be developed further based on the location of pedestrian and bicyclist collisions and available lighting.

Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 4: Adaptive Signal Technology Corridor
This strategy would build from the HSIP Cycle 10 application for adaptive signal technology on Shaw Avenue and recommend similar enhancements to another corridor .

Why?
Having coordinated signal timing can improve traffic operations and reduce the risk of collisions along the corridor . Adaptive plans allow the timing plans to adjust to real-time traffic for improved coordination and operations.

Where?
Potential corridors would be:
 Ashlan Ave
 Herndon Ave
 Clovis Ave
 Fowler Ave
35 36
557
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
19 Clovis – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 5: Unsignalized Intersection Modifications
This strategy would provide a change in traffic control from a two-way stop to an all-way stop and/or other signing, marking, or operational improvements to unsignalized intersections.

Why?
Several unsignalized intersections with two-way stop control were found to have a crash history. Changing to an all-way stop can reduce the risk of crashes.

Where?
The following locations were identified as initial candidates to include:
 San Jose Ave / Minnewawa Ave
 Holland Ave / Willow Ave
 Clovis Ave / Palo Alto Ave
Locations would be selected with conformation that all-way stop control would provide a benefit to the crash history and also have volumes that help warrant the change.

Discussion & Questions
37 38
558
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
20 Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Developing LRSP Vision and Goals
Vision
The vision is the dreaming component, an idealized future description of your success. The best vision statements describe the desired long term, big picture outcome.

Goals
Goals supplement the vision to help refine the team’s focus and work towards outputs and outcomes that are measurable. Common types of goals are:
 a quantifiable approach that includes a number or percent-based reduction,  an idolized target goal such as “vision zero”, “quality environment”, or “connected network”, or  an investment-focused goal that discusses resources or funding commitments. 39 40
559
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
21 Unincorporated Fresno County – Draft Vision
Provide a roadway network that enables safe movement throughout the County for all users and modes.

Unincorporated Fresno County – Draft Goals

1. Use a data-driven approach to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce the risk of collisions.

2. Implement proven, low-cost engineering countermeasures systemically to maximize funding opportunities across the large geographic County footprint.

3. Partner with adjacent local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

4. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collisions across all public County roadways by 20% by 2026.

5. Engage citizens to provide feedback on roadway safety issues across the County.

6. Facilitate roadway safety stakeholder collaboration to identify effective ways to implement non- engineering strategies at key locations.

7. Reduce the number of lane departure collisions on public County roadways by 25% by 2026.

8. Reduce the number of broadside collisions on public County roadways by 33% by 2026.

9. Establish regular communication between first responders and City staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network. 41 42
560
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
22 Clovis – Draft Vision
Provide a quality transportation network by committing resources to activities that reduce the risk of fatal and injury collisions for people traveling on public roads.

Clovis – Draft Goals

1. Regularly review data-informed analysis and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk.

2. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collisions across all public City roadways by 25% by 2026.

3. Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions on public City roadways by 50% by 2026.

4. Implement proven roadway safety countermeasures systemically to target common collision types

5. Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

6. Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community.

7. Establish regular communication between first responders and City staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network. 43 44
561
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
23 Additional Goals for Consideration
In addition to the goals provided, additional goals related to the following topics could be added depending on the need and desire of each local agency:
• Policy changes
• Design standard updates / modifications
• Fee programs that fund safety countermeasures
• Encourage change in roadway travel behavior through proven and equitable enforcement and educational strategies
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
45 46
562
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
24 Upcoming Work Activities
• Items for further input on
• August 31st deadline for confirm focus group meeting participants • September 10th deadline for confirmation/clarity on HSIP strategy • September 17th deadline for comments on vision and goals • Our activities
• Conduct focus group meetings
• Finalize countermeasure recommendations
• Advance agreed upon HSIP Strategy
• Start drafting the MLRSP final document
Upcoming Work Activities
• Next and Final Round of LWG Meetings
• Late November 2021/Early December 2021
• Topics
• Draft MLRSP – Each Local Agency’s LRSP
• Update on HSIP Applications
47 48
563
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group A – Meeting #2
25 Questions?
49 564
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group B –
Meeting #2
August 24, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Reminder: Provide names and contact
information for focus group meeting
participants by August 31st.
1 2
565
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
2 Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• Countermeasures from the Fresno Regional Safety Plan
toolbox
• Priority assigned based on effectiveness to address local agency’s top collision types and primary collision factors • Summary of high priority countermeasures and associated collision locations
High Priority Countermeasures
Roadways
Countermeasure Crash Type F K M SJ
Street Lighting Night ● ●
Remove/Relocate Fixed Objects Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Install Guardrails Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ●
Install Raised Median Head On ●
Road Diet Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ●
Widen Shoulder Sideswipe, Unsafe Speed ● ●
High Friction Surface Treatment Rear End, Unsafe Speed ● Install/Upgrade Fluorescent Signs Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Install Edgelines and Centerlines Hit Object, Head On, Unsafe Speed ● ● ● Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes Head On, Sideswipe ● ● ● Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● ● Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed
Warning Signs
Hit Object ●
3 4
566
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
3 High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type F K M SJ
Street Lighting Night ● ● ●
Improve Signal Hardware Rear End ●
Provide Dilemma-Zone Detection Rear End ●
Install Advanced Warning Flashing
Beacons
Unsafe Speed, Rear End ●
No Right-Turn on Red Pedestrian ● ● ●
Roundabout All ●
Signalized Intersections
High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type F K M SJ
Street Lighting Night ● ● ●
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Warning/
Regulatory Signs
All ●
Upgrade Intersection Markings All ●
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Rear End ●
Roundabout All ●
Unsignalized Intersections
5 6
567
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
4 High Priority Countermeasures
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Countermeasure Crash Type F K M SJ
Install Sidewalk / Pathway Pedestrian ● ● ●
Install/Upgrade Enhanced Pedestrian
Crossings
Pedestrian ● ● ●
Install/Upgrade Enhanced Pedestrian
Crossings at Uncontrolled Locations
Pedestrian ● ● ●
Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval Pedestrian ●
Install Raised Median Refuge Islands Pedestrian ● ● ●
Firebaugh – Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 50% (3
collisions)
• Head on – 17% (1 collision)
• Hit Object – 17% (1 collision)
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Pedestrian Violation – 50%
• Automobile Right of Way – 15%
• Other Improper Driving – 15%
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
7 8
568
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
5 Firebaugh – Top Locations
Firebaugh – Top Collision Type Locations
9 10
569
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
6 Firebaugh – Top PCF Locations
Kerman - Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 40% (2
collisions)
• Head on – 20% (1 collision)
• Rear end – 20% (1 collision)
• Sideswipe – 20% (1 collision)
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Pedestrian Right of Way – 40% (2
collisions)
• DUI – 40% (2 collisions)
• Other Violation – 20% (1 collision)
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
11 12
570
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
7 Kerman – Top Locations
Kerman – Top Collision Type Locations
13 14
571
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
8 Kerman – Top PCF Locations
Mendota - Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 50% (3
collisions)
• Rear end – 33% (2 collisions)
• Sideswipe – 17% (1 collision)
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury Primary
Collision Factors
• Automobile Right of Way – 33% (2
collisions)
• Pedestrian Right of Way – 33% (2
collisions)
• Unsafe Speed – 17% (1 collision)
• Pedestrian Violation – 17% (1 collision)
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
15 16
572
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
9 Mendota – Top Locations
Mendota – Top Collision Type Locations
17 18
573
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
10 Mendota – Top PCF Locations
San Joaquin – Existing Conditions
• 2 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019

1. PDO: Idaho Ave / 9th St intersection, a vehicle hit object from improper turning at 1 PM with dry conditions. Alcohol was involved.

2. Complaint of Pain: South Main St north of West Colorado Ave, a vehicle hit object from driving under the influence at 12 AM in dark with streetlights and dry conditions.
19 20
574
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
11 San Joaquin – Top Locations
San Joaquin – Top Collision Type Locations
21 22
575
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
12 San Joaquin – Top PCF Locations
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
23 24
576
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
13 HSIP Strategy Development
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR) Projects
• Reliant on crash history to quantify benefit
• Countermeasures have a crash reduction factor to quantify benefit
• Can combine multiple countermeasures
• Cost is estimated through concept development
• Low-cost countermeasures help increase BCR
• Minimize non-safety-related components to help increase BCR • Needs to address a Statewide Challenge Area
• Highest BCRs are typically selected
HSIP Strategy Development
Set-asides
• Not reliant on a BCR
• Past Categories:
• Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements ($250k max award)
• Installing Edgelines ($250k max award)
• Guardrail Upgrades ($1M max award)
• Tribes ($250k max award)
25 26
577
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
14 HSIP Strategy Development
LRSP Project Scope
• Identify up to two strategies per local agency
• Prepare corresponding HSIP applications for each local agency Firebaugh – Existing Conditions
• 130 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 5% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (11%) 1 (1%) 7 (5%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
1 (25%) 2 (100%) 8 (89%) 15 (83%) 96 (99%) 122 (94%)
Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
4 [3%] 2 [2%] 9 [7%] 18 [14%] 97 [75%] 130 [100%]
27 28
578
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
15 Firebaugh – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: N Street Corridor, Saipan Avenue to 8th Street This strategy would include a mix of signalized, unsignalized, and pedestrian enhancements at the intersections along N Street. Potential improvements would be high visibility pedestrian crossings, flashing beacons at unsignalized intersections, and signal equipment upgrades.

N Street is a state route and would require coordination with Caltrans.

Why?
Three of the four fatalities in the data were along N Street.

Where?
The proposed limits of the project are N Street between Saipan Avenue and 8th Street. This 3/4-mile stretch of N Street includes two signalized intersections and seven unsignalized intersections.

Firebaugh – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: N Street Roundabouts
This strategy would change traffic control to a roundabout at one or more locations.

Why?
Roundabouts reduce the severity of crashes and also have benefits to reducing travel speed and improving pedestrian crossings.

Where?
Possible locations are along N Street at the intersections of Thirteenth Street, Twelfth Street, or Saipan Avenue.

N Street is a state route and would require coordination with Caltrans. 29 30
579
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
16 Firebaugh – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Why?
Improving pedestrian crossings can help reduce the risk of future pedestrian fatalities and help reduce vehicle travel speeds. There is no benefit-to-cost ratio requirement for this set-aside, so the improvements can be placed where there is need or desire established from the local agency.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along safe route to school paths.

Discussion & Questions
31 32
580
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
17 Kerman – Existing Conditions
• 200 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
1 (33%) 1 (50%) 6 (19%) 3 (8%) 1 (1%) 12 (6%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
2 (67%) 1 (50%) 25 (78%) 38 (88%) 118 (98%) 184 (92%)
Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
3 [1%] 2 [1%] 32 [16%] 43 [22%] 120 [60%] 200 [100%]
Kerman – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: 1st Street and C Street
This strategy would include a combination of installing pedestrian crossing signing and marking, curb ramps, and potential other pedestrian enhancements.

Why?
This location was high ranking on the crash severity score and low-cost countermeasures may score well.

Where?
This would be applied to the intersection of 1st Street and C Street and could also be applied to other similar unsignalized intersections that would provide access to the park or school nearby. 33 34
581
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
18 Kerman – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Madera Avenue and Whitesbridge Avenue Signal Improvements This strategy would include review of the signal timing and equipment to consider installation of retroreflective backplates, coordinated signal timing plans, changes to pedestrian intervals or all-red clearances, and pedestrian crosswalk facilities.

Coordination with Caltrans would be required.

Why?
Most collisions in Kerman occurred on these two corridors and several at the signalized intersections. Low-cost countermeasures that can be implemented to improve traffic operations and increase safety may have multiple benefits.

Where?
The four signals along Madera Avenue between Whitesbridge Avenue and E Street and the four other signals along Whitesbridge Avenue between Siskiyou Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue could be included.

Kerman – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: Madera Avenue Corridor Improvements
This strategy would include review of the signal timing and equipment to consider installation of retroreflective backplates, coordinated signal timing plans, changes to pedestrian intervals or all-red clearances, and pedestrian crosswalk facilities.

Coordination with Caltrans would be required.

Why?
Madera Avenue is a main corridor that has a crash history and potential for low-cost improvements. Modified signal timing, upgraded equipment, and enhanced pedestrian crossings could benefit safety along the entire corridor .

Where?
The four signals along Madera Avenue between Whitesbridge Avenue and E Street would be included. Other non-signalized intersections along Madera Avenue could also be added for pedestrian crossing enhancements. 35 36
582
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
19 Kerman – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 4: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along a safe route to school path. The 1st Street and C Street intersection may be covered in this if the benefit-to-cost ratio for that location is not competitive.

Discussion & Questions
37 38
583
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
20 Mendota – Existing Conditions
• 348 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
2 (67%) 1 (33%) 7 (29%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) 13 (4%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
1 (33%) 2 (66%) 17 (71%) 49 (94%) 265 (99.7%) 334 (96%) Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
3 [1%] 3 [1%] 24 [7%] 52 [15%] 266 [76%] 348 [100%]
Mendota – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: Fifth Street and Oller Street
This strategy would include intersection enhancements for the intersection of Fifth Street and Oller Street.

Potential improvements include advanced warning signing and marking and pedestrian crossing enhancements.

Why?
This intersection had a fatal crash and two pedestrian-involved crashes. Low-cost countermeasures may score well for the BCR application.

Where?
The focus of the improvements would be on the intersection of Fifth Street and Oller Street and its approaches.
39 40
584
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
21 Mendota – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Oller Street Corridor Improvements
This strategy would include both intersection and roadway enhancements for Oller Street between Derrick Avenue and Belmont Avenue. Potential improvements include upgrading signing and marking, change in traffic control, road diet, street lighting, and pedestrian crossing enhancements.

Why?
Oller Street is a main corridor that has a crash history and potential for low-cost improvements. Modified signal timing, upgraded equipment, and enhanced pedestrian crossings could benefit safety along the entire corridor .

Mendota – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along a safe route to school path.
41 42
585
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
22 Mendota – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 4: Derrick Avenue Roundabouts Improvements
This strategy would consider additional locations on Derrick Avenue for roundabout installation or additional roadway features that would complement the planned roundabout project.

Why?
Roundabouts reduce the severity of crashes and also have benefits to reducing travel speed and improving pedestrian crossings. The need based on historical crash data is pending more information on the current Derrick Avenue project.

Where?
The location(s) are to be determined pending more information on the current Derrick Avenue project.

Mendota – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 4: Derrick Avenue Roundabouts Improvements
This strategy would consider additional locations on Derrick Avenue for roundabout installation or additional roadway features that would complement the planned roundabout project.

Where?
The location(s) are to be determined pending more information on the current Derrick Avenue project. 43 44
586
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
23 Discussion & Questions
Additional ideas
 upgrading signage to MUTCD standards for size and reflectivity;  refreshing faded pavement markings (they seem to fade or black out quicker in Mendota than, say Fresno or Clovis and we are trying to figure out why);
 enhance street/pedestrian lighting on 7th Street between Tule and Oller; and  traffic calming measures to reducing speeding on City streets (alternatives to speed bumps/humps) San Joaquin – Existing Conditions
• 2 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019

1. PDO: Idaho Ave / 9th St intersection, a vehicle hit object from improper turning at 1 PM with dry conditions. Alcohol was involved.

2. Complaint of Pain: South Main St north of West Colorado Ave, a vehicle hit object from driving under the influence at 12 AM in dark with streetlights and dry conditions.
45 46
587
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
24 San Joaquin – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
We would look to include the intersections of Main Street/Colorado Avenue and 9th Street/Colorado Avenue.

The complete package of improvements could include other intersections that have access to parks, schools, or along certain corridors.

Discussion & Questions
Due to the low number of crashes in San Joaquin, the benefit-to-cost ratio anticipated for any improvements is anticipated to be low and not competitive.

We additionally considered the HSIP Set-aside for edgelines, but did not find any roadways that need edgelines except perhaps Placer Avenue which does not have adequate width for striping edgelines.
47 48
588
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
25 Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Developing LRSP Vision and Goals
Vision
The vision is the dreaming component, an idealized future description of your success. The best vision statements describe the desired long term, big picture outcome.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
26 Firebaugh – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Create a roadway network that provides a comfortable environment for all modes of transportation within the City.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Systemically implement safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes across the City’s public roadways.

3. Enhance pedestrian facilities and crossings on state routes that are within the City boundary in coordination with Caltrans.

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Kerman – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Enable safe travel for people walking, biking, or moving in or with motorized vehicles on the City’s public roadways.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Prioritize safety in design of roadway improvements and access to new development.

3. Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment. 51 52
590
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
27 Mendota – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
To continuously improve our roadways to help all users reach their destination safely.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Coordinate with Caltrans on implementing roadway network changes on the state routes that are within the City boundary

3. Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

San Joaquin – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Provide an opportunity for safe roadway travel for all.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways.

2. Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.

3. Improve available collision data

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment. 53 54
591
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
28 Additional Goals for Consideration
In addition to the goals provided, additional goals related to the following topics could be added depending on the need and desire of each local agency:
• Policy changes
• Design standard updates / modifications
• Fee programs that fund safety countermeasures
• Encourage change in roadway travel behavior through proven and equitable enforcement and educational strategies
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
55 56
592
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
29 Upcoming Work Activities
• Items for further input on
• August 31st deadline for confirm focus group meeting participants • September 10th deadline for confirmation/clarity on HSIP strategy • September 17th deadline for comments on vision and goals • Our activities
• Conduct focus group meetings
• Finalize countermeasure recommendations
• Advance agreed upon HSIP Strategy
• Start drafting the MLRSP final document
Upcoming Work Activities
• Next and Final Round of LWG Meetings
• Late November 2021/Early December 2021
• Topics
• Draft MLRSP – Each Local Agency’s LRSP
• Update on HSIP Applications
57 58
593
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group B – Meeting #2
30 Questions?
59 594
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group C –
Meeting #2
August 23, 2021
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Reminder: Provide names and contact
information for focus group meeting
participants by August 31st.
1 2
595
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
2 Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• Countermeasures from the Fresno Regional Safety Plan
toolbox
• Priority assigned based on effectiveness to address local agency’s top collision types and primary collision factors • Summary of high priority countermeasures and associated collision locations
High Priority Countermeasures
Roadways
Countermeasure Crash Type C H S OC
Street Lighting Night ● ●
Remove/Relocate Fixed Objects Hit Object ●
Install Guardrails Hit Object ●
Install Raised Median Improper Turning ●
Road Diet Hit Object ●
Widen Shoulder Sideswipe ● ●
High Friction Surface Treatment Rear End, Hit Object ● ● Install/Upgrade Fluorescent Signs Sideswipe, Hit Object ● ● Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs Hit Object, Unsafe Speed ● Install Edgelines and Centerlines Hit Object, Head On, Unsafe Speed ● Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes Sideswipe ●
Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes Hit Object ●
Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed
Warning Signs
Hit Object ●
3 4
596
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
3 High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type C H S OC
Street Lighting Night ● ● ●
Improve Signal Hardware Rear End, Broadside ● ● ● ●
Provide Dilemma-Zone Detection Rear End ● ● ● ●
Install Advanced Warning Flashing
Beacons
Rear End, Broadside ● ● ●
No Right-Turn on Red Pedestrian ●
Roundabout All ● ● ●
Signalized Intersections
High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Crash Type C H S OC
Street Lighting Night ● ● ●
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Warning/
Regulatory Signs
All ● ● ● ●
Upgrade Intersection Markings All ● ● ● ●
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Rear End ● ● ● ● Roundabout All ● ● ●
Unsignalized Intersections
5 6
597
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
4 High Priority Countermeasures
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Countermeasure Crash Type C H S OC
Install Sidewalk / Pathway Pedestrian ● ●
Install/Upgrade Enhanced Pedestrian
Crossings
Pedestrian ● ●
Install/Upgrade Enhanced Pedestrian
Crossings at Uncontrolled Locations
Pedestrian ● ●
Install Raised Median Refuge Islands Pedestrian ● ●
Install Bike Lanes Overrepresented Bicycle ●
Bike Lane Extension Through
Intersections
Overrepresented Bicycle ●
Bike Boxes Overrepresented Bicycle ●
Coalinga – Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Rear End – 44%
• Sideswipe – 26%
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 22%
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Improper Turning – 33%
• Automobile Right of Way – 22%
• Unsafe Starting/Backing – 16%
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
7 8
598
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
5 Coalinga – Top Locations
Coalinga – Top Collision Type Locations
9 10
599
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
6 Coalinga – Top PCF Locations
Huron - Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Broadside – 5% (only fatal
collision)
• Sideswipe – 22%
• Rear end – 17%
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Automobile Right of Way – 5%
(only fatal collison)
• Unknown – 33%
• Improper Driving – 27%
Does not Exceed Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Does not Exceed Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
11 12
600
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
7 Huron – Top Locations
Huron – Top Collision Type Locations
13 14
601
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
8 Huron – Top PCF Locations
Selma – Collision Overview
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Collision Types
• Vehicle-Pedestrian – 29%
• Rear end – 29%
• Hit Object – 19%
Top 3 Fatal & Severe Injury
Primary Collision Factors
• Pedestrian Violation – 33%
• Automobile Right of Way – 4%
• DUI – 4%
Exceeds Statewide Pedestrian Collision Average
Exceeds Statewide Bicycle Collision Average
15 16
602
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
9 Selma – Top Locations
Selma – Top Collision Type Locations
17 18
603
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
10 Selma – Top PCF Locations
Orange Cove – Existing Conditions
• 3 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019

1. Fatal: Anchor Avenue just north of South Avenue, a truck rear ended a parked car (unsafe lane change) at 10 PM with
streetlights and dry conditions. Alcohol was involved.

2. Fatal: Hills Valley Road/Adams Avenue intersection, a broadside collision with the primary factor of traffic signals and signs at 4 PM in dry conditions.

3. PDO: Park Boulevard / 10th Street, a broadside collision at Citrus Mini Mart from improper driving at 2 PM.
19 20
604
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
11 Orange Cove – Top Locations
Orange Cove – Top Collision Type Locations
21 22
605
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
12 Orange Cove – Top PCF Locations
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
23 24
606
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
13 HSIP Strategy Development
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR) Projects
• Reliant on crash history to quantify benefit
• Countermeasures have a crash reduction factor to quantify benefit
• Can combine multiple countermeasures
• Cost is estimated through concept development
• Low-cost countermeasures help increase BCR
• Minimize non-safety-related components to help increase BCR • Needs to address a Statewide Challenge Area
• Highest BCRs are typically selected
HSIP Strategy Development
Set-asides
• Not reliant on a BCR
• Past Categories:
• Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements ($250k max award)
• Installing Edgelines ($250k max award)
• Guardrail Upgrades ($1M max award)
• Tribes ($250k max award)
25 26
607
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
14 HSIP Strategy Development
LRSP Project Scope
• Identify up to two strategies per local agency
• Prepare corresponding HSIP applications for each local agency Coalinga – Existing Conditions
• 378 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 2% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
(0%) 2 (22%) 7 (23%) 5 (13%) 1 (0%) 15 (4%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%)
Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
(0%) 7 (78%) 19 (63%) 34 (85%) 298 (100%) 358 (95%)
Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
0 [0%] 9 [2%] 30 [8%] 40 [10%] 299 [79%] 378 [100%]
27 28
608
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
15 Coalinga – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: Polk Street Corridor
This strategy would consider adding a two-way left-turn lane along Polk Street east of 5th Street, similar to the cross-section of Polk Street west of 5th Street.

Polk Street is a state route and would require coordination with Caltrans.

Why?
Adding a two-way left-turn lane would address rear-end and sideswipe collisions that are likely occurring due to driveway interactions along Polk Street.

Where?
The proposed limits of the project are Polk Street between 5th Street and Thompson Street.

Coalinga – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Elm Avenue Corridor
This strategy could cover additional locations or improvements that are not part of the City’s planned pedestrian enhancement improvements. Intersection and pedestrian enhancements could include striping and marking, traffic control changes, street lighting improvements, or signal modifications.

Elm Street is a state route and would require coordination with Caltrans.

Why?
Elm Street had several intersections with a high crash severity score.

Where?
The location of potential improvements depend on the extents of the current Elm Avenue project. There is 2 signalized intersections and 11 unsignalized intersections that could be included. 29 30
609
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
16 Coalinga – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along safe route to school paths.

Discussion & Questions
31 32
610
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
17 Huron – Existing Conditions
• 18 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 5% of reported collisions (1 of 18) resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
0 (0%) 0 (0%0 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
1 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 3 (100%) 11 (100%) 17 (95%)
Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
1 [5%] 0 [0%] 3 [23%] 3 [17%] 11 [61%] 18 [100%]
Huron – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along a safe route to school path. Lassen Avenue locations may be included but requires coordination with Caltrans. 33 34
611
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
18 Huron – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Systemic Unsignalized Intersection Treatments This strategy would include a combination of upgrading signing and marking, transverse rumble strips, and advanced warning signs.

Due to the low number of crashes in Huron, the benefit-to-cost ratio anticipated for these improvements is anticipated to be low and may not be competitive.

Why?
The unsignalized intersection of Palmer Avenue / Giffen Drive had a fatal collision. Upgraded signing and marking can reduce the risk of similar crashes occurring in the future at this intersection and other locations with similar characteristics.

Where?
This would be applied to the intersection of Palmer Avenue / Giffen Drive, and can also be applied to other similar unsignalized intersections along Palmer Avenue, M Street, 4th Street, and other locations with similar characteristics depending on the BCR. We would identify locations with certain typologies prone to broadside and rear-end crashes using a data evaluation tool and develop a list of intersections to include.

Lassen Avenue may also be included but requires coordination with Caltrans.

Discussion & Questions
35 36
612
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
19 Selma – Existing Conditions
• 629 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019 • 4% of reported collisions resulted in death or severe injury Road Users
Involved
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only Total
Pedestrian
Involved (% of
column)
3 (10%) 3 (10%) 11 (38%) 10 (35%) 2 (7%) 29 (4.5%)
Bicycle Involved
(% of column) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 12 (41%) 9 (31%) 4 (15%) 29 (4.5%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
(% of column)
5 (1%) 6 (1%) 50 (9%) 140 (24%) 370 (65%) 571 (91%)
Reported
Collisions
[% of total]
11 [2%] 10 [2%] 73 [11%] 159 [25%] 376 [60%] 629 [100%] Selma – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: McCall Avenue Corridor Improvements
This strategy would include consideration of a road diet (reduction from four lanes to three), intersection striping, marking, and curb modifications.

Why?
McCall Avenue / Goldridge Street was the top ranking location for crash severity score and other intersections along McCall Avenue had a crash history. Improving intersection crossings and reducing lanes would improve crossings near both elementary schools that are adjacent to McCall Avenue and adjacent retail centers.

Where?
The proposed limits are McCall Avenue between Dinuba Avenue and Mill Street. The project could also be shortened to between Dinuba Avenue and Floral Avenue.
37 38
613
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
20 Selma – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Whitson Street and Cinema Way
This strategy would include installation of a traffic signal and corresponding intersection and pedestrian improvements at a single location.

Why?
This intersection had a fatal crash and two pedestrian-involved crashes. There seems to be a desire line for walking and potential volumes to justify a traffic signal at this location.

Where?
The focus of the improvements would be on the intersection of Whitson Street and Cinema Way and its approaches.

Selma – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 3: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on a specific area of town, certain corridors, or along a safe route to school path.
39 40
614
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
21 Selma – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 4: Systemic Unsignalized Intersection Treatments This strategy would include a combination of upgrading signing and marking, transverse rumble strips, and advanced warning signs.

Why?
Several unsignalized intersections had high crash severity scores. Upgraded signing and marking can reduce the risk of similar crashes occurring in the future at this intersection and other locations with similar characteristics.

Where?
This would be applied to unsignalized intersections in the City that are close to parks, schools, or have similar characteristics. We would identify locations with certain typologies prone to broadside and rear-end crashes using a data evaluation tool and develop a list of intersections to include.

Discussion & Questions
41 42
615
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
22 Orange Cove – Existing Conditions
• 3 reported collisions between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019

1. Fatal: Anchor Avenue just north of South Avenue, a truck rear ended a parked car (unsafe lane change) at 10 PM with
streetlights and dry conditions. Alcohol was involved.

2. Fatal: Hills Valley Road/Adams Avenue intersection, a broadside collision with the primary factor of traffic signals and signs at 4 PM in dry conditions.

3. PDO: Park Boulevard / 10th Street, a broadside collision at Citrus Mini Mart from improper driving at 2 PM.

Orange Cove – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 1: HSIP Set-aside for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements This set-aside could fund low-cost pedestrian crossing enhancements at locations around the City up to a maximum cost of $250,000. Potential enhancements include the following:
 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads,
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other flashing beacons,  pedestrian crossing/signs,
 advanced yield lines/signs, and
 any other signs/striping modifications related to pedestrian crossings.

Where?
The limits of involvement could focus on certain corridors, or access to parks, schools, or retail centers that generate the most pedestrian activity.
43 44
616
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
23 Orange Cove – HSIP Strategies
Strategy 2: Unsignalized Intersection Enhancements
The strategy would install low-cost countermeasures such as advanced intersection warning signs and markings, transverse rumble strips, and consideration of all-way stop.

Why?
A broadside fatal crash occurred at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Hills Valley Road. Countermeasures to prevent similar crashes in the future would be considered at this location and other similar locations.

Where?
The intersection of Adams Avenue and Hills Valley Road and/or other similar unsignalized intersections in the City.

It seems like recent improvements were completed at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Hills Valley Road as well as Park Boulevard and Hills Valley Road that may influence the need for further enhancements. The approaches on Hills Valley Road could use advanced warning.

Hills Valley Road improvements require coordination with Caltrans.

Discussion & Questions
45 46
617
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
24 Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
Developing LRSP Vision and Goals
Vision
The vision is the dreaming component, an idealized future description of your success. The best vision statements describe the desired long term, big picture outcome.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
25 Coalinga – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety, meets the needs of the community and enriches the lives of residents.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Coordinate with Caltrans on implementing roadway network changes on the state routes that are within the City boundary

3. Regularly review data-informed analysis and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk.

4. Implement low-cost engineering solutions to address common collision types

5. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety

6. Maintain a roadway system that provides a quality environment for all users

7. Coordinate with traffic safety stakeholders such as fire, police, schools, and parks to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies.

Huron – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Provide a City roadway network that serves the needs of the community through quality infrastructure and environment.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways.

2. Utilize community input and collision data to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.

3. Implement low-cost engineering solutions to reduce collision risk

4. Maintain a quality roadway network for all users and modes

5. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety 49 50
619
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
26 Selma – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
A roadway network that supports safe travel for our community.

Goals

1. Perform regular reviews of collision data to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk.

2. Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community.

3. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collisions across all public City roadways by 50% by 2026.

4. Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions on public City roadways by 50% by 2026.

6. Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety Orange Cove – Draft Vision and Goals
Vision
Maintain and enhance safety on the City’s roadways through regular evaluation and identification of feasible improvements.

Goals

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways.

2. Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.

3. Improve collision data available

4. Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.

5. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment. 51 52
620
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
27 Additional Goals for Consideration
In addition to the goals provided, additional goals related to the following topics could be added depending on the need and desire of each local agency:
• Policy changes
• Design standard updates / modifications
• Fee programs that fund safety countermeasures
• Encourage change in roadway travel behavior through proven and equitable enforcement and educational strategies
Welcome
• Introductions
• Today’s Agenda
• Draft Countermeasure Recommendations
• HSIP Strategy Recommendations
• Draft LRSP Vision and Goals
• Upcoming Work Activities
53 54
621
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
28 Upcoming Work Activities
• Items for further input on
• August 31st deadline for confirm focus group meeting participants • September 10th deadline for confirmation/clarity on HSIP strategy • September 17th deadline for comments on vision and goals • Our activities
• Conduct focus group meetings
• Finalize countermeasure recommendations
• Advance agreed upon HSIP Strategy
• Start drafting the MLRSP final document
Upcoming Work Activities
• Next and Final Round of LWG Meetings
• Late November 2021/Early December 2021
• Topics
• Draft MLRSP – Each Local Agency’s LRSP
• Update on HSIP Applications
55 56
622
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Local Working Group C – Meeting #2
29 Questions?
57 623
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) November 30, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/91471290110?pwd=anNRQWRadlpxQ0NNczUvMzAxaWFOUT09 Meeting ID: 914 7129 0110
Passcode: 133423
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,91471290110#,,,,*133423# US (San Jose)
Topic: Local Working Group A – Meeting #3

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (5 minutes)

2. MLRSP Report Overview (40 minutes)
a. Report structure
b. Highlight new content
i. Performance measures
ii. Emphasis areas
iii. Evaluation and implementation
c. Discussion

3. Action Items and Next Steps (5 minutes)
a. Comment period for MLRSP
b. LRSP adoption support

4. Update on HSIP Applications (10 minutes)
a. County
b. City of Clovis

5. Adjourn
624
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group A –
Meeting #3
November 30, 2021
Welcome
Introductions
Today’s Agenda
• Update on HSIP Applications
• MLRSP Report Overview
• Action Items and Next Steps
1 2
625
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
2 Update on HSIP Applications: County
Application 1: BCR application for Systemic Unsignalized Intersection Treatments
• 44 unsignalized intersections included
• Improvements include:
• Upgrade intersection lighting
• Larger STOP signs
• Flashing beacon for advance warning
• Transverse rumble strips
• Angled stop bars
• BCR at 23.7
Update on HSIP Applications: County
Application 2: BCR application for Auberry / Frazier and Auberry / Old Auberry / Powerhouse
3 4
626
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
3 Update on HSIP Applications: County
Application 2: BCR application for Auberry / Frazier and Auberry / Old Auberry / Powerhouse
• Improvements include:
• Creating single T-intersection
• Improving sight distance
• Install turn lanes
• Upgrade intersection lighting
• BCR at 9.5, looking for input on revising concepts to increase BCR Update on HSIP Applications: Clovis
Application 1: BCR application for Clovis / Barstow and Railroad / Barstow
• BCR at 10.7
9 Introduce Lead
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI) –
LRSM ID S21PB
5 6
627
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
4 Update on HSIP Applications: Clovis
Application 2: BCR application for Adaptive Signal Technology Corridor, Clovis Avenue between Barstow and Gettysburg
• Used costs from previous Clovis application
• BCR at 25.3
MLRSP Report Overview
• Report structure
• Highlight new content
7 8
628
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
5 MLRSP Report Overview
Introduction
• Purpose and Scope
• Process
• Stakeholder Engagement
Activities
• Data Summary and Analysis
Approach
• Strategy Types
• Regional Efforts
Section for Each Jurisdiction
• Vision and Goals
• Safety Partners
• Performance Measures
• Data Summary
• Existing Roadway Safety
Performance
• Emphasis Areas
• Strategies
• Evaluation and Implementation
New Content
New Content
Safety Partners
• Agency staff and community partners involved in development of LRSP
• Strategies in LRSP require coordination with partners • Additional partners may be identified in the future
9 10
629
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
6 Performance Measures
Used to:
• Track progress
• Make data-informed decisions
• Support Vision and Goals
• Update LRSP
Based on:
• Number of annual collisions with key characteristics
• Investments made in traffic safety
• Coordination efforts between stakeholders
Need to identify process to track performance measures
Emphasis Areas
Key areas to focus on based on trends in the crash data Emphasis Area Clovis County
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes* ● ●
Broadside Collisions ● ●
Hit Object Collisions ● ●
Overturned Collisions ●
Unsafe Speed* and Driving Under the Influence* ● ●
* High Priority Challenge Area in California SHSP
11 12
630
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
7 Strategies
Engineering
Geometric/operational changes
to a roadway, intersection, or
pedestrian/bicycle
infrastructure
Education
Programs aimed at distributing
educational messages focused
on road user behavior
Emergency Services
Programs/policies that facilitate
coordination with
emergency/first responders
Enforcement
Programs/campaigns focused
on road user behavior through
more visible and active
enforcement
Engineering Strategies
• Based on top fatal and severe injury
collision types and primary collision factors
• Organized by roadway, intersection, and
pedestrian/bicycle countermeasures
Example from Clovis
13 14
631
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
8 Education Strategies
• Targeted based on emphasis areas
• Utilize Fresno COG Safe Roads Save Lives
campaign
• Recommended activities:
• Identify lead staff
• Meet with advocacy groups
• Work with school districts
• Spread materials through social media, print
materials, outdoor advertisements, PSAs, campaign
website
Emergency Services Strategies
• Review roadway modification projects for emergency vehicle access
• Identify opportunities to improve emergency response
processes
• Share anecdotal information on crash trends and hot spots 15 16
632
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
9 Enforcement Strategies
• Effectiveness is typically temporal
• Implement using equitable enforcement
Enforcement Strategies Clovis County
Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior) enforcement checks during strategic times of the year, such as when students return to school or the beginning of fog season. ● ●
Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high collision rates.
● ●
Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs, especially in school zones.
● ●
Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high collision rates or speeding citations.
●
Evaluation and Implementation
• Identify countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the collision data.
• Regularly coordinate with safety partner agencies
• Explore funding opportunities
• Coordinate with the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices. • Regularly collect and organize data to support evaluation of the LRSP
17 18
633
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
10 MLRSP Report
Comments due December 16
• Introduction
• Clovis: Chapter 2
• Fresno County: Chapter 5
Action Items and Next Steps
• Provide comments on MLRSP Draft Report by December 16 • Final MLRSP to be provided January 14
• LRSP approval support options:
(1) No additional support. You will use the final MLRSP and HSIP materials and present/share as needed with your local decision makers. (2) You would like presentation materials summarizing the final MLRSP and HSIP materials. You will present/share with local decision makers. (3) You would like presentation materials summarizing final deliverables and would like either the consultant team or the COG to present to local decision-makers.

County to present with Consultant support
19 20
634
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group A Meeting #3
11 Questions on MLRSP?
Action Items and Next Steps
• Draft HSIP applications January 2022
• Final HSIP applications March 2022
• HSIP call for projects anticipated around March 2022
21 22
635
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) November 30, 2021 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/98794915133?pwd=NXpTMHVEMnNzbVI0d0NaQkJyV04vQT09 Meeting ID: 987 9491 5133
Passcode: 446813
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,98794915133#,,,,*446813# US (San Jose)
Topic: Local Working Group B – Meeting #3

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (5 minutes)

2. MLRSP Report Overview (40 minutes)
a. Report structure
b. Highlight new content
i. Performance measures
ii. Emphasis areas
iii. Evaluation and implementation
c. Discussion

3. Action Items and Next Steps (5 minutes)
a. Comment period for MLRSP
b. LRSP adoption support

4. Update on HSIP Applications (10 minutes)
a. Firebaugh
b. Kerman
c. Mendota
d. San Joaquin

5. Adjourn
636
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group B –
Meeting #3
November 30, 2021
Welcome
Introductions
Today’s Agenda
• MLRSP Report Overview
• Update on HSIP Applications
• Action Items and Next Steps
1 2
637
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
2 MLRSP Report Overview
• Report structure
• Highlight new content
MLRSP Report Overview
Introduction
• Purpose and Scope
• Process
• Stakeholder Engagement
Activities
• Data Summary and Analysis
Approach
• Strategy Types
• Regional Efforts
Section for Each Jurisdiction
• Vision and Goals
• Safety Partners
• Performance Measures
• Data Summary
• Existing Roadway Safety
Performance
• Emphasis Areas
• Strategies
• Evaluation and Implementation
New Content
New Content
3 4
638
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
3 Safety Partners
• Agency staff and community partners involved in development of LRSP
• Strategies in LRSP require coordination with partners • Additional partners may be identified in the future
Performance Measures
Used to:
• Track progress
• Make data-informed decisions
• Support Vision and Goals
• Update LRSP
Based on:
• Number of annual collisions with key characteristics
• Investments made in traffic safety
• Coordination efforts between stakeholders
Need to identify process to track performance measures
5 6
639
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
4 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area Firebaugh Kerman Mendota San Joaquin
Pedestrian Crashes* ● ● ●
Head on Crashes ●
Hit Object Crashes ● ●
Driver Behaviors* ● ● ●
Improved Data Collection ● ● ●
Rear End Crashes ● ●
Intersections* ●
Sideswipe Crashes ●
School Routes and Railroad Crossings ●
* High Priority Challenge Area in California SHSP
Strategies
Engineering
Geometric/operational changes
to a roadway, intersection, or
pedestrian/bicycle
infrastructure
Education
Programs aimed at distributing
educational messages focused
on road user behavior
Emergency Services
Programs/policies that facilitate
coordination with
emergency/first responders
Enforcement
Programs/campaigns focused
on road user behavior through
more visible and active
enforcement
7 8
640
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
5 Engineering Strategies
• Based on top fatal and severe injury
collision types and primary collision factors
• Organized by roadway, intersection, and
pedestrian/bicycle countermeasures
Example from Clovis
Education Strategies
• Targeted based on emphasis areas
• Utilize Fresno COG Safe Roads Save Lives
campaign
• Recommended activities:
• Identify lead staff
• Meet with advocacy groups
• Work with school districts
• Spread materials through social media, print
materials, outdoor advertisements, PSAs, campaign
website
9 10
641
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
6 Emergency Services Strategies
• Review roadway modification projects for emergency vehicle access
• Identify opportunities to improve emergency response
processes
• Share anecdotal information on crash trends and hot spots Enforcement Strategies
• Effectiveness is temporal
• Implement equitable
enforcement
Enforcement Strategies F K M SJ
Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high
collision rates.
● ● ● ●
Consider opportunities for youth engagement, such as
“good behavior” ticket writing from students to adult
roadway users.
● ●
Identify opportunities to engage community members as
crossing guards to improve roadway safety for students. ● ●
Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior)
enforcement checks during strategic times of the year
● ●
Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs
● ● ●
Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high collision rates or speeding citations.
●
11 12
642
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
7 Evaluation and Implementation
• Identify countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the collision data.
• Regularly coordinate with safety partner agencies
• Explore funding opportunities
• Coordinate with the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices. • Regularly collect and organize data to support evaluation of the LRSP
MLRSP Report
Comments due December 16
• Introduction
• Firebaugh: Chapter 4
• Kerman: Chapter 7
• Mendota: Chapter 8
• San Joaquin: Chapter 10
13 14
643
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
8 Action Items and Next Steps
• Provide comments on MLRSP Draft Report by December 16 • Final MLRSP to be provided January 14
• LRSP approval support options:
(1) No additional support. You will use the final MLRSP and HSIP materials and present/share as needed with your local decision makers. (2) You would like presentation materials summarizing the final MLRSP and HSIP materials. You will present/share with local decision makers. (3) You would like presentation materials summarizing final deliverables and would like either the consultant team or the COG to present to local decision-makers.

Questions on MLRSP?
15 16
644
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
9 Update on HSIP Applications: Firebaugh
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements Clyde Fannon Drive Rabe Street Enhanced crossing
Clyde Fannon Drive Sablan Avenue Enhanced crossing
Clyde Fannon Drive Thomas Conboy Avenue Enhanced crossing 13th Street O Street Enhanced crossing
13th Street P Street Enhanced crossing
Saipan Avenue O Street Enhanced crossing
Saipan Avenue Landucci Drive Enhanced crossing
Saipan Avenue Q Street Enhanced crossing
Vasquez Drive Saipan Avenue Enhanced crossing
Morris Kyle Drive School Driveway Enhanced crossing
Morris Kyle Drive School Driveway Enhanced crossing
Update on HSIP Applications: Kerman
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements Kearney Boulevard Siskiyou Avenue Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S Park Avenue Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S Del Norte Avenue Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S Manor Drive Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S 1st Street Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S 3rd Street Enhanced crossing
Kearney Boulevard S 4th Street Enhanced crossing
17 18
645
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
10 Update on HSIP Applications: Kerman
Concept for
California/Goldenrod
• Not competitive for a BCR
application
• Providing countermeasure
to address recent
intersection control
modifications
Update on HSIP Applications: Mendota
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements McCabe Avenue Sorensen Avenue Enhanced crossing
Sorensen Avenue Gregg Court Enhanced crossing
5th Street Rio Frio Street Enhanced crossing
6th Street Rio Frio Street Enhanced crossing
7th Street Unida Street Enhanced crossing
7th Street Tule Street Enhanced crossing
7th Street Rio Frio Street Enhanced crossing
7th Street Pucheu Street Enhanced crossing
8th Street Tule Street Enhanced crossing
9th Street Quince Street Enhanced crossing
Belmont Avenue 8th Street Enhanced crossing
Belmont Avenue 9th Street Enhanced crossing
19 20
646
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
11 Update on HSIP Applications: Mendota
Concept for 2nd / J
• Not competitive for a
BCR application
• Providing speed
management
countermeasure
example
Update on HSIP Applications: San Joaquin
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements Manning Avenue Sutter Avenue Enhanced crossing
Manning Avenue Main Street Enhanced crossing
Manning Avenue Colorado Avenue Enhanced crossing
Manning Avenue Placer Avenue Enhanced crossing
Colorado Avenue 9th Street Enhanced crossing
Colorado Avenue Main Street Enhanced crossing
California Avenue 5th Street Enhanced crossing
California Avenue 6th Street Enhanced crossing
California Avenue 8th Street Enhanced crossing
California Avenue 9th Street Enhanced crossing
California Avenue Main Street Enhanced crossing
21 22
647
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group B Meeting #3
12 Action Items and Next Steps
• Draft HSIP applications January 2022
• Final HSIP applications March 2022
• HSIP call for projects anticipated around March 2022
23 648
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) November 30, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/96318820385?pwd=NDVkUVl6Lzk5bU5YYnBaM01UM0JHdz09 Meeting ID: 963 1882 0385
Passcode: 415374
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,96318820385#,,,,*415374# US (San Jose)

Topic: Local Working Group C – Meeting #3

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview (5 minutes)

2. MLRSP Report Overview (40 minutes)
a. Report structure
b. Highlight new content
i. Performance measures
ii. Emphasis areas
iii. Evaluation and implementation
c. Discussion

3. Action Items and Next Steps (5 minutes)
a. Comment period for MLRSP
b. LRSP adoption support

4. Update on HSIP Applications (10 minutes)
a. Coalinga
b. Huron
c. Orange Cove
d. Selma

5. Adjourn
649
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Local Working Group C –
Meeting #3
November 30, 2021
Welcome
Introductions
Today’s Agenda
• MLRSP Report Overview
• Update on HSIP Applications
• Action Items and Next Steps
1 2
650
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
2 MLRSP Report Overview
• Report structure
• Highlight new content
MLRSP Report Overview
Introduction
• Purpose and Scope
• Process
• Stakeholder Engagement
Activities
• Data Summary and Analysis
Approach
• Strategy Types
• Regional Efforts
Section for Each Jurisdiction
• Vision and Goals
• Safety Partners
• Performance Measures
• Data Summary
• Existing Roadway Safety
Performance
• Emphasis Areas
• Strategies
• Evaluation and Implementation
New Content
New Content
3 4
651
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
3 Safety Partners
• Agency staff and community partners involved in development of LRSP
• Strategies in LRSP require coordination with partners • Additional partners may be identified in the future
Performance Measures
Used to:
• Track progress
• Make data-informed decisions
• Support Vision and Goals
• Update LRSP
Based on:
• Number of annual collisions with key characteristics
• Investments made in traffic safety
• Coordination efforts between stakeholders
Need to identify process to track performance measures
5 6
652
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
4 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area Coalinga Huron Orange
Cove Selma
Pedestrian Crashes* ● ●
Rear End Crashes ● ● ●
Intersections* ●
Broadside Crashes ● ●
Improved Data Collection ● ●
Sideswipe Crashes ●
Driving Under the Influence* ● ●
Hit Object Crashes ●
Bicycle Crashes* ●
* High Priority Challenge Area in California SHSP
Strategies
Engineering
Geometric/operational changes
to a roadway, intersection, or
pedestrian/bicycle
infrastructure
Education
Programs aimed at distributing
educational messages focused
on road user behavior
Emergency Services
Programs/policies that facilitate
coordination with
emergency/first responders
Enforcement
Programs/campaigns focused
on road user behavior through
more visible and active
enforcement
7 8
653
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
5 Engineering Strategies
• Based on top fatal and severe injury
collision types and primary collision factors
• Organized by roadway, intersection, and
pedestrian/bicycle countermeasures
Example from Clovis
Education Strategies
• Targeted based on emphasis areas
• Utilize Fresno COG Safe Roads Save Lives
campaign
• Recommended activities:
• Identify lead staff
• Meet with advocacy groups
• Work with school districts
• Spread materials through social media, print
materials, outdoor advertisements, PSAs, campaign
website
9 10
654
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
6 Emergency Services Strategies
• Review roadway modification projects for emergency vehicle access
• Identify opportunities to improve emergency response
processes
• Share anecdotal information on crash trends and hot spots Enforcement Strategies
• Effectiveness is temporal
• Implement equitable
enforcement
Enforcement Strategies C H OC S
Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high
collision rates.
● ● ● ●
Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior)
enforcement checks during strategic times of the year
● ●
Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs
● ● ● ●
Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high collision rates or speeding citations.
● ●
Identify opportunities to engage community members as
crossing guards to improve roadway safety for students. ● ●
Consider opportunities for youth engagement, such as
“good behavior” ticket writing from students to adult
roadway users.
●
11 12
655
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
7 Evaluation and Implementation
• Identify countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the collision data.
• Regularly coordinate with safety partner agencies
• Explore funding opportunities
• Coordinate with the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices. • Regularly collect and organize data to support evaluation of the LRSP
MLRSP Report
Comments due December 16
• Introduction
• Coalinga: Chapter 3
• Huron: Chapter 6
• Orange Cove: Chapter 9
• Selma: Chapter 11
13 14
656
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
8 Action Items and Next Steps
• Provide comments on MLRSP Draft Report by December 16 • Final MLRSP to be provided January 14
• LRSP approval support options:
(1) No additional support. You will use the final MLRSP and HSIP materials and present/share as needed with your local decision makers. (2) You would like presentation materials summarizing the final MLRSP and HSIP materials. You will present/share with local decision makers. (3) You would like presentation materials summarizing final deliverables and would like either the consultant team or the COG to present to local decision-makers.

Questions on MLRSP?
15 16
657
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
9 Update on HSIP Applications: Coalinga
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements W Polk St Coalinga St RRFB
N 3rd St E Durian Ave RRFB
N Coalinga St Jackson St Enhanced Crosswalk
N Sunset St Tyler St / W Durian Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
N Sunset St W Jefferson St / W Birch Ave Enhanced Crosswalk Baker St Sunset Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
Baker St Pierce St Enhanced Crosswalk
Van Ness St Sunset Ave/N Sunset Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
Van Ness St E Birch Ave/N 3rd St Enhanced Crosswalk
N Garfield St Harrison St Enhanced Crosswalk
N Garfield St E Hoover St Enhanced Crosswalk
W Polk St N Monterey Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
W Polk St California St Enhanced Crosswalk
Update on HSIP Applications: Huron
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements 4th St Central Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
4th St Azteca Blvd Enhanced Crosswalk
Myrtle St Los Angeles St Enhanced Crosswalk
N St 12th St Enhanced Crosswalk
Giffen Dr Mouren Dr Enhanced Crosswalk
Palmer Ave R St (or Garden Apartments) Enhanced Crosswalk 17 18
658
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
10 Update on HSIP Applications: Orange Cove
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements Fourth St C St Enhanced Crosswalk
Jacobs Ave-Center St C St Enhanced Crosswalk
Jacobs Ave-Center St D St Enhanced Crosswalk
Park St Second St Enhanced Crosswalk
J St 9th St Enhanced Crosswalk
Adams Ave 5th St Enhanced Crosswalk
Update on HSIP Applications: Selma
Set-aside application for pedestrian crossing enhancements Wright St Dennis Dr RRFB
Wright St Aspen St Enhanced Crosswalk
Wright St Barabara St Enhanced Crosswalk
Wright St Huntsman Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
Wright St Burnham St Enhanced Crosswalk
Arrants St B St Enhanced Crosswalk
Olive St Stillman St Enhanced Crosswalk
2nd St Bauder St Enhanced Crosswalk
2nd St Freeway Ramps (both sides) Enhanced Crosswalk
Mitchell Ave Almond St Enhanced Crosswalk
Mitchell Ave Fig St Enhanced Crosswalk
Young St Rose Ave Enhanced Crosswalk
McCall Ave Arrants St Enhanced Crosswalk
Orange Ave Barbara St RRFB
S Mill Ditch Ave Nelson Blvd Enhanced Crosswalk
19 20
659
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

LWG Group C Meeting #3
11 Action Items and Next Steps
• Draft HSIP applications January 2022
• Final HSIP applications March 2022
• HSIP call for projects anticipated around March 2022
21 660
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Web-Based Survey and Interactive Map Results

661
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

MEMORANDUM
December 30, 2021
To: Jennifer Soliz and Santosh Bhattari, Fresno Council of Governments From: Talia Jacobson, Peter Garcia, and Malia Schilling, Toole Design Mychal Loomis, Kittelson & Associates
Project: Fresno MLRSP

Re: Survey and Webmap Summary and Analysis

This memo describes the public and stakeholder engagement efforts for the Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP), focusing on the online survey and interactive webmap. The goal was to collect both general and geographically specific feedback on safety problems, desired safety improvements in jurisdictions that are part of the MLRSP, as well as voluntary demographic information for Title IV reporting. Both activities were open to public feedback from August 16, 2021 to September 20, 2021 and sought public feedback on spatial patterns of traffic safety concerns and desired improvements.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap, based on 252 survey responses received from people who lived or worked in one of the 10 MLRSP jurisdictions, along with 77 points placed in MLRSP jurisdictions on the web map to indicate safety concerns. Detailed methodology and results are presented on the subsequent pages.

Overall Takeaways from Survey and Interactive Webmap
Limited response from smaller MLRSP communities and potential demographic underrepresentation A significant portion of the survey data set comes from participants living or working in the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, while unincorporated Fresno County and Clovis account for most of t he webmap data. Some smaller communities had very few entries or none. The survey’s participant demographic data show that there may have been an undercount in certain populations, specifically those belonging to marginalized communities. While Fresno County’s Latinx/Hispanic population accounts for more than half its population, only a fifth of respondents identified as Latinx/Hispanic. The survey’s respondents were overwhelmingly white at 60%, despite Fresno County’s white population accounts for a quarter of the county’s population. People from low-income communities may have been undercounted in the survey, as well as younger adults. Despite these limitations, the data provided many insights into traffic safety concerns and desired safety improvements. 662
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
2 Strong desire for road maintenance as well as active transportation improvements Road maintenance on main roads and rural roads were the top two most desired improvements, potentially highlighting the current poor conditions of streets in communities covered by the MLRSP. Survey participants also expressed a desire to improve walking, biking, and transit facilities. High response rates for improving or adding bicycle facilities and sidewalks relative to their current low mode share show promise of untapped potential for these modes. In turn, this shows that there is an untapped potential for replacing automobile trips with active and shared modes of transport. Traffic safety concerns included unsafe areas to travel by foot, bike or bus, as well as a lack of safe pedestrian crossings.

Major safety concerns around dangerous driver behavior
Participants noted aggressive driver behavior and crashes/near misses as their top two traffic safety concerns.

This could point to a need for more driver education around the risks of speeding and other unsafe driver behaviors, as well as a potential for targeted enforcement for specific driver behaviors. In the longer term, traffic safety can be improved through improving existing data collection and collecting near miss dat a. Crash analyses typically use recorded crashes to find problem corridors and hot spots. However, participants noted locations where near misses occurred. Data collection can be improved by incorporating tools such as SafeTREC’s Street Story, which gathers feedback and data on unsafe locations to walk and places where near -misses frequently occur.

Detailed Methodology
Format
The project team hosted a combination online webmap and survey on an interactive web platform available through the project website. The survey and webmap questions were presented in English and used Google Translate integration to expand language access for participants.

The online survey and webmap were divided into two different sections. First, participants were asked to complete the optional online survey, where they would answer demographic questions, traffic safety issues, and where they lived and worked. Upon completing or skipping the survey, participants were brought into the interactive webmap, where they were asked to drop points in places they’d experienced traffic safety concerns . In total, there were 430 completed survey responses, 155 points dropped in the map, and 548 unique logins to the website.1 The survey and webmap’s wireframe and questions can be found in Attachment A.

Outreach Efforts
The Fresno Council of Governments utilized language and content prepared by the project team to promote the engagement opportunity via social media, email, newsletters, and community organizations. To promote language equity and participation across Fresno County’s diverse communities, all materials were translated into Spanish, Hmong, and Punjabi.

1 Unique sessions do not control for participants closing the tab and returning to the survey, as returning users will be counted as another unique session.
663
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
3 Figure 1: Screenshot of completed webmap entry

Survey Responses
Most survey data collected were attributed to the City of Fresno and the City of Clovis. There were 548 unique entries in the survey - unique entries include skipped surveys, partially completed surveys, and fully completed surveys. Participants were able to skip the survey entirely if they only wanted to fill out the interactive webmap. 439 of those 548 were partially and complete surveys combined; 115 survey entries were removed (114 completely skipped entries and 1 test entry) from the 548 unique entries. 186 of 439 surveys were removed for this MLRSP-specific analysis due to respondents stating they both worked and lived in the City of Fresno.

To analyze whether the jurisdiction that someone lived or worked had significant impacts on their responses, the project team divided the data set into the following categories:
▪ Survey respondents who stated they lived or worked in Clovis ▪ Survey respondents who stated they live or work within more rural MLRSP jurisdictions, not including Clovis (Coalinga, Firebaugh, Huron, Kerman, Mendota, Orange Cove, San Joaquin, and Selma) ▪ Survey respondents who live or work in unincorporated Fresno County, respondents who li ve or work in non- MLRSP cities, respondents who left blanks for live or work Analysis of each of these categories demonstrated that there were a few minor deviations among traffic safety concerns, desired improvements, or for demographic data based on where respondents stated they lived or worked. Therefore, the project team decided to focus analysis on jurisdictions covered by the MLRSP.

The final data set reviewed in this analysis is comprised of 252 entries, which includes respondents either living or working in a jurisdiction within the MLRSP. Within this data set, there were 178 completed survey entries and 74 partially completed surveys - a completion rate of 70%. A cross tabulation of survey responses’ jurisdictions can be found in Attachment D.

Webmap Responses
There were 155 total points placed in the webmap. 72 points were removed as they were placed within Fresno city limits and a further 6 points were removed as they were test points, within a non -MLRSP jurisdiction, or 664
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
4 outside Fresno County. Only 77 points were placed within MLRSP jurisdictions. 50 of the 77 points were placed within unincorporated Fresno County, with the remaining 22 within MLRSP cities. The webmap analysis uses the 77 points that fell within project relevant areas. The locations of the webmap comments are shown in the maps in Attachment B.

Traffic Safety and Traffic Concerns Analysis
The following results are based on data from survey respondents who stated they lived or worked within at least one of the 10 jurisdictions covered by the MLRSP and from webmap points dropped within MLRSP jurisdictions.

Desired Improvements
The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top three road safety improvements they would like to see within Fresno County. The three most popular responses were road maintenance (173 responses), rural road improvements (114 responses), and better lighting (89 responses).

Despite a small number of respondents (6%) who stated that riding a bike was their primary mode of transportation, bicycle facilities still ranked highly as a desired improvement. Other pedestrian improvements like pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, ranked high relative to their mode share. 67 participants stated that they would like to see better pedestrian crossings, while 40 stated they would like to see an expansion in the sidewalk network. As walking only had 1% of the survey respondents’ mode share, these data hint at an untapped potential to improve walking rates in the county.

Figure 2: Participants' Desired Improvements

Locations of Webmap Points
Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. The majority of the 77 points dropped in the 10 jurisdictions covered by the MLRSP were placed in unincorporated Fresno County. Out of all the points dropped within incorporated jurisdictions, Clovis received the majority of webmap point drops. It was also the most commonly chosen location for where respondents lived or worked. In contrast, smaller communities like Mendota and Orange Cove received very few 173
114
81 89
67 71 65
40 51
33 34
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
Desired Road Safety Improvements
665
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
5 webmap inputs or none at all. Refer to Attachment C to see tables for detailed information on points dropped within the jurisdictions covered by the MLRSP.

Traffic Safety Concerns
Webmap participants’ top safety concerns for the 77 points dropped were “crashes or near misses happen here” (23%), followed by “speeding or aggressive driving” (19%), and “lack or safe place to walk, bike, or wait for the bus” (17%). Lighting concerns and drivers disobeying red lights or stop signs ranked lowest (9% for both) compared to other safety concerns. While the survey did not ask directly at what time participants normally travel, further investigation could uncover additional traffic safety concerns for populations who work during irregular working hours.

Figure 3: Participants' Mapped Safety Concerns

Demographic Analysis
The following demographic data represents information from respondents who live or work in a jurisdiction that is part of the MLRSP.

Race
The online survey/webmap’s demographics skewed mostly non-Hispanic white (60%), followed by Latinx/Hispanic participants (22%). 9, (or 4%), identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 9 (or 3%) as Native American or Alaskan Native, while 6 identified as African American or Black. 25 respondents chose “prefer not to say” and 17 identified as other. Participants could choose more than one racial/ethnic identity. 43 35 32
25 17 17
10 9
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Crashes or
near misses
occur here
Aggressive
driving or
speeding
Lack of safe
places to
walk, bike,
or wait for
the bus
Lack of safe
opportunities
to cross the
street
Poor lighting
or visibility
Drivers don't
obey stop
signs or red
lights
Nulls Other
Traffic Safety Concerns
666
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
6 White participants were over-represented in the survey data when contrasted to Fresno County’s demographics.2 While Latinx/Hispanic residents are slightly more than half of Fresno County’s population, they accounted for roughly a fifth of survey participants. In contrast, whites make up 28% of Fresno County’s population but accounted for around half of survey participants. This indicates that the Hispanic/Latinx population was underrepresented in the survey data, while whites were overrepresented. A more thorough investigation that captures a representative sample of Fresno County’s Hispanic/Latinx could be conducted for a deeper understanding of unique traffic safety issues to this population, such as travelling while undocumented, racial profiling of Hispanic/Latinx drivers, and culturally appropriate traffic safety engagement with mono-lingual Spanish speakers.

Figure 4: Racial breakdown of participants

Annual Household Income
Of the 220 participants who disclosed their annual income, over two-thirds made more than $50,000 a year. The median income in Fresno County in 2019 was $53,969 3, meaning that participants from lower-income communities were likely underrepresented.

2 Based on 2019 5-Year American Community Survey data
3 Based on 2019 Census data: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocountycalifornia 141
53 25
9 6 2
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
White Latinx or
Hispanic
Prefer not to
say
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Native
American or
Alaskan
Native
Other
Race
667
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
7 Figure 5: Participant median household income

Gender
Slightly more than half of participants who disclosed their gender identity indicated that they identified as female (52%), while 42% identified as male. 6% of respondents answered they preferred not to say.

Figure 6: Participant gender identity

Age
The 218 survey participants who disclosed their age represented a wide range of community members. People aged 35-44 (22%) and older adults aged 65 years and up (22%) were strongly represented. Only 3% of responses were from participants aged 18 to 24. While young adults tend to be web and digitally-savvy, these results may indicate that stronger outreach efforts may be needed to capture traffic safety issues for young travelers who may have different travel behavior.
3 8
4 17 18 16 17
1 28
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Household Income
52%42%
6%
Gender
Female Male Prefer not to say
668
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
8 Figure 7: Participant Age Groups

Household Size
Of the 233 participants who responded to the question, over a third stated that they lived in a household of two people. Respondents from households of three made up 16% of the total, and respondents from households of four made up 15%. A minority of respondents responded that they lived in a household of six or more people (6%).

Figure 8: Participants' Household Size

Mode Share
Of those who responded to the question, the vast majority (85%) responded that they drive as their common form of travelling, while only 7% answered that they travel by bicycle. Overall, 8% (not including traveling via carpool or motorcycle) of participants stated that they typically use active modes for transportation, including walking, bicycling, or taking transit.
6 34
47 36 37
47 11
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and
older
Prefer not
to say
Age Groups
23 82
38 35 30
13 12
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1 2 3 4 5 6-plus prefer not
to say
Household Size
669
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
9 Figure 9: Participant Mode Share

85%
6%
5%
2% 1% 1% 0%
Most Common Form of Travelling
Drive Bicycle Other Walk Motorcycle Carpool Rideshare
670
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
10 ATTACHMENT A: SURVEY AND WEBMAP WIREFRAME

AND QUESTIONS
Landing (Page 1)
[Intro to survey, survey purpose]
Every day, people travel around Fresno County – to work, to go to school, to run errands, to have fun, and to meet their daily needs. No matter how or why you’re traveling, we want you to reach your destination safely.

Please complete this survey about road safety concerns or suggestions you have for Fresno County and its communities. This should take most people less than 5 minutes to complete.

The survey begins with a few questions about you, your travel patterns, and your desired road safety improvements. We ask them so we can understand whether this survey has reached people who represent all of Fresno County’s Communities. After that, the survey will take you with an interactive map where you can mark locations with safety needs and leave comments telling us about your experiences. [Button] Let’s go!
Translation and Interpretation
Fresno COG is committed to making sure all community members can join our efforts to improve road safety. To request information about interpretation or translation, please call 559-233-4148 or email [email protected]
Figure 10 Example of landing page with introduction

671
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
11 General Questions (Page 2)
The following questions are about your desired safety improvements, your travel patterns, and your demographics.

1. Where do you live?
• Clovis
• Coalinga
• Firebaugh
• Fowler
• Fresno
• Huron
• Kerman
• Kingsburg
• Mendota
• Orange Cove
• Parlier
• Reedly
• San Joaquin
• Sanger
• Selma
• Unincorporated areas in Fresno County (outside of city boundaries) • Outside of Fresno County

2. Where do you work (or study)?
• Clovis
• Coalinga
• Firebaugh
• Fowler
• Fresno
• Huron
• Kerman
• Kingsburg
• Mendota
• Orange Cove
• Parlier
• Reedly
• San Joaquin
• Sanger
• Selma
• Unincorporated areas in Fresno County (outside of city boundaries) • Outside of Fresno County

672
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
12 3. What road safety improvements are most needed in the community where you live? Select up to three:
• Bike lanes/bikeways
• Maintenance of existing roads and streets
• Pedestrian crossing improvements
• Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes • Replacing traffic signals with roundabouts
• Sidewalks
• Speed enforcement
• Street lighting
• Traffic signals
• Treatments to slow down drivers
• Wayfinding and signage

4. What is the most common way you travel or get around? Select one:
• I walk (this includes using a wheelchair or other personal mobility aid) • I ride a bicycle
• I ride a motorcycle
• I drive/someone I know drives me
• I ride in a vanpool or carpool
• I take a taxi, Uber or Lyft
• I take the bus
• Other [text box]

5. How do you identify your race and ethnicity? Select all that apply:
• African American or Black
• Asian or Pacific Islander
• Latino/a/x or Hispanic
• Native American or Alaska Native
• White or Caucasian
• Multiracial
• Other [text box]
• Prefer not to say

6. What is your age?
• Under 18
• 18 to 34
• 35 to 49
• 50 to 64
• 65 or older
• Prefer not to say

7. What is your gender identity?
• Female
• Male
673
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
13 • Trans, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming
• Other
• Prefer not to say

8. What is your household size?
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6+

9. What is your annual household income level?
• Less than $20,000
• $20,000 - $34,999
• $35,000 - $49,000
• $50,000 - $74,999
• $75,000 - $99,999
• $100,000 - $149,999
• $150,000 - $249,999
• $250,000 or higher
• Prefer not to say

Figure 11 Example of general questions page
674
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
14 Interactive Map (Page 3)
[Interactive map landing page]
Tell us about your safety needs and improvements you want to see in Fresno County and participating cities.

Click anywhere within the boundaries to tell us about a safety concern. (Communities in bold are currently creating local road safety plans.)
• Clovis
• Coalinga
• Firebaugh
• Fowler
• Fresno
• Huron
• Kerman
• Kingsburg
• Mendota
• Orange Cove
• Parlier
• Reedly
• San Joaquin
• Sanger
• Selma
• Unincorporated Fresno County (outside of city boundaries) 675
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
15 Figure 12 Example of user input fields that appear when participant drops a pin at a location [Controls, user input fields]
[Clickable links to zoom to the 9 MLRSP cities + Fresno County] Layers to include:
• High crash locations
• Jurisdictional polygons/ boundaries

[Geo inputs for survey participants:]
Please drop a point where you encounter safety issues:
• What type of traffic safety concern do you have here? Select all that apply:
o Crashes or near misses happen here
o Lack of safe places to walk, bike, or wait for the bus o Lack of safe opportunities to cross the street
o Poor lighting or poor visibility
o Speeding or aggressive driving
o People driving do not obey red lights, stop signs, or turn signals o Other

676
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
16 • What kinds of travel does this safety concern affect? Select all that apply:
o Walking (this includes using a wheelchair or other personal mobility aid) o Biking
o Riding a motorcycle
o Taking transit
o Driving or riding in a car
o Driving a truck or other commercial vehicle
• What would make this location safer? [Free response option] o [text box]

When you’re done submitting your feedback, simply close this website’s tab to conclude the survey. Thank you!

677
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
17 ATTACHMENT B: WEBMAP COMMENTS
678
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FIRST ST

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

GETTYSBURG AVE

BULLARD AVEW BULLARD AVE

CLOVIS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E BULLARD AVE
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N CEDAR AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
A
VE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

E SHAW AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41 "þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 1
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
679
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

N SUNSET STE POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 2
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
680
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
! !
Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD

THIRTEENTH ST
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

CARDELLASTW NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE
N
W
ASHOE
AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 3
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
681
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
! !
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
Clovis
Selma
Mendota
Firebaugh
Sanger
Orange Cove
Kerman
ReedleySan Joaquin
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno

SHAW AVE

S MARKS AVE

E AMERICAN AVE

S MCMULLIN GRD

E BELMONT AVE

N PALM AVE
N
CEDAR
AVE
N
FIRST
S
T

W MANNING AVE

S CEDAR AVE
DUNLAP
RD

E ROSE AVE

S BETHEL AVE

E MANNING AVE
N
ACADEM
Y
AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

E ELKHORN AVE

W HERNDON AVE

S MADERA AVE

S PEACH AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

W MCKINLEY AVE
N
FRIA
NTRD

COLORADO
RD

W SHAW AVE
S
LASSEN
AVE

W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

W BELMONT AVE

S FOWLER AVE
ELW
OODRD

W NEES AVE
SJAMES
RD

S DERRICK AVE

E HERNDON AVE
NST

S HILLS VALLEY RD

MILLERTON RD

LODGE RD

W SHIELDS AVE

W KAMM AVE

N MCCALL AVE

A UBERRYRD

S FAIRFAX AVE

E JENSEN AVE

N SAN DIEGO AVE

S REED AVE

WATTSVALL EY RD

N MADERA AVE
MCK

INL EY G ROVER D

S JAMESON AVE

MAXONRD

W JENSEN AVE

S ALTA AVE

W AMERICAN AVE

S CLOVIS AVE
E

TRIMMERSPRING S
RD

TOLLHO USERD

NPIEDRA
RD

N FAIRFAX AVE

RU THHILL RD

S SAN DIEGO AVE
§¨¦
5 "þ99
"þ180
"þ145
"þ168
"þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\FresnoCo_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 4.1
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 6Miles
682
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
Clovis
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Fresno

SHAW AVE

N WEST AVE

E AMERICAN AVE

E BELMONT AVE

N PALM AVE
N
CEDAR
AVE
DUN
LA
P RD
N
ACADEM
Y

AVEW HERNDON AVE

S PEACH AVE
N

FRIANTRD

W SHAW AVE
S
HILLS
VALLEY
R
D

S MARKS AVE

MILLERTONRD

LODGERD

N MCCALL AVE

E JENSEN AVE

S REED AVE
W

ATTSVALLEYRD

AUBERRY RD
E

TRIMMER SPRIN G
SRD

NPIEDRA
RD

DI NKEY CREEK RD

RU THHILL RD

MCKINLEY GROVE R D

E KINGS CANYONRD
KA

ISERPASS RD

EDISONLA
K
ERD
"þ180
"þ41
"þ99
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\FresnoCo_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 4.2
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 6Miles
683
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
! !
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
Mendota
Firebaugh
Kerman
San Joaquin
Fresno

S MCMULLIN GRD

W MANNING AVE

S MADERA AVE

COLORADO
RD

W SHAW AVE

S LASSEN AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

W BELMONT AVE

W NEES AVE

S JAMES RD

S DERRICK AVE
N ST

W MCKINLEY AVE
SANTA
FE
GRD

S FAIRFAX AVE

W KAMM AVE
S
PLACER
AVE

N SAN DIEGO AVE
W

PANOCHERD

N MADERA AVE

N RUSSELL AVE

S JAMESON AVE

W JENSEN AVE

S HENDERSON RD

S DICKENSON AVEW AMERICAN AVE

N LAKE AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

W SHIELDS AVE

S SAN DIEGO AVE
N
HUDSON
AVE
LI
TTLE

PANOCHERD
§¨¦
5 "þ145
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\FresnoCo_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 4.3
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 4.5Miles
684
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!!
!
Coalinga
Huron

SFRESNO

COALINGARD

E ELKHORN AVE

W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S

DERRICK
AVE

S MARKS AVE

S LASSEN AVE

S CEDAR AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S EL DORADO AVE

P HELPS AVE

W OAKLAND AVE

LOS GATOSRD

LOST HILLS RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
§¨¦
5 "þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\FresnoCo_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 4.4
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 4.5Miles
685
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Huron

GRANADA AVE

S LASSEN AVE

FOURTH ST

W PALMER AVE

MYRTLE AVE

TORNADO AVE
M ST
P
ST

GIFFIN AVE

ELEVENTH ST

NINTH ST

MOUREN DR
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 5
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Huron
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.165 Miles
686
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
! !
Kerman
W C ST

S PARK AVE

S FIRST ST

S MADERA AVE

W KEARNEY BLVD

W STANISLAUS AVE
W A ST

S EIGHTH ST
S
DEL
NORTE
AVE
W E ST

S SISKIYOU AVE

W CHURCH AVE

W CALIFORNIA AVE

S VINELAND AVE
S

GOLDENROD
AVE

MAY AV E

W JENSEN AVE

N MADERA AVE

N GOLDENROD AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 6
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Kerman
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
687
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Mendota

NINTH ST

S SAN DIEGO AVE

W BELMONT AVE

NAPLES ST

OLLER ST

MARIE ST

N DOS PALOS RD

BASS AVE
N
SAN
DIEGO
AVE
S
SAN
BENITO
AVE

S DERRICK AVE

W CALIFORNIA AVE

W PANOCHE RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 7
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Mendota
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
688
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove

E MANNING AVE

W RAILROAD AVE

ANCHOR AVE

E SOUTH AVEWHITTIER AVE

SECOND ST
C ST

ADAMS AVE

FOURTH ST

ERAILROADAVE

ELEVENTH ST

PARK ST

CENTER ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
RD

E SUMNER AVE

E ADAMS AVE

S HILL AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 8
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Orange Cove
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.3Miles
689
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

San Joaquin

MAIN ST

COLORADO RD

NINTH ST

W MANNING AVE

S PLACER AVE

S SUTTER AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 9
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: San Joaquin
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.225 Miles
690
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Selma
Parlier
Kingsburg

SECOND ST
DITCH
ST

E ROSE AVE

MILL ST

S MCCALL AVE

FLORAL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
W

WHITSONST

HUNTSMAN AVE

ORANGE AVE

WRIGHT ST

S DOCKERY AVE

ROSE AVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

MCCALL AVE

NEBRASKA AVE

W FRONT ST

NELSON BLVD

E FRONT ST

S HIGHLAND AVE

E DINUBA AVE

S FOWLER AVE

S MENDOCINO AVE

S THOMPSON AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

S GOLDEN STATE BLVD

E FLORAL AVE

S BETHEL AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

E NEBRASKA AVE
"þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Webmap mxds\MLRSP_webmap results.mxd Date: 11/24/2021 Online Interactive Map Comments
! Intersection
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 10
Online Interactive Map Comments
Jurisdiction Results: Selma
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
691
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
18 ATTACHMENT C: IMPROVEMENT TYPES AND CONCERNS BY

LOCATION

CLOVIS DESIRED

IMPROVEMENT TYPE
(SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERN
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 68 Unsafe Place to walk
bike bus
10 Live in Clovis 78
Rural Road 33 Lack of safe crossing 10 Work in Clovis 48 Speed enforcement 27 Crashes 7 Unique
participants
92 Ped Crossing 23 Poor Lighting/Vis 7
Traffic Signals 21 Speeding/aggro
driving
7 Sidewalks 18 No obeying
stop/red/signage
7 Slow Drivers 17 other 3
Signage 16
Roundabouts 11 Unique Points: 16

COALINGA DESIRED IMPROVEMENT

TYPE(SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC
SAFETY

CONCERN
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Ped Crossing 4 No spatial data available Live in Coalinga 2 Speed enforcement 4 Work in Coalinga 6
Road Maintenance 3 Unique
participants
6 Rural Road 3
Sidewalks 3
Roundabouts 2
Traffic Signals 2
Bike 1
Signage 1
Slow Drivers 0

692
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
19 FIREBAUGH DESIRED IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERNS
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 7 Speeding/aggressive
driving
2 Live in Firebaugh 10
Ped Crossing 5 Crashes 1 Work in Firebaugh 7
Traffic Signals 5 Unsafe place to walk,
bike or wait for the bus
1 Unique participants 11
Rural Road 4
Speed enforcement 4 Unique Points 2
Bike 3
Sidewalks 3
Roundabouts 2
Slow Drivers 2
Signage 0

HURON IMPROVEMENT TYPE
(SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC
SAFETY

CONCERNS
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Traffic Signals 4 No spatial data available Live in Huron 2 Ped Crossing 3 Work in Huron 3
Rural Road 3 Unique
Participants
4 Sidewalks 3
Road Maintenance 2
Roundabouts 2
Slow Drivers 2
Speed enforcement 2
Signage 1
Bike 0

693
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
20 KERMAN DESIRED IMPROVEMENT TYPE
(SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERNS (WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Rural Road 12 Crashes or near misses
happen here
1 Live in Kerman 12
Road Maintenance 9 Speeding/aggressive
driving
1 Work in Kerman 5
Speed enforcement 5 Other 1 Unique Participants 15
Bike 3 Unsafe place to walk,
bike or wait for the bus
0 Ped Crossing 3 Lack of safe crossing 0
Roundabouts 3 Poor Lighting/Visibility 0
Traffic Signals 3 No obeying
stop/red/signage
0 Slow Drivers 2
Sidewalks 1 Unique Points 2
Signage 1

MENDOTA DESIRED IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC
SAFETY

CONCERNS
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 3 No spatial data available Live in Mendota 1 Rural Road 3 Work in Mendota 6
Traffic Signals 3 Unique Participants 6
Speed enforcement 2
Roundabouts 1
Sidewalks 1
Bike 1
Slow Drivers 0
Signage 0
Ped Crossing 1

694
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
21 ORANGE
COVE

DESIRED IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC
SAFETY

CONCERNS
(WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 1 No spatial data available Live in Orange Cove 0 Rural Road 1 Work in Orange Cove 1
Sidewalks 1 Unique Participants 1
Speed enforcement 1
Bike 0
Ped Crossing 0
Roundabouts 0
Traffic Signals 0
Slow Drivers 0
Signage 0

SAN

JOAQUIN

DESIRED IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERNS (WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
No survey data available No spatial data available Live in San Joaquin 0 Work in San Joaquin 0
Unique Participants 0

SELMA DESIRED

IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERNS (WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 10 Unsafe place to walk, bike or
wait for the bus
5 Live in Selma 10
Rural Road 6 Lack of safe crossing 3 Work in Selma 7 Speed enforcement 6 Poor Lighting/Vis 3 Unique Participants 13 Bike 5 Crashes or near misses
happen here
3 Ped Crossing 4 Speeding/aggressive driving 2
Traffic Signals 4 Drivers don’t obey stop signs
or red lights
1 Roundabouts 2 other 0
Slow Drivers 2
Sidewalks 1 Unique Points 6
Signage 1

695
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
22 UNINCORPORATED

FRESNO COUNTY

DESIRED

IMPROVEMENT

TYPE (SURVEY)

COUNT TRAFFIC SAFETY

CONCERNS (WEBMAP)

COUNT DEMOGRAPHICS
(SURVEY)
COUNT
Road Maintenance 33 Crashes or near misses
happen here
30 Live in
Unincorporated
Fresno County
39 Rural Road 29 Aggressive driving/speeding 21 Work in Unincorporated
Fresno County
22 Bike 18 Unsafe place to walk, bike,
or wait for the bus
15 Unique
Participants
47 Lighting 16 Lack of safe opportunities to
cross the street
12 Ped Crossing 8 Poor lighting/visibility 11
Speed enforcement 10 Nulls 10
Traffic Signals 15 Drivers don’t obey stop
signs or red lights
9 Sidewalks 3
Slow Drivers 9 Unique Points 51
Roundabouts 5
Signage 4

696
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
23 ATTACHMENT D: SURVEY RESPONDENT CROSS TABULATION

WORK

Clovis Coalinga Firebaugh Fowler Fresno Huron Kerman Kingsburg Mendota Outside Fresno
Reedley Sanger Selma Unincorp
Fresno
(blank) Grand
Total
LIVE
Clovis 34

1 31 1

2 1 1 3 4 78
Coalinga

2 2
Firebaugh

6 1 1

2 10
Fowler

2 2
Fresno 13 1 1

1 2

11 1 2 1 2 14 49
Huron

1 1

2 Kerman

6 2

3 1

12 Kingsburg

2 1

3 Mendota

1 1
Orange Cove

1 1
Outside Fresno 1

3 2

6 Parlier

1 1
Reedley

1 3

2 1 10 1

1 19
Sanger

4 2

2 8
Selma

5 1

4 10
Unincorp
Fresno
1 18

1 1

1 14 3 39
(blank)

1 1

7 9
Grand
Total
48 6 7 3 74 3 5 6 6 17 13 6 7 22

252
697
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Focus Group Participant Lists
CLOVIS
▪ Amy Hance, Clovis Transit
▪ Carolina Ilic, Fresno Area Express
▪ Chad Fitzgerald, Clovis Fire Department
▪ Chad McCollum, Clovis Public Affairs
and Information
▪ Claudia Cazares, Engineering
▪ Colleen Vidinoff, LWG Member
▪ David Merchen, Planning
▪ Denver Stairs, Clovis Unified School
District
▪ Glen Eastes, Clovis Department of Public
Utilities
▪ John Cross, Engineering
▪ John Holt, Clovis City Manager’s Office
▪ Michael Navarro, Caltrans District 6
▪ Mike Harrison, Engineering
▪ Renee Mathis, Director Clovis
Department of Planning and
Development Services
▪ Richard Ashcraft, Clovis Police
Department
▪ Ryan Burnett, LWG Member
▪ Scott Mozier, City of Fresno
▪ Sean Smith, Engineering
▪ Shelby Elia, LWG Member
▪ Sherry Call -Richards, Clovis Unified
School District
▪ Stephanie Babb, Clovis Community
College
▪ Steven White, County of Fresno
▪ Thad Avery, Engineering
▪ Tim Barker, Engineering
▪ Tina Sumner, Fresno Cycling Club

COALINGA
▪ Darren Blevins, Coalinga Police Chief
▪ Greg Dupuis, Coalinga Fire Chief
▪ Katie Delano, Director of Transportation,
Coalinga-Huron Unified School District
▪ Larry Miller, Coalinga Utilities Coordinator
and LWG Member
▪ Lori Villanueva, Superintendent,
Coalinga-Huron Unified School District
▪ Sean Brewer, Coalinga Assistant City
Manger

698
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

FIREBAUGH
▪ Ben Gallegos, City Manager/Public
Works Director, LWG Member
▪ Brady Jenkins, Mayor Pro Tem
▪ Danny Barragan, MOT Director
▪ Danny Reed, LWG Member
▪ Freddy Valdez, Mayor
▪ John Borboa, Fire Chief,
▪ Mario Gouveia, City Engineer,
▪ Pio Martin, Finance Director
▪ Sal Raygoza, Police Chief

FRESNO COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED)
▪ Bill Maines, BNSF Railroad - Manager
Signals
▪ Carlos Martinez, Tarpey Neighborhood
▪ Crystal Lanfranco, Central Unified School
District, Head of Transportation
▪ Eric Franco, School Safety and Security ,
Riverdale Unified School District
▪ Greg Reinke, Fresno County CAO office
▪ John Campbell, Superintendent, Kings
Canyon Unified School District
▪ John Rowland, Traffic Engineer
▪ John Zanoni, Fresno County Assistant
Sheriff
▪ Ofc. Justice Jones, California Highway
Patrol
▪ Leonard Ludi, Construction Project
Manager
▪ Mariah C. Thompson, California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc
▪ Ofc. Mark Halvorson, California Highway
Patrol
▪ Mike Leonardo, Fresno County
Transportation Authority
▪ Ofc. Robert Brunell, Calif ornia Highway
Patrol
▪ Moses Stites, Fresno County Rural Transit
▪ Naindeep Singh Chann, Central Unified
School District, Board of Trustee Member
▪ Ofc. Vance Wedeking, California
Highway Patrol
▪ Victoria Santillan, California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc
▪ Wendy Nakagawa, LWG Member

699
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

HURON
▪ Alfonso Manrique, City Engineer
▪ Ana Trejo, Huron Resident
▪ Arely Arellano, Huron Resident
▪ Ben Silva, Huron Resident
▪ Carmen Lopez, Huron Resident
▪ David Mercado, Huron Resident
▪ Eddye Ramirez, Huron Resident
▪ Eva Ramos, Huron Resident
▪ Francisco Hernandez, Huron Middle
School Principal
▪ Jocelyn Distancia, Huron Resident
▪ Katie Delano, Coalinga -Huron School
District Transportation Director
▪ Maria Avina, Huron Resident
▪ Nereida Vega, Huron Resident
▪ Paul Serano, LWG Member
▪ Rey Leon, Mayor,
▪ Roberto Pimentel, Mayor Pro Tem, Huron
City Council
▪ Sophie Phin -Rizo, Huron Elementary
School Principal
KERMAN
▪ Bob Felker, Rotary
▪ Chief John Golden, Kerman PD
▪ Jerry Jones, City Engineer, LWG Member
▪ Jesus Orozco, Community Development
Director
▪ John Jansons, City Manager
▪ Michael Barajas, Direct Kerman Public
Works
▪ Moses Stites, Fresno County Rural Transit
Agency
▪ Nicole Wolf, Executive Director Chamber
of Commerce
▪ Philip Gallegosm Parks & Rec. Director
▪ Robert Frausto, School District
Superintendent
▪ Chief Tim Henry, North Central Fire
Protection District

700
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

MENDOTA
▪ Cristian Gonzalez, Mendota City
Manager
▪ Daniel Urias, Battalion Chief,
Calfire/Fresno County Fire
▪ Dino Perez, Westside Youth, Inc.
▪ Graciela Santillano James, Community
Outreach
▪ Jessica Sanchez, Mendota Boys & Girls
Club
▪ John Liu, Caltrans
▪ Joseph Amador, Committee Member,
Mendota Public Safety SubCommittee
▪ Kevin Smith, Mendota Chief of Police
▪ Mark Banuelos, Mendota Public Works
Superintendent
▪ Michael Navarro, Caltrans
▪ Michael Osborn, LWG Member
▪ Moses Stites, Fresno County Rural Transit
Agency
▪ Nancy Diaz, Mendota Budget Officer
▪ Oscar Rosales, Vice Chairperson,
Mendota Public Safety SubCommittee,
▪ Dr. Paul Lopez, Superintendent,
Mendota Unified School District
▪ Robert Gonzalez, Director of M.O.T,
Mendota Unified School District
▪ Rolando Castro, Chairperson, Mendota
Public Safety SubCommittee
▪ Sergio Valdez, Mendota Youth
Recreation

ORANGE COVE
▪ Alfonso Manrique, City Engineer,
▪ Andy Valencia, Interim Public Works
Superintendent
▪ Angela Hall, Assistant Engineer, LWG
Member
▪ Rudy Hernandez, Interim City Manager
▪ Shun Patlan, City Planner

SAN JOAQUIN
▪ Brent Stalker, Police Lt.
▪ Colleen Vidinoff, CalTrans District 6 HSIP
Coordinator
▪ Danny Reed, City Engineer
▪ Elizabeth Nunez, City Manager
▪ Manual Chavez, Fresno County Sheriff’s
Department
▪ Martin Macias, School Superintendent
▪ Matt Flood, Assistant City Manager

701
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

SELMA
▪ Amanda Torres, Kings View Community
Services
▪ Beverly Cho, Selma Mayor Pro Tem
▪ Bob Allen, Director Selma Di strict
Chamber of Commerce
▪ Dave Padilla, Branch Chief, Cal Trans
▪ Delfina Vasquez, BBNBTL (Bringing Broken
Neighborhoods Back to Life)
▪ Captain Jesse Gomez, Selma Fire Dept.

PIO
▪ Pastor Joe Alvarez, BBNBTL (Bringing
Broken Neighborhoods Back to Life)
▪ Sgt. Justin Holt, Selma Police Dept. PIO
▪ Maria Rodriguez, Program Director
Housing Services, WestCare
▪ Dr. Marilyn Shepherd, Selma Unified
School District
▪ Moses Stites, Fresno County Rural Transit
Agency
▪ Philip L. Romero, PE, Selma Engineer
▪ Commander Rene Garza, Se lma Police
Commander
▪ Chief Rob Peterson, Selma Fire Chief
▪ Scott Robertson, Selma Mayor
▪ Shane Ferrell, Selma Public Works
Director
▪ Steven Johnson, Selma Rotary
▪ Suzette Wheeler, Associate VP of
Nursing, Adventist Health

702
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Focus Group Meeting Notes

703
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 27, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 27th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Clovis

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Clovis.

705
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 29, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 29th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Coalinga

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Coalinga.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manger
• Larry Miller, Utilities Coordinator
• Darren Blevins, Police Chief
• Katie Delano, Director of Transportation
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Coalinga?  Wide
 Fast
 Pretty good
 Good condition
 Safe
 Fair
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Maintenance of existing roads and streets
 Bike lanes or bikeways
 Traffic signals
• What locations do you have safety concerns about? What other locations are priorities for the City to improve?
706
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

707
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 5, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 5th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Firebaugh

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Firebaugh.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 5, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Street lighting

709
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 30, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 30th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – Unincorporated Fresno County

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for Unincorporated Fresno County.

• Road safety improvements that are most needed
- Maintenance
710
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan September 30, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
- Rural road improvements

711
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
September 27, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) September 27th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Huron

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Huron.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Roberto Pimentel, Mayor Pro Term, Huron City Council
• Rey León, Mayor Pro-Term and Educator
• Sophie Phin-Rizo – Huron Elementary School Principal
• Francisco Hernandez – Huron Middle School Principal
• Ben Silva, Huron Resident
• Alfonso Manrique, City Engineer
• Paul Sereno, LWG Member
• Katie Delano – Coalinga-Huron School District Transportation Director Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Rough
 Uneven
 Dangerous
 Stressful
 Difficult
 No speed limit signs
 Anxiety inducing
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Ped crossing improvements or sidewalks
 Street lighting
712
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

713
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 25, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 25th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Kerman

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Kerman.

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 25, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 2
 Maintenance of existing facilities

Fresno Council of Governments
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan October 25, 2021 Kittelson & Associates Page 3

716
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 6, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 6th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Mendota

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Mendota.

Attendees
Project Team
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Mark, Public Works Superintendent
• John Liu, Caltrans District Director for Maintenance Operations • Dan Urias, Batallion Chief for Fire Department
• Jessica Sanchez, Serves on Recreation and Planning Commissions • Colleen Vidinoff, HSIP Coordinator for District 6
• Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager
• Jennifer Lekumberry, Director of Administrative Services • Michael Osborn, City Engineer
• Nancy Diaz, Finance Director
• Joseph Amadore, member of the public safety committee • Kevin Smith,
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Awkward
 Calm
 Rough
 Rough roads
 Bumpy
 Familiar
 Dangerous
 Congested
717
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

• Enforcement Alternatives
o City looking to add radar feedback signs on Oller and Derrick 718
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

719
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 5, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 5th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Orange Cove

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Orange Cove.

Attendees
Project Team
• Trai Her-Cole, Fresno GOC
• Jennifer Soliz, Fresno COG
• Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Malia Schilling, Toole Design
• Sara Schooley, Toole Design
Participants
• Rudy Fernandez, Interim City Manager
• Andy Valencia, Interim Public Works Superintendent
• Angela Hall, LWG Member, Assistant Engineer
Meeting Notes
• Mentimeter results:
o How would you describe travelling on the roads in Clovis?  Terrible
 Bumpy – lack of maintenance
o What road safety improvements are most needed?
 Need additional streetlights
 Stop signs (not very noticeable, many get knocked down), maybe solar stop signs?
 Trying to get folks to stop on the way in off the entrances to the City  Adams Ave stop sign – it’s on the way into the City, hard to notice  Potentially more speed bumps needed
 Sierra Mountain View – speed bumps would help slow down traffic

• Visions and Goals comments:
o Goals where a general summary of what was found on the website, will confirm whether they were adopted by City County.

720
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

721
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 14, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 14th, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of San Joaquin

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of San Joaquin.

• Vision and Goals
o Aren’t that many recorded collisions – as such, is roadway safety that much of an issue?
722
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

723
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

MEETING AGENDA
October 22, 2021
Meeting
Date &
Location:

Fresno COG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) October 22nd, 2021 on Zoom
Topic: Focus Group Meeting Notes – City of Selma

The following are notes from the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) focus group meeting for the City of Selma.

• Vision and Goals
o Existing goals are accurate and comprehensive

• Collision Analysis
724
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

• Enforcement Alternatives
o Fernando would know the most about this topic and couldn’t stay to the end of the meeting. He will follow-up.

725
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

Focus Group Meeting Materials

726
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Clovis Focus
Group
September 27th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
727
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
728
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
729
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
730
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Trai Her-
Cole
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittleson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 8584 4057 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Clovis? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Clovis? 9 10
731
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
City of Clovis: Vision and Goals
Vision: A City that is committed to the Clovis Community Family, their needs, their values, and a quality way of life for all; reflecting that commitment in how it develops and in the activities it undertakes.

Goals:
• Make Clovis the safest City in the Valley providing quick and effective response to high priority calls for emergency services
• Make Clovis a great place for all families to live healthy, work productively, learn continuously, and play actively from generation to generation • Provide strong and effective local leadership for the community, demonstrating a model for others; provide regional leadership and influence decision making through active participation in the big issues
• Promote citizen engagement and develop a shared responsibility for community involvement
11 12
732
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Provide a quality transportation network by committing resources to activities that reduce the risk of fatal and injury collisions for people traveling on public roads.

LRSP Goals for Clovis
• Regularly review data-informed analysis & community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk • Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collisions across all public City roadways • Reduce the number of bike/ped collisions on public City roadways • Implement proven roadway safety countermeasures systemically to target common collision types • Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment • Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community • Establish regular communication between first responders and City staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network
• Increase implementation of traffic safety education and equitable enforcement strategies Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
733
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 3507 total collisions
15 16
734
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
17 18
735
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis: Collision Type
Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.
19 20
736
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
11 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Clovis Trfy & Santa Ana Ave Intersection
(Signalized)

90.35 28 0 10 18
Willow Ave & Shaw Ave Intersection
(Signalized)

85.66 94 0 38 56
Fowler Ave & Shaw Intersection
(Signalized)

74.88 38 0 17 21
Herndon Ave & Fowler Ave Intersection
(Signalized)

73.39 49 0 17 32
Ashlan Ave & Fowler Ave Intersection
(Signalized)

68.03 37 0 15 22
City has recently improved or projects in-progress to
improve top 5 intersections shown here.
• Intersections
• Clovis/Barstow
• (Ranked 6th)
• Railroad/Barstow
• Sunnyside/Barstow
• (Ranked 7th)
• Corridor Improvements:
• Clovis Avenue between
Barstow and Gettysburg
Draft Locations for HSIP Applications
21 22
737
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
12 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
23 24
738
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
13 Phase 1 Survey Results
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results:

Across all of Fresno County
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 155 points dropped in the map
▪ Top 3 safety concerns:
▪ Crashes or near misses
▪ Speeding or aggressive driving
▪ Lack of safe places to walk, bike or wait
for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements
requested:
▪ Road maintenance
▪ Bike improvements
▪ Rural road improvements
25 26
739
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
14 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results:

Specific to Locations in Clovis
▪ 93 stated they live or work in
Clovis
▪ Top 3 safety concerns:
▪ Unsafe places to walk/bike/take the bus
▪ Lack of safe crossings
▪ Speeding or aggressive driving
▪ Top 3 safety improvements
requested:
▪ Road maintenance
▪ Rural road improvements
▪ Speed enforcement
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
27 28
740
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
15 29
Education Campaign
Safe Roads Save Lives
29 30
741
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
32 Role of Enforcement
31 32
742
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
17 Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
33 34
743
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Clovis Focus Group
18 35
Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
35 36
744
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Coalinga
Focus Group
September 29th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
745
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
746
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
747
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
748
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Trai Her-
Cole
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick question:
• How would you describe traveling on the roads in Coalinga? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Coalinga? 9 10
749
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
City of Coalinga: Vision and Goals
Mission: The Mission of the City of Coalinga is to provide for the preservation of the community character by delivering quality, responsive City services in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and to develop, encourage, and promote a diversified economic base in order to ensure the future financial stability of the City for its citizens.

City Vision 2025:
• Community Safety: Public safety is the basis of our well being. Coalinga’s Fire and Police services are committed to maintaining a safe and secure environment for all residents and visitors. • Comprehensive & Reliable Infrastructure: Coalinga will provide creative, orderly and efficient community facilities and municipal services that meet the needs of residents and visitors. Coalinga will effectively plan infrastructure improvements with the anticipation of future growth. • Superior Recreation Opportunities: Coalinga will offer a convenient and comprehensive system that meets the needs of the citizens and enriches the lives of residents and visitors including: Athletic parks, Bike paths, Community parks, Green belts, Neighborhood parks, Open space, Other recreational opportunities, Primitive natural areas, Scenic vistas, Trails 11 12
750
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety, meets the needs of the community and enriches the lives of residents.

LRSP Goals for Coalinga
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026. • Coordinate with Caltrans on implementing roadway network changes on the state routes that are within the City boundary • Regularly review data-informed analysis and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk.
• Implement low-cost engineering solutions to address common collision types • Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety • Maintain a roadway system that provides a quality environment for all users • Coordinate with traffic safety stakeholders such as fire, police, schools, and parks to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
751
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 378 total collisions
15 16
752
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
17 18
753
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis: Collision Type
Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.
19 20
754
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
11 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Elm Ave & Seventh St Intersection
(Unsignalized)

44.02 11 0 4 7
Elm Ave & Fifth St Intersection
(Unsignalized)

41.78 10 0 2 8
Elm Ave & Cambridge Ave Intersection
(Unsignalized)

40.58 4 0 2 2
Elm Ave & First St & Van
Ness St
Intersection
(Unsignalized)

39.65 9 0 1 8
Longhollow Way & Poppy
Meadow Ct
Intersection
(Unsignalized)

38.25 2 0 1 1
Potential Locations for
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk
related improvements
21 22
755
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
12 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
23 24
756
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
13 Phase 1 Survey Results
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 6 stated they live or work in Coalinga
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
25 26
757
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
14 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• Do the safety concerns and desired improvements align with your experiences in Coalinga?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
28 Education Campaign
27 28
758
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
29 30
759
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
31 32
760
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
17 33
Role of Enforcement
Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
33 34
761
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
18 Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
36 Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
35 36
762
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Coalinga Focus Group
19 Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
37 763
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multi-jurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Firebaugh
Focus Group
October 5th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
764
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
765
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
766
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
767
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 9401 0214 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Firebaugh? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Firebaugh? 9 10
768
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Create a roadway network that provides a comfortable environment for all modes of transportation within the City.

LRSP Goals for Firebaugh
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026. • Systemically implement safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes across the City’s public roadways.
• Enhance pedestrian facilities and crossings on state routes that are within the City boundary in coordination with Caltrans.
• Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 11 12
769
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
7 13
Safety Analysis
Results
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
13 14
770
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
8 Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 130 total collisions
Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
15 16
771
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
Collision Analysis: Collision Type
17 18
772
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
severity of collisions.

Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury or
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
N St & Saipan Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

43.12 7 1 2 4
N St & Ninth St Intersection
(unsignalized)

38.25 2 0 1 1
Thirteenth St from P St to city
limits
Segment 33.13 2 1 0 1
Thirteenth St & N St Segment 33.13 2 0 1 1
N St & Clyde Fannon Rd Intersection
(signalized)

28.16 7 1 3 3
19 20
773
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
11 Potential Locations for Pedestrian
Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk
related improvements
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 21 22
774
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
12 Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
Phase 1 Survey Results
23 24
775
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
13 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 11 stated they live or work in Firebaugh
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
Community Input
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in Firebaugh?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
25 26
776
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
14 27
Education Campaign
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
27 28
777
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
Safe Roads Save Lives
29 30
778
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
32 Role of Enforcement
31 32
779
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
17 Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
33 34
780
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Firebaugh Focus Group
18 35
Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
35 36
781
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Unincorporated Fresno
County Focus Group
September 30th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
782
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
783
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
784
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
785
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Trai Her-
Cole
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 6231 1268 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Fresno County? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Fresno County?
9 10
786
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
6 11
Vision & Goals
Fresno County: Vision, Mission, and Guiding
Principles
Vision: Working together for a quality of life for all.

Mission: To provide excellent public services to our diverse community.

City Vision 2025:
• Stewardship
• Boundary crossing and collaboration
• Commitment to outcomes
• “Art of the possible” thinking
• Fact-based decision making
• Respecting diversity
11 12
787
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Provide a roadway network that enables safe movement throughout the County for all users and modes..

LRSP Goals for Fresno County
• Use a data-driven approach to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce the risk of collisions. • Implement proven, low-cost engineering countermeasures systemically to maximize funding opportunities across the large geographic County footprint.
• Partner with adjacent local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment. • Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collision s across all public County roadways. • Engage citizens to provide feedback on roadway safety issues across the County. • Facilitate roadway safety stakeholder collaboration to identify effective ways to implement non-engineering strategies at key locations. • Reduce the number of lane departure collisions on public County roadways. • Reduce the number of broadside collisions on public County roadways • Establish regular communication between first responders and County staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
788
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 18,314 total collisions
15 16
789
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
17 18
790
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis: Collision Type
Collision Analysis: Priority Locations
19 20
791
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
11 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Lac Jac Ave & Dinuba Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)
201.09 15 0 11 4
Frankwood Ave & Central Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)
164.99 14 0 11 3
Academy Ave & Adams Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)
162.93 18 1 9 8
Bethel Ave & Dinuba Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)
157.25 49 1 29 19
Auberry Rd & Frazier Rd Intersection
(unsignalized)
154.92 8 2 3 3
Draft Locations for HSIP Projects
• Systemic Unsignalized
Intersection Treatments
• Bethel / Dinuba
• Marks / Jensen
• Location Specific
Improvements
• Auberry / Frazier and Auberry /
Old Auberry/ Powerhouse
21 22
792
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
12 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? What other locations are priorities for the County to improve? • What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
23 24
793
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
13 Phase 1 Survey Results
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
25 26
794
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
14 27
Education Campaign
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
27 28
795
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
Safe Roads Save Lives
29 30
796
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
32 Role of Enforcement
31 32
797
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
17 Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
33 34
798
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Unincorporated Fresno County Focus Group
18 35
Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
35 36
799
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Huron Focus
Group
September 27th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
800
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
801
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
802
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Project Team and Roles
Trai Her-
Cole
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
7 8
803
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
5 Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 1371 0415 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Huron? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Huron? 9 10
804
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
City of Huron: Mission and Vision
Mission Statement. The City of Huron is dedicated to providing efficient and effective quality municipal services that enhance quality of life that the community of Huron deserves.

Vision Statement. The City Council will provide the leadership in developing the City in a way that provides a financially viable business friendly and family-oriented community promoting a full range of housing, business, and culture in a safe and attractive environment. 11 12
805
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Provide a City roadway network that serves the needs of the community through quality infrastructure and environment.

LRSP Goals
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways. • Utilize community input and collision data to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety. • Implement low-cost engineering solutions to reduce collision risk • Maintain a quality roadway network for all users and modes • Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added?
14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
806
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 18 total collisions
15 16
807
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
17 18
808
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis: Collision Type
Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.
19 20
809
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
11 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Property
Damage Only
Collisions
Palmer Ave & Griffen Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

38.05 1 1 0 0
Lassen Ave from Palmer Ave
to city limits (north)
Segment 6.3 7 0 3 4
Lassen Ave & Eleventh St Intersection
(unsignalized)

2.63 3 0 2 1
Fourth St & Central Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

2.14 1 0 1 0
Palmer Ave & Lassen Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

2.14 1 0 1 0
Potential Locations for
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk related
improvements
21 22
810
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
12 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about/what other locations are priorities for the City to improve? • What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
23 24
811
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
13 Phase 1 Survey Results
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 4 stated they live or work in Huron
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe
places to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents: road maintenance, bike
improvements, and rural road
improvements
25 26
812
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
14 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about/what other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 28 Education Campaign
27 28
813
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
29 30
814
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
16 31
Role of Enforcement
Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community Members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
31 32
815
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
17 Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
34 Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
33 34
816
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Huron Focus Group
18 Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
35 817
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multi-jurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Kerman
Focus Group
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (10 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (15 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
818
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
819
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
820
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
821
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 3203 3724 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Kerman? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Kerman? 9 10
822
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
City of Kerman: Mission and Vision
Vision: Facilitating progress while preserving the Community’s character.

Mission
• Service. To deliver the highest quality of service in an efficient and cost-effective manner
• Safety. To ensure that the community is a safe place to live, work, raise a family, operate a business and visit
• Livability. To focus the organization’s human and capital resources on improving the community’s quality of life
11 12
823
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Enable safe travel for people walking, biking, or moving in or with motorized vehicles on the City’s public roadways.

LRSP Goals for Kerman
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026. • Prioritize safety in design of roadway improvements and access to new development.
• Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.
• Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
824
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 200 total collisions
15 16
825
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
17 18
826
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis: Collision Type
Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.
19 20
827
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
11 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury or
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Whitesbridge Ave from
Siskiyou Ave to Vineland Ave
Segment 42.58 10 1 5 4
First St and C St Intersection
(unsignalized)

38.05 1 0 1 0
Merlot Ave & Stanislaus Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

38.05 1 1 0 0
Madre Ave from north of
Neilson Ave to Whitesbridge
Rd
Segment 35.07 6 1 3 2
Goldenrod Ave from Kearney
Blvd to Whitesbridge Rd
Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 21 22
828
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
12 Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
Phase 1 Survey Results
23 24
829
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
13 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results:

Specific to Locations in Kerman
▪ 15 respondents live/work in
Kerman
▪ Points dropped in map:
▪ Pedestrian safety concerns at Siskiyou
Ave/California Ave intersection
▪ Crashes or near misses at Goldenrod
Ave/California Ave
▪ Top 3 safety improvements
requested:
▪ Rural road improvements
▪ Road maintenance
▪ Speed enforcement
25 26
830
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
14 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in Kerman?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
28 Education Campaign
27 28
831
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
29 30
832
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
31 32
833
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
17 33
Role of Enforcement
Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
33 34
834
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
18 Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
36 Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
35 36
835
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Kerman Focus Group
19 Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
37 836
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multi-jurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mendota
Focus Group
October 6th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
837
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
838
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
839
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
840
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 9401 0214 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Mendota? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Mendota? 9 10
841
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: To continuously improve our roadways to help all road users reach their destination safely.

LRSP Goals for Mendota
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways by 2026. • Coordinate with Caltrans on implementing roadway network changes on the state routes that are within the City boundary
• Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.
• Target improvements that will help slow and manage vehicle speeds. • Develop and implement a truck management plan to address safety concerns related to truck parking and circulation.
• Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 11 12
842
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
7 13
Safety Analysis
Results
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
13 14
843
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
8 Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 348 total collisions
Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
15 16
844
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
Collision Analysis: Collision Type
17 18
845
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
severity of collisions.

45.56 9 1 4 4
Derrick Ave & Naples St Intersection
(unsignalized)

43.31 7 0 5 2
Derrick Ave & Seventh St Intersection
(unsignalized)

42.52 4 0 3 1
Oller St & Derrick Ave &
Mccabe St
Intersection
(unsignalized)

42.28 12 1 2 9
19 20
846
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
11 Potential Locations for Pedestrian
Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk
related improvements
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 21 22
847
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
12 Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
Phase 1 Survey Results
23 24
848
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
13 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 6 stated they live or work in Mendota
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
Community Input
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in Mendota?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
25 26
849
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
14 27
Education Campaign
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
27 28
850
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
Safe Roads Save Lives
29 30
851
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
32 Role of Enforcement
31 32
852
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
17 Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
33 34
853
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Mendota Focus Group
18 35
Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
35 36
854
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multijurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
Orange Cove
Focus Group
October 5th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
855
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
856
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
857
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
858
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 4235 6160 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Orange Cove? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Orange Cove?
9 10
859
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
6 11
Vision & Goals
City of Orange Cove: Goals
City Council Goals:
• Maintain and enhance public safety
• Encourage economic development opportunities for existing and new businesses
• Enhance the visual appeal of downtown
• Road improvements
• Maintain a balanced budget and look for opportunities to maintain the general fund reserve
• Ensure and maintain City’s infrastructure
11 12
860
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
7 LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Maintain and enhance safety on the City’s roadways through regular evaluation and identification of feasible improvements.

LRSP Goals for Orange Cove
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways. • Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.
• Improve collision data available
• Systemically implement low-cost safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes.
• Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 14 Safety Analysis
Results
13 14
861
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
8 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• Three total collisions
• January 2017: Rear-end collision (PCF - unsafe lane change) with 1 fatality.
• March 2018: Broadside collision (PCF – traffic signals and signs) with 1 fatality)
• November 2019: Broadside collision (PCF – improper driving), property damage only.
15 16
862
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
severity of collisions.

Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Monson Ave & Manning Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

45.68 5 0 5 0
Hills Valley Rd from C St to
north of Ave 464
Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0
Anchor Ave from Parlier Ave
to north of South Ave
Segment 32.93 1 1 0 0
Manning Ave from West of
Hill Ave to Anchor Ave
Segment 3.43 7 0 2 5
Summer Ave from Monson
Ave to Anchor Ave
Segment 1.22 1 0 1 0
17 18
863
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
10 Potential Locations for
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk
related improvements
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 19 20
864
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
11 Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
Phase 1 Survey Results
21 22
865
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
12 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 1 respondent stated they live/work in
Orange Cove
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
Community Input
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in Orange Cove?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
23 24
866
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
13 25
Education Campaign
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
25 26
867
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
14 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
Safe Roads Save Lives
27 28
868
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
30 Role of Enforcement
29 30
869
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
16 Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
31 32
870
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Orange Cove Focus Group
17 33
Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
33 34
871
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multi-jurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of San Joaquin
Focus Group
October 14th, 2021
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (15 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (10 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
872
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
873
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
874
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
875
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 79 32 89 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in San Joaquin? • What road safety improvements are most needed in San Joaquin? 9 10
876
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: Provide an opportunity for safe roadway travel for all.

LRSP Goals for San Joaquin
• Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways. • Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety.
• Improve available collision data.
• Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 11 12
877
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
7 13
Safety Analysis
Results
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
13 14
878
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
8 Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• Limited reported collisions and discrepancies in location information
• 2 total collisions
• April 2017 at Idaho Ave/9th St: Hit object collision (PCF of improper turning), resulted in property damage only.
• December 2018 on Main St north of Colorado Ave: Hit object collision (PCF of driving or bicycling under the influence), resulted in complaint of pain.

Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.
15 16
879
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Top 5 Priority Locations
Location Type Collision
Severity
Score
Total
Collisions
Fatal
Collisions
Injury or
Complaint
of Pain
Collisions
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Elm Ave & Placer Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

2.74 4 0 1 3
Main St & Colorado Rd Intersection
(unsignalized)

1.22 1 0 1 0
Manning Ave & Placer Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

0.4 2 0 0 2
Ninth St & Idaho Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

0.4 2 0 0 2
Manning Ave & Idaho Ave Intersection
(unsignalized)

0.2 1 0 0 1
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk related
improvements
Potential Locations for
Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
17 18
880
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
10 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
19 20
881
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
11 Phase 1 Survey Results
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
21 22
882
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
12 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in San Joaquin?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
24 Education Campaign
23 24
883
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
13 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
25 26
884
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
14 Safe Roads Save Lives
Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
27 28
885
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
15 29
Role of Enforcement
Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
29 30
886
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
16 Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
32 Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
31 32
887
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of San Joaquin Focus Group
17 Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
33 888
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
1 MLRSP
Multi-jurisdictional
Local Road Safety Plan
City of Selma
Focus Group
Today’s agenda
• Introductions & Project Overview (10 min)
• Review of Vision & Goals (10 min)
• Safety Analysis Results (30 min)
• Education Campaign (15 min)
• Enforcement Discussion (20 min)
• Next Steps (5 min)
1 2
889
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
2 3
Introduction & Project
Overview
3 4
890
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
3 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
5 6
891
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
4 Multi-jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Vision and goals
• Existing road safety
performance
• High priority locations
• Engineering and non-
engineering strategies to
improve safety
• Approach for monitoring
improvement over time
• Regional Safety Plan
• Bring together a Regional
Safety Steering Committee
• Study past crashes and gather
public input
• Identify the safety
improvements
• Develop a transportation safety
education program
• Provide resources and support
to local agencies
Why are we here?
• Learn about the project and how
you can contribute/participate
• Provide feedback on the results
of the data analysis
Do the results reflect your
experience, priorities, and
concerns?
7 8
892
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
5 Project Team and Roles
Jennifer
Soliz
Fresno COG
Project
Manager
Tony
Boren
Fresno COG
Executive
Director
Erin
Ferguson
Kittelson &
Associates,
Inc.

Project
Manager
Malia
Schilling
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Sara
Schooley
Toole Design
Planner &
Facilitator
Who’s in the room?
• Share your name and position/title
• Quick poll: go to menti.com and use the code 1371 0415 • How would you describe traveling on the roads in Selma? • What road safety improvements are most needed in Selma? 9 10
893
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
6 11
Visions & Goals
LRSP: Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision: A roadway network that supports safe travel for our community.

LRSP Goals for Selma
• Perform regular reviews of collision data to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce collision risk. • Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community.
• Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury collisions across all public City roadways by 50% by 2026.
• Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions on public City roadways by 50% by 2026. • Coordinate with traffic safety stakeholders such as fire, police, schools, and parks to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies.
• Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety.

Discussion question:

Is there anything missing within these goals or anything that needs to be added? 11 12
894
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
7 13
Safety Analysis
Results
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Funding from the state to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads
• Eligible projects:
• Address a priority in the state’s Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
• Are identified through a data-driven process
• Target an identified safety problem based on
reported crashes
• Contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
13 14
895
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
8 Collision Analysis
• Data assembled from SWITRS and TIMS
• Time period: January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019
• 629 total collisions
Collision Analysis: Year-over-Year Trend
15 16
896
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
9 Collision Analysis: Primary Collision Factors
Collision Analysis: Collision Type
17 18
897
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
10 Collision Analysis:

Priority Locations
Used reported collisions to
calculate a severity score
based on the number and
frequency of collisions.

77.51 4 0 3 1
Floral Ave from west of De
Wold Ave to east of Leonard
Ave
Segment 70.02 8 3 2 4
Mountain View Ave from west
of McCall Ave to east of McCall
Ave
Segment 68.40 5 2 2 2
Whitson St & Gather St Intersection
(unsignalized)

40.88 5 2 2 2
Second St & Young St Intersection
(unsignalized)

40.06 6 0 2 4
19 20
898
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
11 Potential Locations for Pedestrian
Crossing Improvements
• Inform an HSIP Application
• Group multiple locations for
crosswalk and crosswalk related
improvements
Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• What other locations do you have safety concerns about? • What other locations are priorities for the City to improve? 21 22
899
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
12 Phase 1 Survey Results
▪ 842 responses (countywide)
Phase 1 Survey Results
23 24
900
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
13 Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results
▪ 430 total survey respondents
▪ 155 map points dropped countywide
▪ Top 3 safety concerns for points
dropped across Fresno County:
▪ Crashes or near misses, speeding or
aggressive driving, and lack of safe places
to walk, bike or wait for the bus
▪ Top 3 safety improvements for all
respondents:
▪ Road maintenance, bike improvements,
and rural road improvements
Phase 2 Survey/Interactive Map Results:

Data collected for Selma
▪ 13 respondents live/work in Selma
▪ 24 points dropped in the map:
▪ Dinuba Ave
▪ Mountain View Ave
▪ Highland Ave
▪ Golden State Blvd
▪ Rose Ave
▪ Safety concerns:
▪ Unsafe places to walk, bike or wait for the
bus
▪ Lack of safe crossings
▪ Poor lighting/visibility
25 26
901
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
14 Systemic Considerations
Discussion questions:
• Do these safety concerns and improvements align with your experiences in Selma?
• What general road safety concerns do you have based on your experiences and observations?
28 Education Campaign
27 28
902
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
15 Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
Safe Roads Save Lives
• Goals of the campaign:
• Educate all road users on safe behaviors
• Increase safety for people walking and biking
• Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in Fresno County – speeding and distracted driving
• Parts of the campaign:
• Branding
• Social Media Strategy
• Print materials
• Radio and video resources
• School-specific recommendations
29 30
903
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
16 Safe Roads Save Lives
Safe Roads Save Lives
Discussion questions:
• What kinds of messages do/don’t resonate?
• What is a motivator in your community for
behavior change?
• Which messages will be most useful to your
community?
31 32
904
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
17 33
Role of Enforcement
Enforcement Alternatives
Automatic enforcement
and speed feedback
signs
(multiple locations nationwide)
Community members
as crossing guards
(Schools and SRTS
nationwide)
Youth letter writing
and “ticketing”
(Alameda County, CA)
Neighborhood and
Community Safety
(Milwaukee, WI)
33 34
905
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
18 Enforcement Alternatives
Discussion questions:
• What are you currently doing for traffic safety enforcement? • What has worked well or not well?
• What are some alternatives to law enforcement that could work in your community?
36 Next Steps
Prepare the Draft LRSP
Prepare HSIP Grant Applications
35 36
906
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

City of Selma Focus Group
19 Thank you!
For more information or any follow-up, contact
Jennifer Soliz at [email protected]
37 907
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

January 2022
908
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

A APPENDICES

APPENDIX B. REGIONAL COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
909
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Regional Safety Plan
Countermeasures and Safety Strategies
Fresno Council of Governments
California
July 2021

910
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Regional Safety Plan
Countermeasures and Safety Strategies
Fresno Council of Governments
California
Prepared For:

Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 233-4148
Prepared By:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2510 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 266-2190
Project Manager: Erin M. Ferguson, P.E., RSP
Deputy Project Manager: Matt A. Braughton, RSP
Project No. 25631
July 2021

911
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Introduction
3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Countermeasures Toolbox ..................................................................................................................... 6 Roadway Segment Countermeasures ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Intersection Countermeasures .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Pedestrian and Bicycle Countermeasures ................................................................................................................................. 30 Non-Engineering Strategies ................................................................................................................. 40 Educational Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 Enforcement Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................. 40 Emergency Medical Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 44

912
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Introduction
4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

913
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Introduction
5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is supporting the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) to identify countermeasures and strategies to improve roadway safety performance in the region as part of a broader effort to develop the Regional Safety Plan. Safety performance is defined as reducing collision frequency and severity. This report is organized into two parts:
 Countermeasures Toolbox: Summarizes the systemic or location-specific countermeasures (i.e., engineering countermeasures) that could be implemented in the region to reduce the severity of collisions as well as the risk of collisions occurring.  Non-Engineering Safety Strategies: Summarizes the education, enforcement, and emergency services strategies that could complement engineering projects to reduce severe collisions and collision risk.

The countermeasures toolbox in this report will ultimately be incorporated into the COG’s final Regional Safety Plan and serve as a resource for local agencies within the region. The countermeasures toolbox is organized to help local agencies identify countermeasures that have been found to be effective at reducing collision risk and are likely to be eligible for grant funding through Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

The non-engineering safety strategies are complementary to the engineering countermeasures. These strategies tend to be more effectively coordinated and implemented at a regional level. The implementation of the strategies provides benefits at a local and regional level. Typically funding and coordinating the education, enforcement, and emergency services strategies requires collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries, which is often better suited to the role of a regional agency able to bring those different agency stakeholders together. These strategies will be integrated into the final Regional Safety Plan along with recommendations for steps towards implementation. 914
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
The following presents the engineering-related countermeasures identified for Fresno County. These countermeasures were selected based on the collision patterns and trends identified in the existing conditions report and professional resources. Professional resources used to identify these countermeasures include: the Caltrans’ Local Road Safety Manual , American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual ; Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) CMF Clearinghouse and resources on systemic safety; and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance documents related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The section describes each countermeasure, the types of locations it is intended to be used at, and why it was selected for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Fresno County. The collision reduction factor (CRF) and if the countermeasure is eligible for federal funding is also noted for each of the countermeasures in this report. The information regarding the estimated collision reduction and eligibility for federal funding is obtained from the Local Roadway Safety Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (LRSM, 2020), unless otherwise noted.

915
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTERMEASURES
Street Lighting (R1)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $7,000 - $10,000 per light Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35%. Collision reduction only applies to nighttime collisions occurring within the limits of the roadway.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing or modifying lighting on roadway segments.

This is done to improve the visibility of non-motorized users to drivers and reduce potential conflicts and collisions. Providing roadway lighting improves the safety by improving the drivers’ perception- reaction times, enhancing drivers’ available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristics in advance of the change, and non-motorized users’ visibility and navigation. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Example Lighting on the Roadway

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because darkness was a factor in 32% of reported total collisions and 44% of reported fatal and severe injury collisions.

Out of the 318 reported fatal collisions that occurred in the dark, 168 occurred where there were either no streetlights or streetlights were reported not to be functioning.

Increased visibility would contribute to pedestrian, bicycle, and motorist safety, allowing drivers to more easily see non-motorized users. Consideration should be taken before implementation to account for maintenance and electrical costs that occur after implementation.

916
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear Recovery Zone (R2) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $200-$10,000 per object
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35%.

Brief Description: Removing or relocating roadside fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage, trees, or other fixed objects provides a clear recovery zone that allows drivers to correct their path of travel when they leave the roadway. This countermeasure is particularly effective outside of curves, along lane drops and in traffic islands where fixed object collisions are more common. A clear recovery zone should be developed in more rural context roadways, as space is available. The jurisdictions are only able to address sight obstructions within jurisdiction’s right of way. Where public right of way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of Removing or Relocating Fixed Object

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed 1. Removing or relocating fixed objects outside of a clear recovery zone would provide an opportunity for drivers to correct their path of travel and can proactively address a history of hit object collisions.

1 Driving at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent for given conditions. 917
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Guardrail (R4)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: Varies - $9.50 - $39 per linear foot of guardrail, depending on the posts and end flares used (Maryland, St. Mary’s County, 2021).

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing guardrails, to reduce the frequency and severity of lane departure collisions. These countermeasures are used to prevent vehicles from leaving the roadside and are particularly recommended at slopes steeper than 4:1 (AASHTO Green Book, 2011).

This countermeasure is applicable at locations where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. The guardrail can operate to deflect a vehicle back to the roadway, slow the vehicle down to a complete stop, or in certain circumstances, slow the vehicle down and then let it proceed past the guardrail. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure

3. Figure 3: Example of a Guardrail

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Installing guardrail at appropriate locations would reduce the severity of hit-object collisions and provide an opportunity for the drivers to deflect vehicles back onto the roadway. Potential locations for installing this countermeasure should consider available right of way and costs of acquiring any additional right of way.
918
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Raised Median (R8)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $15,000 - $30,000 per 100 feet of the roadway, depending on design, site conditions, and whether the median can be added as part of a utility improvement or capital improvement.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves adding new raised medians on roadways to control and restrict left-turn and U-turn movements on the roadways except at few designated locations. Adding raised medians can help reduce conflicts by restricting access-related movements to the roadway. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located along the roadway and within the influence area of an intersection. In addition to preventing left-turns at minor driveways, the raised median reduces friction in the traffic stream by separating opposing traffic. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Example of a Raised Median

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because improper turning2 is among top three primary contributing collision factors for reported total (21%) and fatal and severe injury (23%) collisions. The safety benefits of restricting movements should be balanced with restrictions to business access and its associated impacts on commercial and retail areas.

2 Turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately. 919
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Road Diet (R14)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $6-$10 per linear foot (changes to pavement markings only) Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 30 Brief Description: Reduce the number of vehicle lanes on a roadway to manage vehicle speeds and reduce risk of crashes for all road users. A common road diet is to convert a four-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane cross-section, with one lane in each direction and a two-way center left turn lane. This enables space for bicycle lanes and sidewalks. An example three-lane cross-section, i.e. road diet is shown in. An example of a road diet is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Example of Road Diet

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County
because head-on and hit object collisions are among the top five reported collision types. The most common
primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Performing a road diet would reduce motorists speeds, provide additional space for bicyclists and/or pedestrians, and help provide vehicular access for turning into and out of various driveways.

920
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
12 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Widen Shoulder (R15)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $10 per ft of added width per ft lane Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 30%.

Brief Description: Widening the shoulder gives a driver who is in the travel way more time and space to correct and move back into the travel lane. It provides a buffer space from objects such as guardrails, trees, and signs, reducing the likelihood of hit object and run-off-road collisions. A paved shoulder, where available, provides a consistent road surface for recovery. If widening a shoulder by paving is not an option due to a restricted right of way or adjacent objects/trees, a shoulder could also be added or widened by striping edge lines and reducing the vehicular lane width. An example countermeasure is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Example of the Countermeasure

Source: Google Maps
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Providing additional paved shoulder width can address areas with a history of hit object collisions and provide drivers with time to react and road surface to recover. Potential locations for installing this countermeasure should consider available right of way and costs of acquiring any additional right of way.
921
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
13 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatment) (R21) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $35 per square yard
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 55%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves the application of very high-quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to restore and/or maintain pavement friction. Improving pavement friction or skid resistance gives a driver who is skidding more control and time to react. It is particularly effective in areas where pavement conditions contribute to collisions, such as wet pavement or inadequate pavement for posted roadway speeds; areas also include curves, loop ramps, and areas with short stopping distances. An example countermeasure application is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Example High Friction Surface Treatment Application

Source: Utah Department of Transportation
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
These countermeasures may be considered when high frequencies of run-off road collisions related to a horizontal curve are identified or frequent hard-braking related collisions occur on intersection approaches. This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Improving pavement friction or introducing other high friction surface countermeasures would provide added resistance and improve recovery for drivers who depart the roadway.

922
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
14 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (R22) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $500 per sign.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 15%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing and/or upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting, which provides drivers with a visual warning of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement they may have missed with existing signs. This countermeasure is appropriate on roadway segments with a history of head-on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off-road, and sideswipe collisions. This countermeasure should be installed in combination with additional countermeasures, such as installing or adding chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers and beacons, and relocating existing signs. An example countermeasure is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Example Countermeasure Application
Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County
because hit object collisions are among the top three
collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision
factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Furthermore, collisions that occurred during dark conditions accounted for 32% of the total reported collisions and 44% of the reported fatal and severe injury collisions. Installing and/or upgrading signs with new fluorescent sheeting would provide drivers with increased awareness of changing roadway elements.

923
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs (R26)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2,000 - $11,000 per sign, depending on whether it is solar powered or AC (Hallmark & Hawkins, 2014).

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 30% Brief Description: These countermeasures to address motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves.

They provide a message to drivers exceeding a certain speed threshold (or posted speed limit). The intent of these countermeasures is to get drivers attention and provide them with a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Example of Dynamic Speed Warning Sign

Source: Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Providing appropriate signing can address curve-related collisions which often result in hit object or run-off-road collisions.

924
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Edgelines and Centerlines (R28)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $4 per linear foot.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure consists of installing or modifying edgelines and centerlines, which helps clarify and increase visibility of the road and lane boundaries. These countermeasures help drivers who may depart the roadway or travel lane. Additional enhancements can improve visibility, including thermoplastic application with audible disks or bumps, or raised/reflective pavement markers.

An example countermeasure is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Example of Road with Edge-lines and Centerlines

Source: FHWA

Why was this selected for Fresno County?
These countermeasures may be considered when high frequencies of run-off-road collisions related to a horizontal curve are identified and the roadway is not defined through edge-lines or centerlines (or may benefit from adjustments to the existing striping). This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Installing edgelines and centerlines would provide positive guidance for drivers to stay within the travel lane and roadway.

925
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
17 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes (R30)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $0.30 per centerline foot (NYDOT, 2021) Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 20%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing centerline rumble strips to alert drivers who are drifting out of their travel lane before they cross the centerline, giving them time to correct and stay in their lane. Centerline rumble strips are grooves within the double yellow centerline that provide driver with both an audible warning (rumbling sound) and a physical vibration when a vehicle meets them. They are relatively easy to install and have an additional benefit of helping drivers navigate during poor weather conditions such as fog and rain. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: An Example Countermeasure Application

Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because head-on and sideswipe collisions are among the top five reported collision types.

The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Installing centerline rumble strips/stripes would provide positive guidance for drivers to stay within the travel lane.

926
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes (R31)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $10 per linear foot
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF= 15%.

Brief Description: Edgeline rumble strips alert drivers who are drifting out of their travel lane before they depart the roadway, giving them time to correct and stay in their lane. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual recommends installing rumble strips along an entire corridor, instead of in intermittent spots.

Rumble stripes—so called when the pavement marking is in the rumble strip—provide enhanced marking in wet or dark conditions. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: An Example Edgeline Rumble Strip Application

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Installing edgeline rumble strips/stripes would provide positive guidance for drivers to stay withing the travel lane and roadway.

However, despite the vehicular safety benefit of edgeline rumble strips, they create additional challenges for people bicycling. Strategic placement of rumble strips is important in order to balance the safety affects for motorists and bicyclists. Agencies shall consider adjusting rumble strip dimensions, location, and offset to better accommodate bicyclists.

927
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
19 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from signal) (S16)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $4,000,000 - $8,000,000 per intersection Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35-67% Brief Description: Roundabouts are a form of intersection control that have fewer conflict points in comparison to conventional intersections. Moreover, the types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections. The layout of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. Reducing vehicular speeds helps reduce the severity of crashes when they occur. Additionally, roundabouts reduce the potential for pedestrian conflicts as people walking only need to cross one direction of traffic.

Figure 13: Example of Single Lane Roundabout

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26% of the reported collisions) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Controlling movements and reducing the number of conflicting turning movements would reduce the overall quantity and severity of crashes.

928
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
20 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed Warning Signs
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2,000 - $11,000 per sign, depending on whether it is solar powered or AC (Hallmark & Hawkins, 2014).

Eligible for Federal Funding: No
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: N/A Brief Description: These countermeasures are used to reduce motorist speeds in urban and suburban areas. They provide a message to drivers exceeding a certain speed threshold (or posted speed limit) in urban areas. The intent of these countermeasures is to get drivers attention and provide them with a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed on the roadway. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Example of Dynamic Regulatory Warning Sign

Source: City of Bellevue Transportation Department
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to Fresno County because hit object collisions are among the top three collision types (21%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. The most common primary contributing collision factor (23%) among fatal and severe injury collisions was unsafe speed. Providing appropriate signing can address speed-related collisions in the urban areas.

929
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
21 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Variable Message Signs
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $8,000 - $30,000 per sign, depending on the technology, data, and sensors used.

Eligible for Federal Funding: No
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 17% (USDOT ITS, 2018) Brief Description: Variable message signs (VMS) are electronic roadside signs used to post traveler information messages to inform drivers of collisions, travel times, detours, special events, weather conditions, road construction, and other useful road conditions or travel information. They are especially useful to display in advance of locations where travelers must take action or make route choice decisions. An example of this countermeasure is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Example of Variable Message Sign

Source: Mobile VMS
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
These countermeasures can be installed at locations where travelers routinely need information or before locations where travelers must make a routing decision. They can be particularly useful during roadway construction, weather conditions such as fog or rain, and special events to provide information about temporary conditions to travelers. This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because collisions cited to have occurred under or during fog conditions show an increase in the winter months (November through February) in the existing conditions report.

930
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
22 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections (S1/NS1)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $7,000 - $10,000 per light Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 40%. Collision reduction only applies to nighttime collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing or modifying lighting at signalized or unsignalized intersections. This is done to improve the visibility of non-motorized users to drivers and reduce potential conflicts and collisions. Illuminating crosswalks helps make pedestrians visible for approaching drivers and assists pedestrians in navigating the crossing. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Example of Lighting at Intersection

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because darkness was a factor in 32% of reported total collisions and 44% of reported fatal and severe injury collisions.

Out of the 318 reported fatal collisions that occurred in the dark, 168 occurred where there were either no streetlights or streetlights were reported not to be functioning.

Increased visibility would contribute to pedestrian, bicycle, and motorist safety, allowing drivers to more easily see non-motorized users.

931
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
23 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Improve Signal Hardware - Lenses, Backplates with Retroreflective Border, Mounting Size, Number (S2)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $6,000 - $12,000 per intersection (VDOT, 2018).

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 15%. Collision reduction only applies to collisions occurring on approaches and within the influence area of the intersections (usually within the 250 feet of the intersection) where this countermeasure has been applied.

Brief Description: This countermeasure improves the visibility of the illuminated face of the traffic signal by introducing a controlled-contrast background. Signal heads with backplates equipped with retroreflective borders or larger signal heads are more visible in daytime and nighttime conditions, and help drivers become aware of the upcoming signalized intersections. This countermeasure is more effective when it is adopted as a standard countermeasure for signalized intersections across the town or jurisdiction (FHWA, 2018). An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Example of Signal Backplate Framed with a Retroreflective Border

Source: FHWA, 2018
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26% of the reported collisions) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. Making intersections more visible, particularly for drivers traversing larger signalized intersections would help promote driver compliance at intersections.

932
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
24 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection (S4)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $5,000 - $25,000 per approach depending on whether hardware modifications are necessary beyond the detection system.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 40%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure consists of adding new advance detection and signal hardware to detect vehicles that may approach the intersection in the “dilemma zone” of deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. The detection system modifies the signal timing to reduce the numbers of drivers needing to make this decision and the potential for conflicts due to phase changes. It is most effective on high-speed approaches. Figure 18 shows an example layout of advanced dilemma zone detection at an intersection.

Figure 18: Example Layout of Dilemma Zone Detection

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because rear-end collisions account for 27% of the total reported collisions in the County. This countermeasure can help reduce conflicts due to late-entering vehicles proceeding through the intersection or conflicts arising from hard-stopping vehicles due to dilemma of whether to proceed or stop during the yellow phase of a signal. These countermeasures may be considered when high frequencies of collisions involve hard-stopping vehicles resulting in rear-end collisions, or there is a pattern of collisions related to late-entering vehicles or vehicles running red lights.

933
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
25 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (S10/NS9)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $5,000 - $25,000 depending on the site conditions and type of device.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 30% Brief Description: This countermeasure consists of installing flashing beacons as advance warnings on intersection approaches, that will increase driver’s awareness of the upcoming traffic control in order to comply timely. These signs are equipped with one or more yellow flashing beacons or LED lights and they increase the awareness of the traffic signal or stop sign presence at the intersection and will reduce the drivers’ non-compliance with traffic control at any intersection. It is most effective on high-speed approaches. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Example of Flashing Beacons or LED Lights as Advance Warning to Intersection

Source: Sonoma County, OKSolar
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because unsafe speed is one of the three top primary collision contributing factors (23% of the reported collisions) resulting in a fatality or severe injury.

Additionally, rear-end collisions accounted for 27% of the total reported collisions in the County and broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury. This countermeasure can help reduce collisions that have occurred due to drivers’ not being able to perceive the intersection, signal head, stop sign presence, or the back of a stopped queue in time to react.

934
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
26 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

No Right-Turn on Red
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $500 - $5,000 (per approach) Eligible for Federal Funding: No
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: 7% (CMF Clearing House, 2009).

Brief Description: This countermeasure prohibits vehicles from turning right when pedestrians have the right-of-way to cross the adjacent street. In combination with thoughtful signal phasing, this can reduce or eliminate the conflict of turning-vehicles and pedestrians crossing the street. The no right-turn on red maybe a dynamic restriction that occurs only when the pedestrian push button is activated. An example of an intersection with right-turn-on-red prohibited is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Example of No Right-Turn on Red

Source: Flickr, 2018
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected to encourage motorists to stop at the red light. This was recommended in areas where the drivers have been observed and reported as not yielding to pedestrians and/or bicyclists crossing the
intersection approach to the motorists’ right, resulting in collisions and/or near-misses with people attempting to cross the street.

935
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
27 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Intersection Warning/Regulatory Signs (NS6) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $450 - $1,020 per sign, assuming a 7’ signpost (VDOT, 2018).

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 15%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing larger stop, warning or regulatory signs at or in advance of an intersection, which improves the sign visibility and increases drivers’ awareness at intersections and/or intersection approaches. An example of a large stop sign is shown in Figure 21. The effectiveness of this strategy is greatest when implementation involves a combination of regulatory and warning signs appropriate for the conditions at an unsignalized intersection approach.

Figure 21: Example of a Stop Sign

Source: South Carolina DOT
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury and have occurred primarily at unsignalized intersections. Making intersections more visible would help promote driver compliance at intersections.

936
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
28 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS7)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $500 - $5,000 per approach Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure consists of adding or upgrading pavement markings at and on the approach to an unsignalized intersection. Upgrades to intersection pavement markings include "stop ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars for stop-controlled approaches. Providing visible stop bars and clearer lane delineation on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help increase the visibility of the intersection for approaching drivers as well as reducing potential conflicts by clarifying the footprint of the intersection. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Example Pavement Markings at an Intersection

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury and have occurred primarily at unsignalized intersections. Making intersections more visible would help promote driver compliance at intersections.

937
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
29 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Approaches (NS 13) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $10,000 per approach.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 40%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure consists of adding a raised median island at minor street intersection approaches. These islands create a physical separation between vehicles turning onto the stop-controlled approach and vehicles stopped on that same approach. The splitter island also increases the visibility of the intersection, clarifies movements at the intersection, and provides a space for a secondary stop sign on the approach, if needed. Splitter islands should be designed to accommodate appropriate design vehicles while still being large enough to be visible to drivers and provide a refuge area for crossing pedestrians. The example splitter island is shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Example of Splitter Island

Source: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Broadside collisions are among the top three collision types (26%) resulting in a fatality or severe injury and have occurred primarily at unsignalized intersections. These countermeasures may be considered when high frequencies of collisions are related to conflicting movements resulting from movements onto or off minor street approaches. Making intersections more visible would help promote driver compliance at intersections.

938
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
30 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COUNTERMEASURES
Install Bike Lanes (R32 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $10 per ft
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure designates a portion of roadway for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists through striping, signage, and pavement markings. Bike lanes typically run in the same direction of traffic, though they may be configured in the contra-flow direction on low-traffic corridors for the connectivity of a particular bicycle route. Buffered bike lanes provide greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane or on-street parking by using painted chevrons or diagonal markings. Buffered bike lanes may be desirable on streets with higher vehicle speeds or volumes. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24: Example of Buffered Bike Lane

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because bicycle fatal and severe injury collisions (6%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

There is presence of wrong-way riding 3 behavior by bicyclists in this region, which is another factor to consider this type of countermeasure. The use of bike lanes helps bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitates predictable behavior and movements between motorists and bicyclists.

3 This may indicate wrong-way or sidewalk riding by bicyclists where bike facilities are not present. 939
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
31 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Sidewalk/Pathway (R34 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $25 per ft
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 80%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure provides a separate, protected space for pedestrians to walk along the roadway. It helps to increase comfort, increase visibility of pedestrians to motorists, and can help prevent vehicles from departing the roadway and striking pedestrians. Additionally, installing sidewalks—particularly when providing access to public transit—can increase the transportation options for individuals who may not be able to drive a car. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to reduce the collision risks associated with pedestrians walking along the roadways as compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Example of Sidewalk

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Pedestrians walking in road4 is one of the top contributing factors (21% of the reported total collisions) associated with pedestrian collisions. Installing sidewalks would provide pedestrians with a dedicated space for travel separated from vehicle travel lanes.

Additionally, by moving pedestrians off the travel lanes, motorist operations are improved and capacity increased.

4 This may indicate a pedestrian walking on a roadway on the right-hand or left-hand edge of the roadway. 940
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
32 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced Features (R35 PB) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $60,000 - $160,000 per crossing Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35%.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features such as high-visibility crosswalk markings, curb extensions, raised medians, beacons, and lighting to delineate the portion of the roadway to be used by crossing pedestrians. The features help indicate preferred locations for pedestrians to cross and increase the visibility of a crossing location. These countermeasures increase both pedestrian and driver awareness and help reinforce drivers’ requirement to yield the right-of-way to crossing pedestrians.

The enhanced improvements added to the crossing also increase the likelihood that pedestrians will cross at a location visible to and predictable for motorists. They are useful in aligning pedestrian behavior with driver expectations at mid-block crossings. Guidance signs and markings should be used in combination with the enhanced pedestrian crossing to guide pedestrians and bicyclists along appropriate travel paths.

An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26: Example of Curb Extensions and Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing

Source: Google Maps, Toole Design Group
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because vehicle-pedestrian collisions accounted for 3% of the total reported collisions. Pedestrians crossing out of crosswalk5 is the top contributing factor (40% of the reported fatal and severe injury collisions) associated with pedestrian collisions. Installing enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossings would warn drivers to expect pedestrian and bicycle crossings and clarify that drivers must yield right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists in marked and unmarked crossings.

5 This indicates a pedestrian crossing a roadway outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. 941
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
33 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (S17 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $1,800 per signal head
Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing pedestrian countdown signal heads that contain a timer display and counts down the remaining number of seconds to finish crossing the street.

Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the push button rather than cross illegally. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27: Example of Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head at an Intersection

Source: Toole Design Group
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
Pedestrians crossing out of crosswalk is the top contributing factor (40% of the reported fatal and severe injury collisions) associated with pedestrian collisions. Installing pedestrian countdown signals would inform pedestrians of the remaining time allocated for them to to cross the street during their phase of the traffic signal.

942
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
34 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Pedestrian Crossing (S18 PB/NS 20 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2,500 - $8,000 per crossing Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 25%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing pedestrian crossings at intersections to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety by designating a portion of the roadway for pedestrian and bicycle crossing. This helps reduce pedestrian-related collisions within 50 feet of an intersection. High-visibility crosswalk markings, pedestrian countdown signals, and appropriate signs will alert drivers and enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety at pedestrian crossings. Incorporating advance yield lines provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing multiple-threat danger to pedestrians. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Example of Pedestrian Crossing at an Intersection

Source: Toole Design Group
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because vehicle-pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions (17%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized intersections tend to be the intersections with the greatest concentration of road user activity (higher vehicle volumes to warrant a signal, where people tend to go to cross the street) so the presence of conflicts between modes is greater at signalized intersections. Reducing and managing those conflicts through signal phasing adjustments and designating separate space for each mode helps to reduce collision risk. Pedestrian crossing signs and markings at uncontrolled intersections warn drivers to expect pedestrian and bicycle crossings and clarify that drivers must yield right of way to crossing pedestrians and bicyclists.

943
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
35 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Modify Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (S21 PB) Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $550 - $6,000 including countdown timer, controller, signal head, and software upgrade.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 60%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves implementing leading pedestrian interval (LPI) which improves drivers’ awareness of pedestrians at intersections. LPIs provide pedestrians a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LPIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give pedestrians the “Walk” signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are given a green indication.

With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists have priority to turn left at the intersection. LPIs can be provided automatically with each phase or provided only when actuated (actively or passively). An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Example of a Leading Pedestrian Interval

Source: PedBikeInfo
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because vehicle-pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions (17%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections. These countermeasures may be considered at signalized intersections, specifically at intersections with medium to high motor vehicle turning volumes and pedestrian volumes.

944
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
36 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install Pedestrian Refuge Islands (NS19 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $120 per ft.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (90%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 45%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves adding new raised median on the approaches to intersections to control and restrict movements from access points on the approach to an intersection.

Raised medians with pedestrian refuge islands are roadway countermeasures designed to provide dedicated areas for pedestrians and bicyclists between vehicle travel lanes at intersections and mid-block locations. They must have a minimum width of 6 feet to meet pedestrian accessibility requirements. To provide bicyclists refuge and to accommodate larger groups of pedestrians, the minimum should be increased to 8 feet.

This countermeasure improves the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by reducing crossing distances and creating a place of refuge to allow multiple-stage crossings. They are particularly beneficial at uncontrolled crossings, large signalized crossings, or complex intersections where people may have difficulty completing crossings. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 30.

Figure 30: Example of a Raised Median

Source: FHWA
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because vehicle-pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions (17%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The primary collision factor is often listed as pedestrian violation, which can indicate the need for improved pedestrian crossings. These countermeasures would provide a space for pedestrians to wait during multiple-stage crossings. 945
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
37 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (with Enhanced Safety Features) (NS21 PB)
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $60,000 - $160,000 each.

Eligible for Federal Funding: Yes (100%)
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35%. Collision reduction only applies to pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurring within the influence area of the intersection.

Brief Description: Enhanced pedestrian crossing countermeasures are for uncontrolled, marked crosswalks that cross multilane arterials or collectors. The enhanced crossing alerts the drivers of crossing pedestrian by way of high visibility markings, warning signs, flashing beacons, and by providing pedestrian refuge islands.

In particular, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) have been shown to significantly increase driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks, with driver yield rates ranging from 34% to over 90%.

Studies have also associated RRFBs with reduced pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, increased stopping distance, and reductions in the number of pedestrians trapped in roadway (Thomas et al. 2016). These safety benefits likely extend to bicyclists crossing at RRFB locations. RRFBs are generally more appropriate at two-lane locations, whereas pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) are best suited to higher-speed or multi- lane contexts or locations with limited sight distance. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Example of Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
Source: Washington County, NACTO
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because vehicle-pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions (17%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Installing enhanced pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled intersections can help increase drivers’ yielding behavior and reduce the risk of pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
946
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
38 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bike Lane Extension Through Intersections
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: Varies - $200 - $5,000 per intersection depending on the surface area of markings, materials used, and the color of markings.

Eligible for Federal Funding: No
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 39% (ODOT, 2021).

Brief Description: Bicycle pavement markings through intersections indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection. They guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection and provide clear boundary between paths of bicyclists and motorists. This countermeasure reinforces that the through bicyclists have priority over turning motor vehicles. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure 32.

Figure 32: Example of Bike Lane Extension Through Intersection

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

High visibility bike lane markings are intended to provide notice to drivers and bicyclists of areas where the two may come into conflict. Since the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a priority where this countermeasure is considered.

947
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Countermeasures Toolbox
39 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bike Boxes
Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $5,000 per box, including green thermoplastic, pavement markings and signage.

Eligible for Federal Funding: No
Potential Effectiveness at Reducing Collision Frequency and/or Severity: CRF = 35% (ODOT, 2021).

Brief Description: This countermeasure involves installing a bike box, which is a designated area at the head of the traffic lane at a signalized intersection. This is to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of the motor vehicle queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Bike boxes increase the visibility of bicyclists at an intersection and helps prevent right-hook or left-hook conflicts with turning motor vehicles at the start of the green indication. An example of the countermeasure is shown in Figure

33. Figure 33: Example of Bike Box

Source: NACTO
Why was this selected for Fresno County?
This countermeasure was selected for Fresno County because bicycle fatal and severe injury collisions (6%) are overrepresented for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Bike boxes are intended to provide notice to drivers and bicyclists of areas where the two may come into conflict at intersections. Additionally, bike boxes allow for a better accommodation of right and left turning bicycle traffic.

948
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Non-Engineering Strategies
40 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

NON-ENGINEERING STRATEGIES
In addition to the engineering countermeasures outlined above, Kittelson identified the following education, enforcement, and emergency services strategies to further support efforts to reduce collisions across the County.

EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES
Toole Design Group is actively working on creating a comprehensive transportation safety education program for the region as part of the work under Task 5. The final safety education program will be incorporated into the Regional Safety Plan.

ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
Even when engineering countermeasures are implemented, road users failing to adhere to traffic laws can result in collisions of varying severity. Police enforcement can increase driver awareness and consequently reduce traffic collisions. Potential enforcement strategies to address collision patterns and trends in Fresno County are presented below.

For enforcement strategies to be effective at improving overall safety within a community, it is important that enforcement of traffic laws be done equitably and with sensitivity toward communities where there may be limited rapport with law enforcement. Enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and evaluated to determine the strategy’s impact.

The following considerations can help lead to more successful outcomes for roadway safety enforcement strategies:
 Appropriately train police officers and periodically refresh police officers’ training related to enforcement activities.
 Incorporate social equity considerations in camera placement for automated enforcement such as red-light running cameras.
 Dedicate some portion of enforcement revenue towards funding for outreach and engagement with community groups around roadway safety.  Tailor enforcement campaigns to suit the needs of different neighborhoods and demographics and incorporate education as part of those campaigns.  Conduct enforcement with the help of staff support and awareness of the courts.  Use warnings and flyers before moving on to issuing citations.

Collision data can help identify priority intersections and/or road segments and the times of the day when certain behaviors may be more prevalent. This information can inform and guide the type of enforcement strategy to be selected at the most appropriate locations and time periods. The COG or local agency staff can also help monitor the impact of the enforcement strategy by coordinating with the respective agency’s Police Department to obtain and analyze enforcement records to help evaluate effectiveness and equity considerations.

Progressive Ticketing
Progressive ticketing is a method for introducing ticketing through a three-staged process. Issuing tickets is the strongest strategy of an enforcement program and it is usually reserved for changing unsafe 949
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Non-Engineering Strategies
41 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

behaviors that other strategies failed to change or that pose a real threat to the safety of road users.

There are three main steps of an effective progressive ticketing program:

1. Educating - Establish community awareness of the problem. The public needs to understand that drivers are speeding and the consequences of this speeding for road safety. Raising awareness about the problem will change some behaviors and create public support for the enforcement efforts to follow.

2. Warning - Announce what action will be taken and why. Give the public time to change behaviors before ticketing starts. Fliers, signs, newspaper stories and official warnings from officers can all serve as reminders.

3. Ticketing – After the “warning” period, hold a press conference announcing when and where the police operations will occur. If offenders continue their unsafe behaviors, officers issue tickets.

Speed Trailers
Portable speed trailers visually display a driver’s real-time speed compared to the speed limit and may be effective at reducing speeds and increasing awareness of local speed limits. Portable speed trailers are most effective when the trailer flashes “SLOW DOWN” or flashes a bright white light that mimics a photo speed camera or a blue and red light that mimics a police car when drivers are moving too fast. In some cases, back-up speed enforcement by officers may be needed when radar speed trailers are used.

Speed Enforcement in School Zones
Strict enforcement of speed laws in school zones is one law enforcement tool that can improve the safety for children walking and bicycling to school as well as drivers. A ‘zero tolerance’ policy for speeders in school zones and even an increase in fines for drivers who violate the posted school zone speed limit are potential approaches.

High Visibility Saturation Patrols
A saturation patrol (also called a blanket patrol or dedicated DWI patrol) consists of many law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area to look for drivers who may be impaired. These patrols usually take place at times and locations where impaired driving collisions commonly occur. Like publicized sobriety checkpoint programs, the primary purpose of publicized saturation patrol programs is to deter driving after drinking by increasing the perceived risk of arrest.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The emergency medical services (EMS) or strategies focus on strategies and partnerships that could help regionwide response times and sharing of real-time information to improve overall coordination, particularly for more rural or remote areas of the region. The effectiveness of EMS is tied closely to the time it takes for a person injured in a collision to receive prompt medical care. Research indicates that there is a “golden hour,” total pre-hospital time under 60 minutes is associated with a decrease in patient mortality. The following considerations can help lead to more successful outcomes for EMS strategies:

Partner with Local Hospitals or Outreach Groups
Partnership between local hospitals or outreach groups needs to be established to help provide bystander training courses to the public (i.e., train members of the public to respond to emergencies 950
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Non-Engineering Strategies
42 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

since they are sometimes the first on the scene at a collision and may be the only ones for some time in rural areas). Opportunities for this include:
 Partner with hospitals such as Community Regional Medical Center and trauma centers in the region to provide injury prevention programs.
 Promote the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, which trains community members in first responder skills.
 Work with local groups, such as fire departments, to be trainers themselves and then offer training more frequently in their local community.

Coordinate with all Stakeholders Involved with Emergency Medical Services Work with the Central California Emergency Medical Services Agency (CCEMSA) and other stakeholders to maximize efficiency with urban and rural response times through evidence-based techniques.

Opportunities for this include:
 Build advanced education EMS personnel capacity in rural areas.  Identify reasons for delay in transport for both ground EMS and helicopter EMS (using registry data and EMS records).
 Consider process improvement initiatives to increase EMS documentation and data collection.
 Work with stakeholders to identify equipment upgrades, training, or enhancements that would improve patient outcomes.

Work with the County 911 Team
Work with the County 911 team and involve them in appropriate project planning and design activities to identify opportunities to improve EMS access and location identification. Additional opportunities include, involving the 911 team in enforcement and EMS grant opportunities, and developing or modifying a system that allows the County 911 dispatchers to quickly input reported road issues and send the information to the appropriate agency (i.e., the City, County, or the appropriate jurisdiction). 951
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Next Steps
43 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

NEXT STEPS
As part of the Regional Safety Plan’s development, Fresno COG and the Regional Safety Steering Committee (RSSC) members will review the countermeasures toolbox and safety strategies. Based on the COG’s and RSSC’s input and comments, the Regional Safety Plan itself will include the final countermeasures toolbox and safety strategies. Also, as part of the Regional Safety Plan, the countermeasure toolbox will be applied to twenty locations within the County. The application of the countermeasure toolbox will result in twenty safety concept designs that local agencies can reference as a template for their future use of the countermeasure toolbox.

952
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Countermeasures and Safety Strategies July 2021
Bibliography
44 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hallmark, S. L., & Hawkins, N. (2014). Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs. Iowa State University.

Maryland, St. Mary’s County. (2021). Guardrail Replacement and Repair:
https://www.stmarysmd.com/dpw/guardrails.asp
NYDOT (2021). Centerline Rumble Strips:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/rumblestrips/centerrumblestrips Thomas, L., N.J. Thirsk, and C.V. Zegeer. Application of Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures for Streets and Highways (Project No. 20-05 (Topic 46-10)). 2016. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

USDOT ITS. (2018). Hgihway Segments With Dynamic Message Signs Found To Have 16.6 Percentt Fewer Crashes Than Those segments Withought The Signs:
https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/a67b9589f350a4e385257ff7005e946f VDOT. (2018). Retroreflective Traffic Signal Backplates. Retrieved from VDOT Back Plate Brochure:
http://www.kormansigns.com/downloads/VDOT_Back_Plate_Brochure.pdf VDOT. (2018). VDOT Fairfax County Parkway & Franconia-Springfield Parkway. Retrieved from VDOT Corridor Study:
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/AppendixL_PlanningLevelCostEstimat e.pdf
953
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Receive and File – Update on Landmark Square.

Staff: Renee Mathis, Director of Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Receive and File

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mayor Flores has a financial interest in property located within 1,000 feet of the project and will recuse himself from deliberation on this item.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to receive and file a brief update on the Landmark Square.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will provide the City Council a brief update on the Landmark Square.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Prepared by: John Holt, City Manager

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
954
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andrew Haussler, Assistant City Manager
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider Approval - Res. 22-___, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Clovis Confirming Assessment for Costs for Abatement of Nuisance, 30 West Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93612, APN No.: 499-230-

82. Staff: Andrew Haussler, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution

2. Costs Invoice

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to adopt Resolution No. 22-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clovis Confirming Assessment for Costs for Abatement of Nuisance and Enforcement of Municipal Code, 30 West Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93612, APN No.: 499-230-82.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has assessed administ rative citations and incurred related property nuisance abatement costs in the combined amount of Sixty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Four Dollars and Zero Cents ($66,644.00) related to the general condition of the property, and to board up and mitigate property nuisance conditions, located at 30 West Shaw Avenue (“Property”). The Property owner, Clovis Shaw Partners, LLC, has ignored these citations and demands to repair the Property for well over one year.

At this time, the City is entitled to recover its abatement costs and administrative penalties from Clovis Shaw Partners, LLC and the Property. Resolution No. 22-___ will confirm these costs and penalties as an assessment and regular lien against the Property if not paid within 15 days of the passage of the Resolution.

955
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

BACKGROUND
The Property has long constituted a nuisance due to the presence of broken windows, graffiti, and structural rot, creating unsound structure and potential for collapse on persons near or inside the premises. One portion of the structure fell onto the parked car of a visitor, causing that person to issue a complaint to the City. In tenant spaces, the drywall has been damaged, some due to damage from roof leaks. Broken windows have created an attractive nuisance for trespassin g transients. Interior ceiling panels have been removed, in violation of applicable building codes, creating a danger of the spread of smoke and fire throughout the building in the event of a structural fire. Bullet holes have been observed in the exterior walls of the Property. In general, the condition of the Property was a health and safety danger and an overall blight on the neighborhood.

Clovis City CouncilMarch 21, 2022

Clovis City Council
March 21, 2022