LRSP Report 2022 — Commerce City Council, September 13, 2022

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND

SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL

ACTION PLAN

CITY OF COMMERCE
SEPTEMBER 2022
Prepared for:

City of Commerce
2535 Commerce Way
Commerce, CA 90040
Prepared By:
1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
Monterey Park, CA 91754
T: 323.260.4703 | F: 323.260.4705
www.koacorp.com
JC11001
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 2 Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

2.0 INTRODUCTION 9

2.1 FIVE E'S OF SAFETY ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP/SS4A ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 CITY OF COMMERCE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 SS4A OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.1 Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet 11

2.4.2 Planning Structure 13

2.4.3 Safety Analysis 13

2.4.4 Engagement and Collaboration 13

2.4.5 Equity Considerations 13

2.4.6 Policy and Process Changes 13

2.4.7 Strategy and Project Selection 14

2.4.8 Progress and Transparency 14

3.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS 15

3.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.1 Collision Data Sources 15

3.1.2 Identifying Locations For Engineering Countermeasures 16

3.1.3 Proposing Engineering Countermeasures 17

3.2 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS ................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Roadway Fatality Rate 18

3.2.2 Preliminary Collision Analysis 19

3.2.2 Collisions By Facility Type 26

3.2.3 Geographic Collision Analysis 30

3.2.4 City Of Commerce Vs. Cities Of Similar Sizes 36

3.2.5 Top Collision Locations 36

4.0 ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION 40

5.0 EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS 41

5.1 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC) 41

5.2 Area of Persistent Poverty (APP) 44

6.0 POLICY AND PROCESS CHANGES 46

6.1 General Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

6.2 Bicycle Facility Plans .......................................................................................................................................................................... 46

6.3 Pedestrian Facility Plans ................................................................................................................................................................... 48

6.4 Atlantic Corridor Complete Street Evaluation And Master Plan ............................................................................................ 49 CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 3

7.0 STRATEGY AND PROJECT SELECTIONS 50

7.1 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS ........................................................................................................................... 50

7.2 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................................................................ 51

7.2.1 Roadway Segments 52

7.2.2 Intersections 57

7.2.3 Systemic Countermeasures 70

7.3 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................... 74

7.3.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 74

7.3.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 75

7.3.3 SPEEDING 76

7.3.4 IMPROPER TURNING 77

7.3.5 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES 78

7.4 SAFETY PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 80

7.3.1 Project Scopes And Benefit Calculations 80

7.3.2 Cost Estimate 83

7.3.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio 83

7.3.4 Project Prioritization 86

8.0 PROGRESS AND TRANSPARENCY 89
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 4 List of Figures
Figure 2.1: City of Commerce Citywide Collision Map (June 2016-May 2021) ............................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.1 Fatality Rate Comparison for Commerce vs. LA County .................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3.2: Total Collisions by Year .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3.3: Collision Severity by Mode of Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 3.4: Types of Collisions and Types of Collisions vs. KSI Collisions ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.5: Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Collisions and PCF Collisions vs. KSI Collisions ....................................................................... 22 Figure 3.6: Motor Vehicle Involved With (MVIW) Collisions and MVIW Collisions vs KSI Collisions ..................................................... 23 Figure 3.7: Collisions by Time of Day ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 3.8: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.9: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Age Group .................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 3.10 Collision Types by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 3.11: Collision Hot Spot Locations and Severity ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3.12: Sideswipe Collisions due to Improper Turning ............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.13: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3.14: Rear Broadside Collisions due to Automobile Right of Way ...................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3.15: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 3.16 Top Collision Locations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 5.1 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC) ............................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 5.2 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC) with LRSP Locations ....................................................................................... 43 Figure 5.3 Area of Persistent Povery (APP) ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 5.4 Area of Persistent Povery (APP) with LRSP Locations ..................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 6.1 Proposed Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 6.2. Proposed Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 6.3 Concept for Atlantic Corridor Complete Street Project in Commerce ....................................................................................... 49 Figure 7.1: Concept for Slauson Avenue .................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 7.2: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard ............................................................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 7.3: Concept for Eastern Avenue .................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 7.4: Concept for Garfield Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 7.5: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard & Telegraph Road ......................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 7.6: Concept for Telegraph Road & Washington Boulevard ................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 7.8: Concept for Gage Avenue & Slauson Avenue ................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 7.9: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Telegraph Road ............................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 7.10: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard & Washington Boulevard .......................................................................................................... 63 Figure 7.11: Concept for Greenwood Avenue & Slauson Avenue .................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 7.12: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Washington Boulevard .............................................................................................................. 65 Figure 7.13: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Slauson Avenue ........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 7.14: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Slauson Avenue ........................................................................................................................... 67 CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 5 Figure 7.15: Concept for Goodrich Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard .............................................................................................................. 68 Figure 7.16: Concept for Gerhart Avenue & Olympic Boulevard ...................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 8.1 City of Commerce Public Works Department Webpage ................................................................................................................ 89 List of Tables
Table 1.1 Summary of Treatments and Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2.1 Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3.1: Collision Weight by Severity ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3.2 Yearly Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes by Month ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3.3 Number of Fatality Crashes and Population Comparison for Commerce vs. LA County ....................................................... 18 Table 3.4: Transportation Mode of Collisions by Facility Type ......................................................................................................................... 26 Table 3.5: Sideswipe Collisions by Facility Type .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.6: Rear-end Collisions by Facility Type ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.7: Broadside by Facility Type ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 3.8: 2018 OTS Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 3.9: Top Intersection Ranking .......................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 3.10: Top Roadway Segment Ranking .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 7.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywide Collisions ......................................................................................................... 51 Table 7.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to the City of Commerce LRSP ............................................................................................... 52 Table 7.3: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 75 Table 7.4: Signalized Intersection Programs Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................... 76 Table 7.5: Speeding Program Funding Sources .................................................................................................................................................... 77 Table 7.6: Sideswipes due to Improper Turning Collisions Program Funding Sources ............................................................................. 78 Table 7.7 Transportation Safety Funding Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 79 Table 7.8 Safety Project Scopes .................................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 7.9 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project .................................................................................................................................... 84 Table 7.10: Safety Project List ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Appendices
Appendix A – Intersection Collision Summary
Appendix B – List of Safety Projects
Appendix C – Safety Project Cost Estimation
Appendix D – Collision Benefit Analysis
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 6

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program to improve roadway safety by supporting communities in developing comprehensive safety action plans based on a Safe System Approach, and implementing projects and strategies that significantly reduce or eliminate transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries involving pedestrians; bicyclists; public transportation, personal conveyance, and micromobility users, commercial vehicle operators; and motorists. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) document also serves as the SS4A Action Plan for the City of Commerce.

Overview
Section 24112 of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117–58, November 15, 2021; also referred to as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” or “BIL”) authorized and appropriated $1 billion to be awarded by the Department of Transportation for FY 2022 for the SS4A grant program.

This report has been prepared per U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The general content of this SS4A Action Plan follows this outline:
● Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
● Planning Structure
● Safety Analysis
● Engagement and Collaboration
● Equity Consideration
● Policy and Process Changes
● Strategy and Project Selections
● Progress and Transparency
As part of developing SS4A grant applications, the City of Commerce is required to submit a current LRSP, which the City recently adopted on September 2022. This LRSP will become the foundation for traffic safety guidelines moving forward, and the City of Commerce is committed to review these safety guidelines as outlined in the September 2022 LRSP annually. The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
● Identify the highest occurring collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions. ● Identify high-risk corridors and intersections.
● Propose safety countermeasures to address the safety issues. ● Prioritize safety improvement projects based on benefit/cost ratio and other considerations.

Prominent Collision Patterns
Five years of SWITRS collision records were utilized from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021. The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (PCF), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and mid-block locations). A total of 2,567 crashes were recorded from June 2016 to May 2021. The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
● The most common collision types were broadside, rear-end, and sideswipe. ● Bicycle- and pedestrian-related crashes accounted for approximately 2.3 percent of total collisions and 22.1 percent of KSI collisions.
● Sideswipe due to improper turning is one of the prominent collision patterns.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 7 Safety Measures
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:

Signalized Intersections
Bicyclists and Pedestrian Safety
Speeding
Visibility
The LRSP recommends engineering countermeasures derived based on the discussion with stakeholders and city staff, identified emphasis areas, and collision patterns. The emphasis areas were utilized to identify non-engineering programs. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for non-engineering programs, such as:

Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program (ATCMTD) Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Sustainable Communities Grant Program
California Office of Traffic (OTS) Safety Grants (NHTSA funding) Table 1.1 Summary of Treatments and Costs

Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Cost ($)
Estimation
1 1.1 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD n/a Lane Markings2 $256,482

1.2 n/a Restriping2

1.3 n/a Regulatory Signs2

1.4 n/a High visibility crosswalks1
2 2.1 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON BL n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 $30,401 3 3.1 EASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV S02 Signal Hardware $919,085

3.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
4 4.1 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 $26,761 5 5.1 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 $30,401 6 6.1 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL S02 Signal Hardware $26,324 7 7.1 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 $30,401 8 8.1 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL n/a Restriping2 $310,054

8.2 n/a Regulatory Signs

8.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
9 9.1 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV n/a Restriping2 $277,966

9.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
10 10.1 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV n/a Restriping2 $104,901

10.2 n/a Lane Markings2

10.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 8

Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
Cost ($)
Estimation
11 11.1 GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 $30,401 12 12.1 GERHART AV & OLYMPIC BL n/a Restriping2 $60,345

12.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
13 13.1 SLAUSON AVE FROM GREENWOOD AVE

TO TELEGRAPH RD
R22 Upgrade Signage $82,395

13.2 R26 Dynamic Speed Warning Signs

13.3 n/a Restriping2
14 14.1 ATLANTIC BL FROM TELEGRAPH RD TO

WASHINGTON BLVD
n/a Restriping2 $79,847
15 15.1 EASTERN AVE FROM ATLANTIC BL TO

SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane $722,963
16 16.1 GARFIELD AVE FROM MALT AVE TO

SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane $618,460
17 17.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S03 Signal Coordination $513,968 18 18.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S21PB Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
$142,688
19 19.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Retro-reflective backing plates $589,913 20 20.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Nearside Signals $139,922 21 21.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Upgrade Signal heads $354,201 22 22.1 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS n/a Curb Extensions $5,428,842

22.2 NS21PB Curb Extensions $3,818,506
TOTAL $14,595,227
1 CRF for this countermeasure was found through the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm 2 No CRF is available for this countermeasure

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 9

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Commerce has retained KOA Corporation (KOA) to develop a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Action Plan based on the current LRSP. Traditionally, agencies have selected safety projects based on historical crash records, focusing on sites with a concentration of recent severe collisions. This report identifies the most common collision categories across a roadway network to target projects that address the factors associated with these categories. Systemic improvements target broader geography than the traditional spot location improvements. The systemic project selection favors the cost-effective countermeasures for implementation.

2.1 FIVE E'S OF SAFETY
This Plan provides a framework for reducing fatalities and severe injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads. The LRSP focuses on improving roadway safety with engineering improvements and non-engineering programs/campaigns. The plan utilized the following Five E’s: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies. Working together with the Five E's at the city level will help make city roads safer.

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP/SS4A ACTION PLAN
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety problems and recommends safety improvements. The recommendations in the LRSP also considered the comments of stakeholders involved in the process. Stakeholders included the City's Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Montebello Unified School District and other city staff. The results of the LRSP are summarized with a prioritized list of improvements and actions. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety needs in Commerce.

2.3 CITY OF COMMERCE
The City of Commerce is a city located southeast of downtown Los Angeles. According to the American Community Survey, the 2019 5-year estimated population is 12,830 residents. Based on the SWITRS collision database, between June 2016 and May 2021, there were 2,567 collisions in Commerce, of which 41 resulted in fatal and severe injuries.

Figure 2.1 illustrates a map of the collisions citywide.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 10 Figure 2.1: City of Commerce Citywide Collision Map (June 2016-May 2021) Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021

2.4 SS4A OVERVIEW
The SS4A grant program eligibility includes qualifying for seven out of nine questions in the self-certification eligibility worksheet. This includes required “yes” responses to questions 3, 7, and 9, while four out of the six remaining questions (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 8) also need to be answered “yes”. The following sections include a selfcertification eligibility worksheet and a brief description of the tasks associated with this project, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 11

2.4.1 Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
Table 2.1 provides instructions to determine eligibility for applicants that have a substantially similar plan and shows if the City of Commerce is eligible to apply for this SS4A funding.

Table 2.1 Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
Question Response, Document and Page Number

1. Are both of the following true:
 Did a high-ranking official and/or
governing body in the jurisdiction
publicly commit to an eventual goal of
zero roadway fatalities and serious
injuries?
 Did the commitment include either setting
a target date to reach zero, OR setting
one or more targets to achieve significant
declines in roadway fatalities and serious
injuries by a specific date?
No

2. To develop the Action Plan, was a committee,
task force, implementation group, or similar
body established and charged with the
plan’s development, implementation, and
monitoring?
Yes, see Section 4 (p.40) of this document.

3. Does the Action Plan include all of the
following?
 Analysis of existing conditions and
historical trends to baseline the level of
crashes involving fatalities and serious
injuries across a jurisdiction, locality,
Tribe, or region;
 Analysis of the location(s) where there are
crashes, the severity, as well as
contributing factors and crash types;
 Analysis of systemic and specific safety
needs is also performed, as needed (e.g.,
high risk road features, specific safety
needs of relevant road users; and
 A geospatial identification (geographic or
locational data using maps) of higher risk
locations.

Yes, see Sections 3 (p.15) and Section 7 (p.50) of this document.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 12

4. Did the Action Plan development include all
of the following activities?
 Engagement with the public and relevant
stakeholders, including the private sector
and community groups;
 Incorporation of information received
from the engagement and
collaboration into the plan; and
 Coordination that included inter- and
intra- governmental cooperation and
collaboration, as appropriate.

Yes, see Section 4 (p.40) of this document.

5. Did the Action Plan development include all
of the following?
 Considerations of equity using inclusive
and representative processes;
 The identification of underserved
communities through data; and
 Equity analysis, in collaboration with
appropriate partners, focused on
initial equity impact assessments of
the proposed projects and strategies,
and population characteristics.

Yes, see Section 5 (p.41) of this document.

6. Are both of the following true?
 The plan development included an
assessment of current policies, plans,
guidelines, and/or standards to identify
opportunities to improve how processes
prioritize safety; and
 The plan discusses implementation
through the adoption of revised or new
policies, guidelines, and/or standards.

Yes, see Section 6 (p.46) of this document.

7. Does the plan identify a comprehensive
set of projects and strategies to address the
safety problems identified in the Action
Plan, time ranges when the strategies and
projects will be deployed, and explain
project prioritization criteria?
Yes, see Section 7 (p.50) of this document.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 13

8. Does the plan include all of the following?
 A description of how progress will be
measured over time that includes, at a
minimum, outcome data
 The plan is posted publicly online.

Yes, see Section 8 (p.89) of this document.

9. Was the plan finalized and/or last updated
between 2017 and 2022?
Yes, this document was adopted by the City of
Commerce City Council in September 2022.

2.4.2 Planning Structure
A committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body charged with oversight of the Action Plan development, implementation, and monitoring are discussed in Section 4.

2.4.3 Safety Analysis
The LRSP report includes an analysis of locations where there are crashes and the severity of the crashes, as well as contributing factors and crash types by relevant road users (motorists, people walking, transit users, etc.). Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs was also performed and these safety measures are discussed in Section 7 of this document.

A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data:

Five years (6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021) of collision data were collected via the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
Classification of control type: signalized intersection, non-signalized intersection, and midblock locations Following the comprehensive GIS database, the collision data was analyzed for Commerce. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas defined in the California SHSP. The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 3 of this document.

2.4.4 Engagement and Collaboration
A list of engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups, and the detailed information received from the stakeholder meeting and online survey is mentioned in Section 4.

2.4.5 Equity Considerations
This report includes an analysis of Historically Disadvantaged Communities and Area of Persistent Poverty in the City of Commerce that are identified through USDOT data. Analysis of both population characteristics and initial equity impact assessments on proposed projects and strategies in the LRSP are discussed in Section 5.

2.4.6 Policy and Process Changes
This report reviews the current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 14 processes prioritize transportation safety in Section 6.

2.4.7 Strategy and Project Selection
Roadways and intersections were ranked based on the collision frequency. The top locations of interest will be investigated for further evaluation and potential safety improvements. The improvements include signal hardware improvements, additional warning signage, and bikeway-related features. Planning-level cost estimations are provided for each safety project. The list of safety projects are prioritized based on the following considerations:
 Benefit/Cost Ratio (for engineering solutions only)
 Funding availability for engineering and non-engineering programs  Other factors recommended by city staff
The safety projects and cost estimates are discussed in Section 7 of this document.

2.4.8 Progress and Transparency
Methods to measure progress in the implementation of the LRSP over time is discussed in Section 8.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 15

3.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS

3.1 METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 Collision Data Sources
The collision data drew from four sources. The collision trend data was derived between June 2016 and May 2021 from the (1) California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database; (2) University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS); (3) U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and (4) California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS). The OTS traffic safety data for Commerce compared it with 102 cities in California with a similar population.

California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) The California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database collects and processes data on collisions throughout California. The online SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally-targeted collision reports in an electronic format. The most recent five years of collision data from June 2016 to May 2021 were extracted to identify long–term collision trends and patterns within the City. The analysis is aggregated and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and midblock locations).

University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) The TIMS database contains geocoded collisions included in the SWITRS database. TIMS geocodes SWITRS collisions that involve either an injury or fatality (i.e., excluding property damage-only collisions). Thus, TIMS provides local agencies with an efficient and straightforward tool to conduct geographic analysis.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from the U.S. Department of Transportation is a nationwide census providing NHTSA, Congress and the American public yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes. FARS contains data on every fatal motor vehicle traffic crash within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a traffic crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling on a public traffic way that results in the death of a vehicle occupant or a nonoccupant within 30 days of the crash.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in California with similar populations. The statistics focus on the victims killed and injured in crashes. Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they underperform. In the OTS collision ranking system, Commerce belongs to Group E, containing 102 cities with a population between 10,001 and 25,000. The data is based on 2018 data from the OTS website.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 16

3.1.2 Identifying Locations For Engineering Countermeasures Crash data analysis for this LRSP/SS4A Action Plan was conducted using collision data from SWITRS. The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database.

Caltrans' Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California's Local Road Owners, Version 1.6, April 2022 (LRSM) encourages a proactive rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. According to the LRSM, a proactive approach is preferred.

With traditional methods, "crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort." A proactive approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
● An extensive crash history at high-collision frequency locations provides insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes ● Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
● Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with similar roadway characteristics regardless of their crash history
The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years' worth of collision data from June 2016 to May 2021 were reviewed for the Commerce LRSP. Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

Ranking Function
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Two ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments:

Average Crash Frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description on each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

Average Crash Frequency
The average Crash frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the number of collisions at each location in the system, both aggregate and by category of interest (e.g., level of severity, collision type, etc.). The analysis then ranks intersection or roadway segments based on the collisions' frequency. The method involves easy computation and little data collection. A collision database such as the SWITRS database usually suffices.

EPDO Scores
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores are calculated by assigning weighted factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only collisions. The weights generally reflect the order of magnitude difference CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 17 between the societal cost of fatal and severe injury collisions versus the non-severe injury collisions. Table 3.1 shows the weights by collision severity, based on the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), April 2022.

Table 3.1: Collision Weight by Severity
Collision Severity Location Type Crash Cost
Fatality and Severe Injury
Signalized
Intersection $1,787,000
Non Signalized
Intersection $2,843,000
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000
Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) - $159,900
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) - $90,900
Property Damage Only (O) - $14,900
EPDO scores are helpful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location's EPDO score could be inflated by fatal or severe collisions.

3.1.3 Proposing Engineering Countermeasures
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:

Make citywide collision maps for dominant collision types such as rear-end collisions, broadside collisions, bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and collisions due to unsafe speed. Identify high-risk locations by collision type.

Review crash details (party involved, movement before the crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high-risk locations. Obtain detailed police reports from the City and review all the fatal and severe injury collisions.

Assess the nature of prevalent crash types based on the intersection's control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing.

Review current conditions and recent historical conditions via Google Maps Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years.

Evaluate and screen countermeasures from the LRSM or Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/), a searchable database that can be easily queried to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs).

Identify intersections/roadway segments that do not demonstrate crash history but resemble other locations with documented crash history and risk factors. Once identified, these locations can be analyzed through the steps mentioned above.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 18

3.2 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS

3.2.1 Roadway Fatality Rate
Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes
The count of motor-vehicle-involved roadway fatalities from 2016 to 2020 in the City of Commerce based on DOT’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) includes a total of 18 fatalities. Table 3.2 shows the yearly number of collisions by month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

Table 3.2 Yearly Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes by Month
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2016-2020 Fatality Rate
The fatality rate was calculated using a 5-year annual average from the total count of fatalities from 2016 to 2020 based on FARS data, which is divided by the population of the City based on 2019 ACS population. And the rate was then normalized to the number of fatalities per 100,000 population.

As shown in Table 3.3, the City had 12,830 residents in 2019, and 18 fatality collisions. During the same period, Los Angeles County had 10,081,570 residents and 3,543 fatality collisions. Commerce’s normalized fatality rate (28.06) were more than 21 points higher than Los Angeles County (7.03). Figure 3.1 illustrates the fatality rate for both the City of Commerce and Los Angeles County.

Table 3.3 Number of Fatality Crashes and Population Comparison for Commerce vs. LA County City of Commerce Los Angeles
County
Total Number of
Fatalities through
Vehicle Crashes
18 3,543
2019 ACS Population 12,830 10,081,570
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2016-2020; 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates Population February March April May June July September November December Total 2016 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 05
2017 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 01
2018 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
2019 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 04
2020 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 05
Total 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 18
Crash Date
(Year)
Crash Date (Month)
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 19 Figure 3.1 Fatality Rate Comparison for Commerce vs. LA County Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2016-2020; 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates Population

3.2.2 Preliminary Collision Analysis
Year Trend
The collision trend analysis draws from the five years of SWITRS data. From June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021, a total of 2,567 collisions occurred on city roadways. Figure 3.2 shows the annual number of collisions from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021. As shown in Figure 3.2 below, there was a peak in collisions in 2017, and as the years progressed, collisions declined. Note that 2016 and 2021 contain six months of collision data, not the entire year, and therefore, the data are less than the other years.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the collision severity by mode of transportation. The far-left chart depicts the severity of the total collision (all modes), followed by the breakdown of the transportation mode (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist). Overall, the pedestrian-related (34.3%) and bicyclist-related (45.8%) severity collisions were associated with complaint of pain, except for vehicle-related collisions. Among the pedestrian-related collisions, fatal accounted for 5.7%, and severe injury accounted for 25.7%. About one-third (29.2%) of the bicycle collisions were associated with property damage only.

28.06 7.03
-

5.00 10.00

15.00 20.00

25.00 30.00
City of Commerce Los Angeles County
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 20 Figure 3.2: Total Collisions by Year
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Figure 3.3: Collision Severity by Mode of Transportation Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 21 Collision Type
Figure 3.4 compares the percent of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions for each collision type with the total number of collisions for each type. The total number of collisions is categorized by collision type, as represented by the grey bars in the chart (see Y-Axis on the left side). Sideswipes accounted for the largest category, comprising

29.2% of total collisions. As shown in the chart below (Figure 3.4), both rear end (26% of total) and broadside (26% of total) crash types had the same number of collisions reported.

The green line in the chart shows the percentage of each collision type that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries (see the Y-Axis on the right side). The labeled percentages represent the KSI collision percentages of each collision type. For example, as high as 30% of the pedestrian-related collisions were KSI collisions, while 8.3% of the overturned collisions led to fatalities and severe injuries. In contrast, sideswipe and rear-end collisions were reported with less than one percent of fatal or seriously injured victims.

Figure 3.4: Types of Collisions and
Types of Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Primary Collision Factor (PCF)
Figure 3.5 summarizes the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for all the collisions in the past five years. PCF is the leading cause of a collision based on the law enforcement officer's opinion who conducted the investigation. The blue bars on the left side represent total collisions, and the brown bars on the right side represents KSI collisions only.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 22 As shown in Figure 3.5, improper turning (28.4%), unsafe speed (21.9%), and automobile right of way (14.3%) were the top three causes of all collisions. For KSI collisions, the top three were unsafe speed (30.8%), traffic signals and signs (23.1%), and improper turning (12.8%). Unsafe speed was the highest PCF (21.9%) and the highest cause of KSI collisions.

Note: The pedestrian right of way primary collision factor is a collision where a motorists did not yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, resulting in a collision.

Figure 3.5: Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Collisions and PCF Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 23 Motor Vehicle Involved With (MVIW) Collisions
Figure 3.6 summarizes that the motor vehicle involved with another motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, fixed object, parked vehicle, or non-collision in the recent five-year period (6/1/2016 to 5/31/2031). Motor vehicles involved with other vehicles were associated with 76.7% of total collisions, the highest in KSI collisions at 48.8%. Bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions in Commerce accounted for approximately 2.3% of total collisions but were associated with 31.7% of KSI collisions, the second-highest category of KSI collisions.

Figure 3.6: Motor Vehicle Involved With (MVIW) Collisions and MVIW Collisions vs KSI Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 24 Time of Day
Figure 3.7 summarizes the time of day a collision occurred in the past five years. Most of the collisions occurred in the afternoon, with 25.8% of collisions associated between 3 PM and 6 PM, followed by 17% of collisions between 12 PM and 3 PM. The highest number of KSI-related collisions occurred between 6 AM and 9 AM.

Figure 3.7: Collisions by Time of Day
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
At-Fault Party
At-fault motorists in Commerce tended to be young males, as shown in Figure 3.8. Nearly 14.4% of motorists were in the 25-29 age group, followed by 14.2% in the 20-24 age group. This accounts for the largest share of at-fault motorists among any age group, with the number of at-fault motorists decreasing as the age group grows older. In most age groups, men accounted for the majority of collisions at fault. Note that some of the collision data is unknown in terms of gender and age.

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable roadway users, and they were involved in one-fourth of the KSI collisions.

Figure 3.9 shows the age group distribution of pedestrians involved in crashes from 2016 to 2021. The highest number of pedestrians were in the 50 to 54 year-old (13%) age groups.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 25 Figure 3.8: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Figure 3.9: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Age Group Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 26

3.2.2 Collisions By Facility Type
KOA analyzed collision patterns by facility type (intersections vs. midblock locations) using the most recent five years of collision data (from 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021). This analysis illustrates the results by control type and the collision frequency. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:
 Collisions that occurred within 250 feet of signalized intersections are considered signalized intersection collisions;
 Collisions that occurred within 150 feet of non-signalized intersections are considered non-signalized intersection collisions; and
 Collisions that occurred more than 250 feet away from any signalized intersection and more than 150 feet away from any non-signalized intersection are classified as mid-block collisions.

Table 3.4 shows the total number of crashes associated with each type of facility, and 58.82% of vehicle-related collisions occurred at signalized intersections, 21.23% of vehicle-related collisions occurred at non-signalized intersections, and 17.65% of vehicle-related collisions occurred at mid-block locations. Both bicycle and pedestrian collisions showed similar patterns, with most collisions occurring at signalized intersections, 0.39% were associated with bicycle collisions, and 0.62% were associated with pedestrian collisions.

Table 3.4: Transportation Mode of Collisions by Facility Type Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Figure 3.10 provides an infographic summary of the citywide collisions by facility type: signalized, non-signalized, and midblock locations. The breakdown of the facility type was summarized by the following (from left to right):
 Collision severity
 Type of collision
 Primary collision factor (PCF)
 Vehicle involved with
 Lighting
The collisions at signalized locations (59.8%) had the most significant percentage of collisions associated with a motor vehicle involved with another vehicle. In addition, the collision involved with another motor vehicle was one of the top collision frequencies across all facility types.

Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Vehicle-Related
Collisions 1,510 58.8% 545 21.2% 453 17.6% 2,508 97.7%
Bicycle-Related
Collisions
10 0.4% 10 0.4% 4 0.2% 24 0.9%
Pedestrian-Related
Collisions
16 0.6% 10 0.4% 9 0.4% 35 1.4%
Total 1,536 59.8% 565 22.0% 466 18.2% 2,567 100.0%
MODE
Midblock Locations Grand Total
Signalized
Intersection
Non-Signalized
Intersection
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 27 Overall, more than 25% of the collision data had improper turning as the primary collision factor. The following summarizes the top PCF by facility type:
 Signalized Intersections: improper turning (27.4%), unsafe speed (22.1%), and automobile right of way (11.1%)  Non-Signalized Intersections: improper turning (29.6%), automobile right of way (21.5%), unsafe speed (20.4%)
 Midblock Locations: improper turning (29.9%), unsafe speed (22.8%), and automobile right of way (16.3%) SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 28 Figure 3.10 Collision Types by Facility Type
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 29 As mentioned earlier, sideswipe, rear end, and broadside collisions were the most frequently occurring collision types in Commerce. Sideswipe collisions caused by improper turning (46.8%) contributed to the largest collisions from 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021 among all PCF categories. Unsafe speed collisions were the most common PCF associated with rear end collisions (52.1%). Finally, automobile right of way was the most common PCF associated with broadside collisions (33.8%) among all PCF categories. The following tables, Table 3.5, Table 3.6, and Table

3.7, show the percentage of crashes associated with the top three collision types by facility type.

Table 3.5: Sideswipe Collisions by Facility Type
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Table 3.6: Rear-end Collisions by Facility Type
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Table 3.7: Broadside by Facility Type
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
Facility Type
Total
Sideswipe
Collisions
Sideswipe due
to Improper
Turning Percentage
Signalized Intersection 456 209 45.8%
Non-signalized Intersection 164 88 53.7%
Midblock locations 130 54 41.5%
Total 750 351 46.8%
Facility Type
Total
Rear End
Collisions
Rear End due
to Unsafe
Speed Percentage
Signalized Intersection 436 225 51.6%
Non-signalized Intersection 119 58 48.7%
Midblock locations 111 64 57.7%
Total 666 347 52.1%
Facility Type
Total
Broadside
Collisions
Broadside due
to Automobile
Right of Way Percentage
Signalized Intersection 366 94 25.7%
Non-signalized Intersection 165 81 49.1%
Midblock locations 135 50 37.0%
Total 666 225 33.8%
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 30 Maps of the prominent collision factors, such as collision severity, bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions, and the location of top collision type associated with the primary collision factors are shown in Attachment A.

3.2.3 Geographic Collision Analysis
The following maps illustrate the prominent collision factors, such as the location of top collision type, primary collision factor, and bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions.

Figure 3.11 illustrates the citywide collision hotspot locations and collision severity.

Figure 3.12 illustrates the location of sideswipe collisions in correlation with improper turning.

Figure 3.13 illustrates the location of rear end collisions in correlation with unsafe speed.

Figure 3.14 illustrates the location of broadside collisions in correlation with automobile right-of-way violations.

Figure 3.15 illustrates the location of the bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions citywide.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 31 Figure 3.11: Collision Hot Spot Locations and Severity
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 32 Figure 3.12: Sideswipe Collisions due to Improper Turning Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 33 Figure 3.13: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 34 Figure 3.14: Rear Broadside Collisions due to Automobile Right of Way Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 35 Figure 3.15: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 36

3.2.4 City Of Commerce Vs. Cities Of Similar Sizes
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data were utilized to compare traffic safety problems of other cities with similarly sized populations. The rankings are calculated based on crash counts, population, and vehicle miles traveled, adding weights to different statistical categories, including observed. In the State of California's OTS Crash Ranking system, Commerce falls under Group E. This group consists of 102 cities in the state of California with a population between 10,001 and 25,000. Table 3.8 shows the City's 2018 crash ranking among the cities in Group E (1 being the highest or worst and 102 being the lowest or best). Overall, the City's traffic safety performance is average to good, with a few exceptions:
 The City ranked 25th for killed or injured speed-related collisions  The City ranked 30th for killed or injured nighttime (9 PM to 3 AM) collisions  The City ranked 40th for killed or injured pedestrian collisions Table 3.8: 2018 OTS Data
Source: OTS, 2018
DUI arrest figures are shown for cities only, not counties. The number of cities ranked against may differ from the number of cities in the other categories. Not all cities report DUI arrests to the Department of Justice.

3.2.5 Top Collision Locations
The initial step of the systemic analysis is evaluating the existing roadway network and its various characteristics.

The analysis was divided into intersections and roadway segments and utilized two main ranking methods: average crash frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. The description of the ranking methods is Type of Crash
Victims Killed
& Injured
OTS
Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 165 47/102
Alcohol Involved 6 79/102
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 0 81/102
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 1 100/102
Motorcycles 6 66/102
Pedestrians 10 40/102
Pedestrians < 15 0 49/102
Pedestrians 65+ 1 45/102
Bicyclists 6 63/102
Bicyclists < 15 0 41/102
Composite 82 66/102
Type of Crash
Fatal & Injury
Crashes
OTS
Ranking
Speed Related 41 25/102
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 19 30/102
Hit and Run 15 37/102
Type of Arrests Arrests
OTS
Ranking
DUI Arrests - N/A
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 37 discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. Based on the collision analysis, the high-risk collision intersections and roadway segments in Commerce are shown in Figure 3.16. Appendix A provided a summary of all the collisions by intersection.

Figure 3.16 Top Collision Locations
Source: SWITRS, 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 38 Intersection Ranking This is a general process for identifying potential locations by ranking the intersections based on Crash Frequency and EPDO score. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations. Table 3.9 shows the top 10 intersections by collision frequency, EPDO score, and crash rate.

Table 3.9: Top Intersection Ranking
ID Intersections
Grand
Total Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only Broadside Head-On
Hit
Object
Not
Stated Other Overturned Rear End Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Control
Type
Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
1 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD 121 1 1 15 104 18 4 2 6 2 1 36 52 Signal 1 326.2 22 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON BL 67 1 1 7 58 9 4 5 4 1 23 21 Signal 2 231.4 43 EASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV 65 1 3 12 49 15 5 3 3 1 22 16 Signal 3 274.3 34 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV 60 1 8 51 9 7 2 4 13 25 Signal 4 219.7 55 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD 59 1 6 52 12 4 2 5 1 15 20 Signal 5 99.3 106 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL 56 2 10 44 16 4 2 18 16 Signal 6 126.5 87 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV 50 2 1 12 35 18 6 1 1 11 11 2 Signal 7 358.8 18 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL 48 3 10 35 13 1 2 4 16 12 Signal 8 128.2 79 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV 47 1 2 6 38 14 2 2 14 15 Signal 9 216.0 6 10 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV 45 2 7 36 7 1 2 2 2 1 14 16 Signal 10 100.2 9

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 39 Roadway Segment Ranking The roadway segment rankings are also by Crash Frequency and EPDO scores. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations. Table 3.10 shows the top collision roadway segments.

Table 3.10: Top Roadway Segment Ranking
ID Roadway Segment From To
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian Rank Collision Frequency EPDO Score Rank EPDO Score 3 Atlantic Av Telegraph Rd Washington Bl 301 2 1 8 39 251 62 15 8 9 4 1 88 110 4 1 1070.3 1 4 Telegraph Rd Marianna Av Atlantic Bl 117 1 2 10 20 84 50 13 6 4 1 3 22 17 1 3 808.8 21 Slauson Av Greenwood Av Telegraph Rd 165 2 3 23 137 34 15 2 10 1 45 56 2 2 639.832 Washington Bl I-5Sb On/Off Ramps Leo St 90 1 5 12 72 34 7 1 4 3 24 16 1 4 364.0 4

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 40

4.0 ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION
A committee charged with oversight of the LRSP/SS4A Action Plan development, implementation, and monitoring includes the City's Department of Public Works, Transtech (City’s on-call engineers) and KOA.

Stakeholder Meeting
One virtual stakeholder meeting was held via Microsoft Teams on January 11, 2022. At this meeting, stakeholders were invited to share safety issues regarding the City's circulation system, pedestrian network, and other transportation safety issues. Stakeholders invited to this meeting included staff from the City's Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Montebello Unified School District, and Transtech (City’s on-call engineers). The citywide collision analysis findings were presented, and the stakeholders were invited to share their safety concerns and help develop the LRSP's goals and objectives. Stakeholder comments included:
 Traffic congestion at these intersections:
o Slauson/Gage
o Slauson/Eastern
o Telegraph/Atlantic/Eastern (mixmaster)
o Bandini/Garfield
 Many of near misses that were not recorded in the collision database  Issues near the school zone drop-off area where parents parked in the loading zone area or drop-off of students at the red curb
 Speeding issues near Bandini Blvd., Triggs St., school areas, and parks  Currently, there are no education awareness campaigns related to transportation safety in the City Online Survey
Online survey was conducted via Typeform during August 20, 2022 to September 1, 2022. The survey link was posted on the City of Commerce Public Works Department webpage to access to everyone.  Total 6 responses
 Summary of Results
o 40% of respondents feel less safe to drive on local streets in Commerce. o 83.3% of participants answered that they feel moderate or less safe to walk or bike in Commerce. o 60% of respondensts chose Atlantic Boulevard & Washington Blouevard is the most dangerous intersection.
o Trucks (83.3%) and High Vehicle Volumes (66.7%) are top two concerns of pedestrian safety for the selected intersections.
o 66.7% of survery respondents answered that Atlantic Boulevard corridor from Telegraph Road to Washington Boulvard is the most dangerous corridor for pedestrians or bicyclists. o Trucks, High Vehicle Voulmes and High Vehicle Speeds (33.3%) are top concerns of pedestrian safety for the selected corridors.
o Bike Land and High Visibility Crosswalks (9 points) are ranked as the most preferred treatment following by Leading Pedestrian Interval Signals (7 points)and Curb Extensions (5 points).

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 41

5.0 EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC)
The USDOT developed its own metric for determining which Census tracts can be considered a historically disadvantaged community. This USDOT metric combines multiple datasets from agencies such as CDC, US Census Bureau, and EPA to arrive at an aggregate score for individual Census tracts. This score is an aggregate of the following categories:
 transportation access
 health
 environmental (pollution)
 economic
 resilience (vulnerability to climate change)
 equity (high concentration of individuals who speak English “less than well”) According to the USDOT, disadvantaged Census tracts have scores exceeding the 50th percentile (75th percentile for resilience) in at least four of these individual categories.

The percentage of the population in the City that resides in Historically Disadvantaged Community Census tract is

99.9%, according to USDOT’s Data Hub and corresponding mapping tool. Figure 5.1 illustrates the City’s historically disadvantaged communities.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 42 Figure 5.1 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC) Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Data Hub
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 43 Comparing these USDOT’s Historically Disadvantaged Community Census tracts with recommended projects in the Commerce LRSP, all Commerce LRSP intersections and roadway corridors are located in a historically disadvantaged community. Figure 5.2 shows Historically Disadvantaged Communities with LRSP locations.

Figure 5.2 Historically Disadvantaged Communities (HDC) with LRSP Locations Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Data Hub
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 44

5.2 Area of Persistent Poverty (APP)
The USDOT offers an additional definition for disadvantaged communities: Areas of Persistent Poverty. This metric focuses solely on poverty rate, according to 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year estimate data, where any Census tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent is considered an “area of persistent poverty,” and therefore, a disadvantaged community.

In the City of Commerce, one Census tract out of 3 Census tracts and 26% (3,350) of the City’s total population has poverty rate that meets the threshold for Area of Persistent Poverty. This includes the southeast portion of the City below Sycamore Street as shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 Area of Persistent Poverty (APP)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Data Hub
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 45 Concerning LRSP projects, 6 of the 10 top collision intersections chosen for improvements are located in an Area of Persistent Poverty. Also, one corridor out of 4 top collision corridors selected as an LRSP project intersect Census tracts deemed an Area of Persistent Poverty. Figure 5.4 illustrates Area of Persistent Poverty with LRSP locations.

Figure 5.4 Area of Persistent Poverty (APP) with LRSP Locations Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Data Hub
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 46

6.0 POLICY AND PROCESS CHANGES

6.1 GENERAL PLAN
Alternative Modes of Travel
Commerce proposed alternative modes of transportation, which will reduce the community’s dependence on private vehicles as a means to travel to work and school. The use of alternative forms of transportation will also reduce traffic congestion during those periods when traffic is the heaviest. A list of policies related with the Action Plan is following:
 Transportation Policy 3.4. The city of Commerce will promote the development of safe and convenient pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods and the parks and schools that serve those neighborhoods.
 Transportation Policy 3.5. The city of Commerce will encourage the maintenance and improvement of “pedestrian-safe” oriented facilities to ensure safe pedestrian movement.  Transportation Policy 3.6. The city of Commerce will establish bus shelters at heavily-used bus stops to increase public recognition and promote the use of the local and regional transit system.

Roadway Improvements
The City will continue to be proactive in the construction of roadway improvements to accommodate existing and projected traffic demand.
 Transportation Policy 4.1. The city of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department to establish a roadway and traffic safety inspection program.

6.2 BICYCLE FACILITY PLANS
Class I Bicycle Paths
There are 3 proposed Class I bicycle paths for the City. The longest one being along Edison Right-of-Way, traversing the entirety of the city north-south. Such a facility would require extensive coordination with Southern California Edison but also with some of the current right-of-way users, which include the Commerce Casino, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, and privately owned and operated nurseries. A bicycle path is also proposed along 26th Street, just west of the Commerce Metrolink Station. This facility would be located entirely within BNSF right-of-way, thus requiring extensive coordination with the agency. However, such a facility would provide a critical connection between the Metrolink Station and Eastern Avenue on the west end. Lastly, a short bicycle path is being proposed between Triggs Street and Astor Avenue. The facility would require the construction of a bridge but would be critical in connecting the isolated Bristow neighborhood to the Bandini neighborhood, all while avoiding the mixmaster intersection.

Class II Bicycle Lanes
The City’s Bicycle Facility Plan proposed installing Class II bicycle lanes along roadways where a reduction in vehicle lanes or on-street parking would not be required. This includes roadways such as Harbor Street (east of Eastern Avenue), Jillson Street, and Commerce Way, which can easily accommodate bicycle lanes. However, other streets such as Goodrich Boulevard and Randolph Street would require removing at least one travel lane in each direction.

Class III Bicycle Routes
Bicycle routes were only proposed where existing traffic volumes and vehicle speeds are low – typically focused CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 47 along residential streets and near schools.

Integration with Transit and Bicycle Hubs
The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan has made sure to integrate into the Commerce Metrolink Station and the Montebello Metrolink Station, located east of the City. At the Commerce Station, the Plan is proposing that a bicycle hub be constructed, which will provide bicyclists with amenities such as short-term and long-term bicycle parking, bicycle repair amenities, and potentially showers and lockers. The types of amenities are dependent on the amount of activity a bicycle hub will see, but providing some of these would improve intermodal connectivity. As part of this Plan, bicycle hubs are also proposed at heavily used destinations, such as Rosewood Park, Veterans Park, and Commerce Center.

Bicycle Parking
In addition to providing connectivity, the Plan also gives amenities for bicyclists to safely secure their bicycles when not in use. The Plan provides recommendations, in addition to the bicycle hub locations, where such short-term parking can be installed and provided.

Proposed bicycle facilities are illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1 Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Source: Commerce Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, 2020
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 48

6.3 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PLANS
Currently, the City has an extensive supply of sidewalks along its major arterials and residential streets. As such, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan focused on the following:
 Closing sidewalk/pedestrian facility gaps where they exist (such as where sidewalks or curb ramps are missing),  Improving deficient facilities such as curb ramps, crosswalks, and poor street lighting  Address pedestrian-vehicle conflict zones and improve pedestrian safety, such as adding curb extensions reducing turning radii at intersections, adding median islands, and other similar treatments  Improve the pedestrian experience – through the installation of green alleys, pedestrian-scale lighting, and other greening
 Traffic calming treatments on residential streets – such as diverters, speed humps, and other elements  Improving connections through the addition of bridges and pedestrian paths to reduce exposure to fastmoving traffic and shorten travel distances The planned pedestrian facilities are illustrated in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2. Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
Source: Commerce Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, 2020
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 49

6.4 ATLANTIC CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREET EVALUATION AND MASTER PLAN Gateway Cities Council of Governments began the Atlantic Corridor Project in September of 2019. The planning area is located on the Atlantic Corridor within the Gateway Cities Region, passing through the County of Los Angeles, City of Vernon, City of Commerce, City of Maywood, City of Bell, City of Cudahy, City of South Gate, City of Lynwood, City of Compton, and City of Long Beach. For most of the planning area’s reach, it parallels Interstate 710 and Los Angeles River. The focus area for the City of Commerce is between Washington Boulevard and Pennington Way along Atlantic Boulevard. The proposed Concept Focus Areas for the City of Commerce are illustrated in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3 Concept for Atlantic Corridor Complete Street Project in Commerce Source: Atlantic Corridor Complete Street Evaluation and Master Plan, Gateway Cities COG CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 50

7.0 STRATEGY AND PROJECT SELECTION

7.1 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The emphasis areas show the City of Commerce where to focus when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The implementation of the emphasis areas should directly relate to the goals, policies, and strategies of the LRSP. Based on the collision data analysis conducted for the City of Commerce, the following are the transportation safety emphasis areas:

Pedestrian Safety
Signalized Intersections
Rear Ends due to Unsafe Speed
Sideswipes due to Improper Turning
Pedestrian safety
The pedestrian safety emphasis area is where a pedestrian was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users in the City of Commerce. Although pedestrian collisions only accounted for 1% of total collisions; however, pedestrians accounted for one of the highest frequencies of fatal or severe injury (KSI) collisions - 21% of total KSI. Most pedestrian-related collisions occurred at signalized intersections (46%). Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users because they do not have the same protection a driver in a vehicle has when involved in a collision.

Signalized Intersections
The signalized intersection emphasis area is an intersection with a traffic signal where a collision occurred. In the City of Commerce, signalized intersections are scattered throughout the City, along major primary and secondary roads. The results of the data analysis revealed that the top 10 intersections with the highest frequency of collisions all occurred at signalized intersections. Of the 2,567 collisions, more than half (59.8%) of collisions occurred at signalized intersections. Most collisions at signalized intersections were associated with vehicle-to-vehicle collisions (58.8%). Also, the signalized intersections contained the highest number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

Rear Ends due to Unsafe Speed
The rear ends due to unsafe speeding emphasis area where the driver at fault rear ends another vehicle due to unsafe speeding. Unsafe speeding was the second-highest primary collision factor (PCF), accounting for 21.9% of total collisions. However, unsafe speed was the highest frequency of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions, accounting for 30.8% of total collisions. Rear ends due to unsafe speeding primarily occurred at signalized intersections (65%).

Sideswipes due to Improper Turning
The sideswipes due to improper turning emphasis area is where the motorist made a turn without giving the appropriate signal, thus causing a collision. Improper turning was one of the top primary collision factors, accounting for 28.4% of total collisions. Of the 699 improper turning collisions, 351 resulted in sideswipes.

Sideswipes due to improper turning primarily occurred at signalized intersections (60%).

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 51

7.2 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The recommended engineering countermeasures were mainly data-driven based on the emphasis areas and collision patterns. The recommended countermeasures focus on the improvements in the four emphasis areas: (1) pedestrian safety; (2) signalized intersections; (3) rear ends due to unsafe speed; and (4) sideswipes due to improper turning. The following summarizes the improvements along with the collision patterns. A summary table of all the safety projects is in Appendix B.

The top three types of most frequently encountered collisions in Commerce were broadside, rear end, and sideswipe. The common causes of these three collision types and the typical safety countermeasures addressing each collision type are listed in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywide Collisions Type Causes Potential Countermeasures
Broadside ● Automobile ROW
● Traffic Signals and Signs
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Wrong Side of Road
● Upgrade signal hardware and improve the signal
visibility
● Improve signal timing (yellow, red intervals,
pedestrian clearance)
● Restrict turning movements out of driveways
● Restrict parking on intersection approaches
● Improve street lighting
● Install advanced street name signage
Rear End ● Unsafe Speed
● Following Too Closely
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Driving or Biking under the
influence
● Automobile ROW
● Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system
● Reduce the number of travel lanes
● Install bike lanes and reduce travel lane width
● Reduce the speed limit/Calm Traffic
● Improve crosswalk visibility
● Install 12-inch signal heads
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning
movements on signals
● Install advanced street name signage
● Improve signal timing
Sideswipe ● Improper Turning
● Unsafe Lane Change
● Unknown
● Automobile ROW
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Driving under the influence
● Improve pavement marking visibility
● Install advanced street name signage
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning
movements on signals
● Install parking signs that are easier to interpret
● Stripe red curb at intersection approaches
The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) listed in the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) is directly connected to the Crash Modification Factor (CMF). A CRF is measured in the percentage of crash reduction expected after CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 52 implementing a given countermeasure at a specific location. It plays an essential role in cost-effectiveness, which is the form of the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR).

Table 7.2 summarizes the list of safety countermeasures included in the LRSM and applied to this project. The table summarizes each countermeasure's applicable crash types, CRF, project life of the recommended improvement, maximum federal reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach.

The countermeasure numbers (far left column) in Table 7.2 represent the ID number for the types of improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Throughout this document, countermeasures eligible for HSIP funding will have the ID number, and those that are not eligible will not have an ID number.

Table 7.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to the City of Commerce LRSP CM No. Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life (Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
NS21PB Curb Extension Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
R22 Regulatory Signs All 15% 10 90%
R26 Install Dynamic Speed Warning
Signs All 30% 10 90%
R32PB Install Bike Lane Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
S02 Retro-Reflective Backing Plates All 15% 10 90%
S03 Signal Coordination All 15% 10 50%
S21PB Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 60% 10 90%
Source: Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.6 April 2022

7.2.1 Roadway Segments
Slauson Avenue From Greenwood Avenue To Telegraph Road
Slauson Avenue is a 0.4-mile long corridor that runs east-west from Greenwood Avenue to Telegraph Road. Slauson Avenue has three travel lanes in each direction, with left-turn lanes at the intersections. The posted speed limit on this segment is 45 mph.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 53 This roadway segment had 165 collisions from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021. The top three collision patterns were sideswipe (34%), rear end (27%), and broadside (21%) collisions. Along this corridor, the primary collision factor includes improper turning (27%) and unsafe speed (18%). More than half of collisions on this segment occurred during the daytime (69%).

The recommendations for this roadway segment include the following:
● Install Signal Ahead signage with florescent sheeting at:
o Slauson Avenue and Telegraph Road (eastbound)
o Slauson Avenue and Gage Avenue (westbound)
o Slauson Avenue and Greenwood Avenue (northbound)
● Install dynamic speed warning signs at:
o Slauson Avenue near Todd Avenue (westbound)
o Slauson Avenue near the I-5 freeway bridge (eastbound) ● Restriping the light concrete section with contrast striping to enhance visibility on the travel lanes The improvement concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1: Concept for Slauson Avenue
Atlantic Boulevard From Telegraph Road To Washington Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard is a 0.7-mile long corridor with 2-3 travel lanes in each direction with a raised median. All intersections along this roadway have a dedicated left-turn lane. The posted speed limit of the entire corridor is 40 mph.

This roadway segment had 301 collisions. The collision types that occurred most frequently along this corridor were sideswipes (37%), rear ends (29%), and broadside (21%) collisions. The primary collision factors include improper turning (27%), unsafe speed (22%), and automobile right of way (9%). 74 percent of collisions occurred during the daytime.

The recommendations for this roadway segment include the following:
● Restriping the light concrete section with contrast striping to enhance visibility on the travel lanes The improvement concept is illustrated in Figure 7.2.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 54 Figure 7.2: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard
Eastern Avenue From Atlantic Boulevard To The South City Limit Eastern Avenue is a 0.91-mile long segment with 2-3 travel lanes in each direction. On-street parking is permitted in each direction from Atlantic Boulevard to Jillson Street. The posted speed limit on this segment is 40 mph. The I-5 freeway on/off ramps are located at the north end of the segment.

A total of 130 collisions occurred along this segment. Approximately 40% of collisions were sideswipe collisions. The second and third highest collision types were broadside (28%) and rear end (20%) collisions. The top primary collision factors were improper turning (28%), unsafe speed (15%), and automobile right of way (14%). The City had 24 bicycle-related collisions and mostly scattered throughout the City. The Eastern Avenue segment had three (3) bicycle collisions.

The recommendations for this roadway segment includes the following:
● Install Class II bike lanes (5 feet) from Atlantic Blvd to the South City Limit. The Class II bike lane would require narrowing the travel lanes. In areas where the roadway narrows, the bike lane is not recommended.

A bike lane between Harbor Street and the south city limit is also recommended in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. A dedicated bike lane would provide a safer environment for bicyclists, separating them from vehicles. Also, the bike lanes would provide a sense of extra space between the sidewalk and vehicles, making it more comfortable for pedestrians utilizing the crosswalk. The concept is illustrated in Figure 7.3.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 55 Figure 7.3: Concept for Eastern Avenue
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 56 Garfield Avenue From Malt Avenue To The South City Limit Garfield Avenue is a 1.8-mile long corridor with two travel lanes in each direction. Most of the segment has a raised median. The posted speed limit fluctuates from 25 mph to 40 mph along this corridor. North of Randolph Street, the posted speed limit is 40 mph and the posted speed limit decreases to 25 mph south of Randolph Street.

Garfield Avenue experienced a total of 278 collisions. Of those collisions, sideswipe (29%) collisions accounted for the most frequent collision type. Rear ends (27%) and broadside (25%) were the second and third most frequent collision type. Improper turning (24%), unsafe speed (21%), and automobile right of way (12%) were the top three primary collision factors. Three (3) out of the 278 collisions were bicycle-related.

A Class II bike lane is recommended from Malt Avenue to the South City Limit. A Class II bike lane is also recommended in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan starting at Yates Avenue. Narrowing the travel lanes is required to accommodate the proposed Class II bike lane. In areas where the roadway narrows, the bike lane is not recommended. The concept is illustrated in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4: Concept for Garfield Avenue
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 57

7.2.2 Intersections
Atlantic Boulevard/Telegraph Road/Triggs Street/Goodrich Boulevard/Ferguson Drive Atlantic Boulevard and Telegraph Road is a six-legged signalized intersection, known locally as the mixmaster. The north, east, south, and west approaches have a left turn lane. Triggs Street is a right-turn-only approach to the southbound direction of Atlantic Boulevard, where right-turn on red is prohibited and operates as an overlap phase.

Also, Goodrich Boulevard is a right-turn-only approach to the northbound direction of Atlantic Boulevard, yielding vehicles coming from Atlantic Boulevard. Marked crosswalks are generally provided at this intersection. The posted speed limit varies at each street intersecting the intersection. The posted speed limit is as follows:
 Triggs Street: 30 mph
 Goodrich Boulevard and Atlantic Boulevard: 35 mph
 Ferguson Drive: 40 mph
 Telegraph Road: 45 mph
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 58 The data analysis revealed that 121 collisions occurred at this intersection. The top collision types were sideswipe (42.2%), rear end (29.8%), and broadside (14.9%). The primary collision factor at this intersection includes improper turning (37.2%), unsafe speed (25.6%), and unsafe lane change (9.9%). More than half of collisions occurred in the daytime (68%).

Considering most collisions occurred during the daytime, one of the recommendations for this intersection is to restripe the lanes with contrast striping only on the light concrete part of the roadway. This would provide better visibility of the travel lanes when the sun is directly hitting the road during the daytime. Appendix B contains the striping extent.

Additionally, advanced yield markings and a "right turn only" regulatory sign are recommended for the southbound approach on Goodrich Blvd in advance of the crosswalk. This intersection experiences multiple sideswipe collisions in the northbound direction. The recommendations also consider installing a larger, more detailed sign regarding lane destinations, with the lane assignment sign mounted on the overhead railroad bridge for the northbound traffic on Atlantic Boulevard. Lastly, high visibility crosswalks are recommended on all legs of the intersection. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard & Telegraph Road CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 59 Telegraph Road And Washington Boulevard
Telegraph Road and Washington Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection. All approaches have a dedicated left-turn lane. The southbound approach on Telegraph Road has a channelized right-turn lane. All sides of the intersection have crosswalks. The speed limit is 40 mph along Washington Blvd and 45 mph along Telegraph Rd.

The intersection of Telegraph Road and Washington Boulevard experienced 82 collisions. The top collision type at this intersection was rear-end collisions (34.2%). Sideswipe (28.1%) and broadside (18.29%) collisions accounted for the second and third highest collision types. This intersection's top primary collision factors include unsafe speeding (22%) and improper turning (23.2%). Two (2) pedestrian-related collisions occurred in the east and west directions.

All collision types were considered when developing the recommendations for this location. Based on the existing geometric design configuration and travel pattern, consider installing high visibility crosswalks on all legs at this intersection. The recommended concept is illustrated in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6: Concept for Telegraph Road & Washington Boulevard CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 60 Eastern Avenue and Slauson Avenue
Eastern Avenue and Slauson Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with left-turn lanes in all directions. All legs have marked crosswalks and a center median. The posted speed limit along Eastern Ave is 40 mph and 45 mph along Slauson Ave. Protected left-turn phasing is provided on a pedestal pole on the raised median at this intersection.

The intersection had 90 collisions. The top collision types includes rear ends (34.4%), broadside (24.4%), and sideswipe (22.2%) collisions. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speeding (27.8%), improper turning (24.4%), and automobile right of way (12.2%). Pedestrian-related collisions were not reported at this intersection.

The existing protected left-turn signals mounted on the pedestal poles at each leg are recommended to be moved and replaced with a new mast arm to accommodate the left-turn phase signal head. This would provide better visibility of the signal when drivers approach the intersection. With better traffic signal visibility, drivers may slow down on time when approaching the left turn signal when it is red. Although there were no pedestrian collisions, high visibility crosswalks at all legs are also recommended. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.7.

Figure 7.7: Concept for Eastern Avenue & Slauson Avenue CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 61 Gage Avenue and Slauson Avenue
Gage Avenue and Slauson Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with left-turn lanes provided on Slauson Avenue. Gage Avenue is operating as a split-phase with a channelized right-turn lane in the northbound direction.

The north leg is an on/off ramp for the I-5 freeway. The posted speed limit along Gage Ave is 35 mph and 45 mph on Slauson Ave. Marked crosswalks are provided, except for the east leg.

The intersection had 69 collisions. The top collision types were sideswipe (40.6%) and rear ends (23.2%). The top primary collision factors were improper turning (24.6%) and unsafe speed (18.8%). Pedestrian-related collisions were reported at this intersection.

All collisions were considered when the recommendations were developed for this location. Based on the existing conditions of this intersection, it is recommended to install high visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection.

The concept is illustrated in Figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8: Concept for Gage Avenue & Slauson Avenue
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 62 Garfield Avenue and Telegraph Road
Garfield Avenue and Telegraph Road is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing. A dual left-turn lane is provided at the westbound approach (Telegraph Road). Marked crosswalks are provided at the intersection. The posted speed limit on Garfield Avenue is 40 mph, and on Telegraph Road, the speed limit is 45 mph.

The data analysis revealed that a total of 76 collisions occurred at this intersection. The top type of collision was sideswipe collisions, accounting for 30.3% of collisions. Rear end (22.4%) and broadside (26.3%) collisions accounted for the second and third highest types of collisions. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (21.1%), improper turning (21.1%), and automobile right of way (17.1%). No pedestrian collisions were reported at this intersection.

The recommended concept is illustrated in Figure 7.9.

Figure 7.9: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Telegraph Road CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 63 Atlantic Boulevard and Washington Boulevard
The intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Washington Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with leftturn lanes in all directions. Marked crosswalks are provided at the intersection. The posted speed limit on both Atlantic Boulevard and Washington Boulevard is 40 mph.

The intersection experienced a total of 57 collisions. The top type of collisions were rear ends, accounting for 31.6% of collisions. Sideswipe (29.8%) and broadside (28.1%) accounted for the second and third highest types of collisions. The top primary collision factor includes Improper turning (24.6%), unsafe speed (17.5%), and traffic sign and signal violations.

Most traffic sign and signal violations and unsafe speed collisions occurred on the southbound approach. The recommended improvement is relocating the nearside supplemental signal on Atlantic Boulevard. Currently, the nearside signal is blocked by a utility pole in the southbound approach (Atlantic Boulevard). Consider relocating to improve the visibility. The concept is illustrated in Figure 7.10.

Figure 7.10: Concept for Atlantic Boulevard & Washington Boulevard CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 64 Greenwood Avenue and Slauson Avenue
Greenwood Avenue and Slauson Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with marked crosswalks. The posted speed limit along Greenwood Avenue is 30 mph and 45 mph along Slauson Avenue.

The collision data analysis revealed that the intersection had 58 collisions. The top collision types were broadside collisions (34.5%), with rear end, and sideswipe collisions being the second and third highest types of collisions at the intersection. Improper turning (25.9%) was the top primary collision factor. This was followed by unsafe speed (20.7%) and automobile right of way (15.5%) as the second and third highest primary collision factors. Two (2) pedestrian-related collisions were reported, resulting in severe injury.

Consider installing high visibility crosswalks at this intersection to enhance pedestrian visibility when pedestrians are crossing. The concept is illustrated in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.11: Concept for Greenwood Avenue & Slauson Avenue CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 65 Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard
Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with left-turn lanes and protected left-turn phasing. Also, marked crosswalks and center medians are provided at the intersection. The posted speed limit on both roadways, Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard, are 40 mph.

This intersection experienced a total of 58 collisions. The top collision types were rear ends (34.5%), sideswipes (27.6%), and broadside (22.4%) collisions. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (24.1%), improper turning (20.7%), and traffic sign and signal violations (12.1%). More than half of collisions occurred during the daytime (62%). Two bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions occurred at the intersection.

Considering most collisions occurred in the day, restriping with contrast striping on the light concrete section of the intersection is recommended. The contrast striping extent is measured from the center of the intersection to the end of the light concrete. The details of the contrast striping extents are summarized in Appendix B. High visibility crosswalks are also recommended at all legs of the intersection. Additionally, installing Traffic Signal Ahead warning sign on northbound Garfield Avenue is recommended since the top primary collision factor is unsafe speed. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.12.

Figure 7.12: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Washington Boulevard CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 66 Garfield Avenue and Slauson Avenue
Garfield Avenue and Slauson Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with dedicated left-turn lanes and protected left-turn phasing at all legs. Marked crosswalks are also present on all legs. The speed limit along Garfield Avenue is 40 mph and 45 mph along Slauson Avenue.

The data analysis revealed that 59 collisions occurred at this intersection. Rear end (35.6%) and sideswipe (30.5%) collisions were the top collision types. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (30.5%) and improper turning (20.3%). Daytime (70%) collisions were the most common at this location. There were no bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

Most collisions occur during the day, and restriping with contrast striping on the light concrete section is recommended to enhance the visibility of the travel lanes. Measurements of the contrast striping extents are in Appendix B. High visibility crosswalks are also recommended at this intersection for all legs. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.13.

Figure 7.13: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Slauson Avenue CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 67 Bandini Boulevard and Garfield Avenue
Bandini Boulevard and Garfield Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with left-turn lanes on all legs.

Crosswalks are also present on all legs. The speed limit along Bandini Boulevard and Garfield Avenue is 40 mph.

The data analysis revealed that the intersection of Bandini Boulevard and Garfield Avenue experienced 62 collisions.

Only two of those collisions were bicycle-related and no pedestrian-related collisions. The top collision types were sideswipe (30.7%), rear end (25.8%), and broadside (21%) collisions. The top primary collision factors were improper turning (33.9%) and unsafe speed (14.5%). 80% of collisions occurred during the daytime.

The recommendations for this intersection are to repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section of the intersection. Measurements of the contrast striping extents are summarized in Appendix B. Additionally, advanced yield pavement markings are recommended for the westbound approach. Lastly, high visibility crosswalks are recommended on all legs. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.14.

Figure 7.14: Concept for Garfield Avenue & Slauson Avenue CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 68 Goodrich Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard
Goodrich Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with permissive phasing and marked crosswalks. Both streets have two travel lanes in each direction, and Olympic Boulevard has a dedicated left-turn lane. The posted speed limit on Goodrich Boulevard is 35 mph, and the posted speed limit on Olympic Boulevard ranges between 35-40 mph.

This intersection had a total of 27 collisions. Two bicycle and one pedestrian collisions occurred at this location.

Broadside (37%), rear end (26%), and sideswipe (18.5%) were the top three collision types. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (22.2%), traffic sign and signal violations (22.2%), and improper turning (18.5%).

High visibility crosswalks are recommended to enhance pedestrian safety when crossing. The recommended concept is illustrated in Figure 7.15.

Figure 7.15: Concept for Goodrich Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 69 Gerhart Avenue and Olympic Boulevard
Gerhart Avenue and Olympic Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with dedicated left-turn lanes on Olympic Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Olympic Boulevard ranges between 35-and 40 mph.

This intersection experienced 43 collisions. No pedestrian collisions were reported at this intersection. The top collision types were sideswipe (33%) and broadside (26%) collisions. The top primary collision factors were improper turning (30.2%) and traffic sign and signal violations (21%). 63% of collisions occurred during the daytime.

The recommendations for this intersection are to repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section of the intersection. Measurements of the contrast striping extents are in Appendix B. High visibility crosswalks are also recommended to enhance pedestrian safety. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 7.16.

Figure 7.16: Concept for Gerhart Avenue & Olympic Boulevard CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 70

7.2.3 Systemic Countermeasures
Signal Coordination
Unsafe speed was the second-highest primary collision factor citywide and the highest KSI frequency. Clusters of unsafe speeding collisions were identified citywide. Based on those clusters, four (4) roadway segments are recommended for improving signal coordination. Unsafe speeding often results in rear-end collisions. Consider improving the signal coordination to enhance traffic flow as it may help reduce speeding. However, further analysis of traffic impacts would be needed for the signal coordination analysis.

Signal coordination is recommended at the following locations:
 Garfield Ave from Flotilla St to Randolph St (10 signalized intersections)  Washington Blvd from I-5 On/Off ramp to Yates Ave (6 signalized intersections)  Atlantic Blvd from Telegraph Rd to Sheila St (10 signalized intersections)  Slauson Ave from Eastern Ave to Telegraph Rd (10 signalized intersections) Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Pedestrians are the very vulnerable road users in the City of Commerce. Although pedestrian-involved collisions only
accounted for 30 out of the 2,567 collisions, pedestrians had one of the highest frequency of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions.

To improve pedestrian safety, leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) are recommended at eight (8) signalized intersections. An LPI gives pedestrians a 3-7 second head start when crossing an intersection and enhances visibility of a pedestrian. Drivers are able to see the pedestrian crossing the street with the pedestrian head start.1
Locations with high numbers of pedestrian collisions were analyzed to identify LPI locations. All locations listed below had pedestrian collisions with the exception of Atlantic Boulevard & Harbor Street, Eastern Avenue & Harbor Street, and Atlantic Boulevard & Washington Boulevard, which were identified in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI at the following locations:
 Atlantic Blvd & Jardine St (eastbound/westbound)
 Goodrich Blvd & Olympic Blvd (northbound/southbound)
 Eastern Ave & Everington St (eastbound/westbound)
 Fidelia Ave & Washington Blvd (northbound/southbound)  Atlantic Blvd & Everington St (northbound/southbound)  Atlantic Blvd & Harbor St (eastbound/westbound)
 Eastern Ave & Harbor St (eastbound/westbound)
 Atlantic Blvd & Washington Blvd

1 Ink, S. (n.d.). Leading pedestrian interval. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Retrieved January 19, 2022, from https://nacto.org/publication/urban-streetdesign-guide/intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/ Source: City of Long Beach
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 71 Retro-reflective Backing Plates
Retro-reflective backing plates are recommended at 28 signalized intersections. The locations listed below were selected based on nighttime collision clusters across the City.

Retro-reflective backing plates improve the visibility of traffic signals in nighttime collisions. They also help color visiondeficient drivers to see whether the light is red or green when approaching an intersection.2 Color vision deficient people can typically not see the color red or green. Retro-reflective backing plates help them see whether the light is on at the top or bottom of the signal head.

Upgrade existing signals with retro-reflective backing plates at the following locations:
 Atlantic Blvd & Telegraph Rd
 Garfield Ave & Telegraph Rd
 Atlantic Blvd & Washington Blvd
 Garfield Ave & Slauson Ave
 Telegraph Rd & Washington Blvd
 Ferguson Dr & Garfield Ave
 Flotilla St & Garfield Ave
 Garfield Ave & Randolph St
 Gage Ave & Slauson Ave
 Greenwood Ave & Slauson Ave
 Bandini Blvd & Garfield Ave
 Gerhart Ave & Olympic Blvd
 Camfield Ave & Telegraph Rd
 Atlantic Blvd & Sheila St
 Eastern Ave & Sheila St
 Eastern Ave & Washington Blvd
 Malt Ave & Slauson Ave
 Eastern Ave & Harbor St
 Ayers Ave & Washington Blvd
 Gaspar Ave & Telegraph Rd
 Eastern Ave & Everington St
 Commerce Way & Washington Blvd
 Citadel Dr & Telegraph Rd
 Telegraph Rd & Tubeway Ave
 Eastern Ave & Slauson Ave
 Atlantic Blvd & Harbor St
 Goodrich Blvd & Olympic Blvd
 Eastern Ave & Telegraph Rd

2 Backplates with Retroreflective Borders. FHWA. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/backplate.cfm CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 72 Supplemental Traffic Signals
Nearside traffic signals improve traffic signal visibility as drivers approach an intersection. Violations of traffic signs and signals were revealed in the collision data analysis. Clusters of these collisions and the top intersections were analyzed to determine which locations would benefit from the additional signal head improvements. Locations for installing the
nearside traffic signals were data-driven based on traffic sign and signal violations.

Install nearside supplemental traffic signals at the following locations:
 Eastern Ave & Slauson Ave (all approaches)
 Greenwood Ave & Slauson Ave (all approaches)
 Ferguson Dr & Garfield Ave (southbound approach)
 Atlantic Blvd & Sheila Ave (northbound approach)
 Atlantic Blvd & Telegraph Rd (northbound and southbound approaches) Additionally, some traffic signal heads appear to be smaller at intersections. Consider upgrading the 8" traffic signal head to the standard traffic signal head, 12". The standard size signal heads would make them more visible to drivers approaching the intersection. A total of 13 signalized locations were identified.

Upgrade existing traffic signal heads from 8" to 12" at the following locations:
 Atlantic Blvd & Jardine St
 Gerhart Ave & Olympic Blvd
 Ferguson Dr & Garfield Ave
 Atlantic Blvd & Sheila Ave
 Eastern Ave & Telegraph Rd
 Goodrich Blvd & Olympic Blvd
 Eastern Ave & Slauson Ave
 Telegraph Rd & Tubeway Ave
 Citadel Dr & Telegraph Rd
 Greenwood Ave & Slauson Ave
 Slauson Ave & Telegraph Rd
 Eastern Ave & Harbor St
 Malt Ave & Slauson Ave
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 73 Curb Extensions
Curb Extensions help improve pedestrian safety by shortening the pedestrian crossing distance. Curb extensions also help improve the visibility of pedestrians by aligning the curb to the parking lane, which typically blocks pedestrians.3 Locations with pedestrian collisions were analyzed to see if curb extensions are feasible. The three bolded locations listed below are the only data-driven locations. The rest of the locations are non-data driven, however, the entire list of locations below is in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommendations.

Install curb extensions at the following locations:
 Couts Ave & Leonis St (northeast corner)
 Couts Ave & Jillson St (southwest corner)
 Couts Ave & Kinsie St (southeast corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Leonis St (northwest corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Kinsie St (northwest corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Jardine St (all corners)
 Atlantic Blvd & Quigley St (northwest corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Harbor St (northwest, northeast, and southwest corners)  Atlantic Blvd & Gafford St (northwest corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Everington St (all corners)
 Atlantic Blvd & Como St (northwest corner)
 Atlantic Blvd & Farrar St (northwest corner)
 Entrada St & Harbor St (southside of intersection)
 Harbor St & Rosewood Park North Entrance (northside of midblock crossing)  Bartmus St & Commerce Wy (southeast corner)
 Commerce Wy & Harbor St (all corners)
 Commerce Wy & Jardine St (westside of intersection)
 Greenwood Ave & Watcher St (northeast and northwest corner)

3 Ink, S. (n.d.). Curb extensions. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Retrieved January 19, 2022, from https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-designguide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/ CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 74

7.3 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents the non-infrastructure safety measures for the City of Commerce’s roadway safety needs. The program promotes safe behavior in each plan's identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.

7.3.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
As part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan development, the City of Commerce focused efforts on improving walking and biking infrastructure for students attending Bandini Elementary and Rosewood Park School. The potential benefits of protecting the city’s most vulnerable population can reduce collisions in neighborhoods between students and motorists, lead to lifelong healthy habits amongst students, and increase overall walking and bicycling activity in the community. In order to gain input on the issues and concerns facing each school community, two bilingual walking safety assessments (WSA) took place, one at Bandini Elementary and the other at Rosewood Park School, on February 14, 2019 and February 27, 2019, respectively.4 The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

Education
Launch an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian rights. This can include:
 Run a Go Human advertisement campaign5 to encourage drivers to watch for people walking and biking. This campaign would be at targeted locations with a history of pedestrian collisions. Advertising can be done with neighborhood lawn signs – residents can post these signs on their properties to urge drivers to slow down/stop for pedestrians
 Incorporate pedestrian safety education into physical education classes in the Montebello Unified School District
 Develop an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian rights and rules of the road. This can include:
o Advertising on the radio, streaming services (Pandora/Spotify), or social media o Distributing pamphlets or brochures in schools, parks, and other public places Enforcement
● Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions Funding Sources
Table 7.3 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing bicyclist and pedestrian safety challenges.

4 Commerce Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. (2020). City of Commerce. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from https://www.ci.commerce.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/1950/637394104249470000 5 Join the safety campaign. Southern California Association of Governments. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://scag.ca.gov/go-human-safety-campaign CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 75 Table 7.3: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources Description Agency Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign to
encourage drivers to watch for people walking and
biking. This campaign would be at targeted locations
with a history of pedestrian collisions.

City of Commerce SCAG
Incorporate pedestrian safety education into physical
education classes in the Montebello Unified School
District
City of Commerce,
Montebello Unified
School District
OTS Grants
Develop an education campaign for motorists on
pedestrian rights and rules of the road. City of Commerce OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a
history of and pedestrian collisions
City of Commerce,
Public Safety Division,
Los Angeles County
Sheriff 1
OTS Grants
1 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides police services for the City on contract basis.

7.3.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Currently, the City of Commerce does not have programs specifically for signalized intersections. This asserts the need for more programs to ensure drivers are aware of safe driving practices and the road rules at signalized intersections. The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

Education
Run an advertising campaign on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and at public events to educate drivers on the dangers of unsafe driving and the rules of the road at signalized intersections Develop an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, games, and videos of the rules of the road and how to drive safely at signalized intersections Implement targeted safety education programs for vulnerable users such as children (administered in schools) and elderly (administered at community gathering locations) active transportation users. Using presentations and flyers, the program should convey the need for increased precaution at signalized intersections Enforcement
 Deploy targeted enforcement at signalized intersections with a history of high numbers of collisions Funding Sources
Table 7.4 presents the potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 76 Table 7.4: Signalized Intersection Programs Funding Sources Description Agency Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Run an advertising campaign on social media
platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and at public
events to educate drivers on the dangers of unsafe
driving and the rules of the road at signalized
intersections
City of Commerce OTS Grants
Develop an online website to provide educational
resources such as articles, games, and videos of the
rules of the road and how to drive safely at signalized intersections
City of Commerce OTS Grants
Implement targeted safety education programs for
vulnerable users such as children (administered in
schools) and elderly (administered at community
gathering locations) active transportation users. Using presentations and flyers, the program should convey
the need for increased precaution at signalized
intersections
City of Commerce,
Montebello Unified
School District
OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at signalized
intersections with a history of high numbers of
collisions
City of Commerce,
Public Safety Division,
Los Angeles County
Sheriff 1
OTS Grants
1 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides police services for the City on contract basis.

7.3.3 SPEEDING
Currently, the City of Commerce does not have programs specific to speeding. The following programs are recommended to address speeding in the City. The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

Education
 Create a social media campaign with infographics conveying the collision and injury statistics associated with speeding vehicles (Facebook, Tik Tok, Twitter, etc)
 Run an advertisement campaign to encourage drivers to watch for people walking and biking. This campaign would be at targeted locations with a history of speeding. Advertising can be done with lawn signs – schools, residents, and businesses can post these signs on their properties to urge drivers to slow down Enforcement
 Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding issues. These technologies display passing drivers' travel speed below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus showing whether drivers travel over the speed limit.
 Expand the ticketing operations in which police officers equipped with radar or lidar technology are deployed CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 77 at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.

Funding Sources
Table 7.5 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges for speeding.

Table 7.5: Speeding Program Funding Sources
Description Agency Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Create a social media campaign with infographics
conveying the collision and injury statistics associated with speeding vehicles.

City of Commerce OTS Grants
Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign to
encourage drivers to watch for speed. This campaign
would be at targeted locations with a history of
unsafe speed collisions.

City of Commerce OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding issues. These
technologies display passing drivers' travel speed
below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus
showing whether drivers travel over the speed limit.

City of Commerce,
Public Safety Division,
Los Angeles County
Sheriff 1
OTS Grants
Expand the ticketing operations in which police
officers equipped with radar or lidar technology are
deployed at strategic locations to ticket speeding
drivers.

City of Commerce,
Public Safety Division,
Los Angeles County
Sheriff 1
OTS Grants
1 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides police services for the City on contract basis.

7.3.4 IMPROPER TURNING
The improper turning emphasis area is where a vehicle turns left or right at an unsafe time or without giving the appropriate signal, thus causing a collision. Navigation software like Google Maps and Waze has encouraged drivers to use local routes involving non-signalized left-turns in recent years. Thus, the use of navigation software might explain the prevalence of improper turning collisions in the City of Commerce.

There are no existing education or enforcement programs to prevent improper turning or sideswipes in the city.

Most drivers are primarily informed about the rules of turning and the dangers of improper turning during their driver’s education program before getting their license. This emphasizes the need for additional, continued resources to ensure drivers stay up-to-date through education and enforcement.

Education
 Run an advertising campaign on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and navigation platforms such as Waze and Google Maps, warning drivers of the dangers of an unsafe turning Enforcement
 Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a history of improper turning and sideswipe collisions CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 78 Funding Sources
Table 7.6 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges for improper turning.

Table 7.6: Sideswipes due to Improper Turning Collisions Program Funding Sources Description Agency Responsibility
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Run an advertising campaign on social media
platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and
navigation platforms such as Waze and Google
Maps warning drivers of the dangers of an unsafe
turning
City of Commerce OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a
history of improper turning and sideswipe
collisions
City of Commerce,
Public Safety Division,
Los Angeles County
Sheriff 1
OTS Grants
1 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides police services for the City on contract basis.

7.3.5 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund engineering and non-engineering roadway safety projects.

The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) aims to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and support Multi-modal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing ten priority areas, including driving under the influence (DUI), distracted driving, pedestrian and bicycle safety, law enforcement, safety data collection, and marketing/publicity campaigns.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program funds to support planning, infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets involving all roadway users, including pedestrians; bicyclists; public transportation, personal conveyance, and micromobility users; motorists; and commercial vehicle operators. The Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system at the federal level. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds safety projects on any public roadway. The program mainly supports engineering projects, but the program's legislation permits funding for law enforcement and data collection efforts. Table 7.7 summarizes the funding opportunities for roadway safety programs and projects.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 79 Table 7.7 Transportation Safety Funding Summary
Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed
U.S.

Department of
Transportation(
USDOT)
Safe Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A) Grant
Program
Safety action plan development and implementation to
improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or
eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries focused on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public
transportation users, motorists, personal conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators1,.

Roadway Safety and
Data Collection
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Any roadway improvements related to public roads,
bikeways, and pedestrian paths/trails. For the most part, only engineering projects are eligible, but the FAST Act permits funding for data collection by law enforcement,2,3.

Data Collection
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced
Transportation and
Congestion
Management
Technologies
Deployment Program
Funds advanced transportation and congestion management technologies to improve safety, efficiency, and performance.

Funded project types include advanced traveler information systems and data collection and analysis efforts4
.

Digital Enforcement;
Technology
Partnerships
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects improve safety or increase
bicycling and walking mode share. Additional program
objectives include reducing emissions and enhancing public health5
.

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

Active
Transportation
Speed and
Education
California Office
of Traffic Safety
Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grants
Programs should address one of ten priority areas (six
relevant ones listed to the right). Grant recipients should expect to wait up to 90 days before being
reimbursed/funded and should be able to provide traffic safety data to justify funded programs7
.

DUI
Distracted Driving
Ped/Bike Safety
Police Enforcement
Roadway Safety and
Data Collection
Social
Media/Marketing
Sources:

1. Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Discretionary Grant Opportunity, August 2022

2. Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, April 2016

3. Highway safety improvement program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148.

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

5. 2021 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 25, 2020. Resolution G-20-31.

6. California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. December 2019.

7. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year 2020. December 2019.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 80

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

7.3.1 Project Scopes And Benefit Calculations
The development of project scopes involves identifying one or more specific countermeasures at potential locations for safety improvements. Expected benefits are derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the expected crashes. This involves:

Identifying the current number of crashes without treatment Applying CRFs by type and severity
Applying a benefit value by crash severity
Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked statewide. These include:

Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project.

For a countermeasure to be utilized in the B/C ratio calculations, it must represent a minimum of 15 percent of the project's total construction cost. This is intended to ensure that minor and insignificant project elements are not misrepresented in the agency's major safety effort.

An engineer determining the benefits of newly installed infrastructure first determines the number of collisions with the potential to be prevented by the improvement. The engineer then applies the CRF, which gives the rough percentage of crashes that would be prevented. The next step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is multiplying the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the "cost" of crashes. A project's expected "benefit" value is the expected "reduction in costs" value from reducing future crashes.

The cost source by collision severity level was taken from Appendix D of the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, as discussed in Section 3.2.

The final step in calculating the total safety project benefits is to divide the benefits by the number of years the collision data was collected (five years for this project) and multiply this value by the project life in years.

For this LRSP, instead of calculating project benefits manually, project benefits were derived from entering collision data directly into the HSIP Analyzer tool. The tool auto-calculates project collision reduction benefits based on the method discussed above and reduces benefits if more than one project is included due to cumulative effects.

The safety project scopes are listed in Table 7.8, including the applicable countermeasure category for each improvement and benefits calculated according to the method above.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 81 Table 7.8 Safety Project Scopes
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
1 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD n/a Lane Markings2 Install yield markings for southbound Goodrich Blvd in advance of crosswalk at Atlantic Blvd
- 40% 10
n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
-
n/a Regulatory Signs2 ● Replace lane assignment signs mounted on the overhead railroad bridge with larger more detailed signs regarding lane destinations ● Install regulatory signage for right turns only permitted -
n/a High visibility
crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
2 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON
BL
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
40% 10
3 EASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV S02 Signal Hardware Move left turn signals to a mast arm, all legs All 15% 10 n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
4 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, existing 3 legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10
5 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
40% 10
6 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL S02 Signal Hardware Relocate nearside signal on southbound approach
All 15% 10
7 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
40% 10
8 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
- 40% 10
n/a Regulatory Signs Install Signal Ahead warning sign northbound - n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 82 Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
9 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection): - East leg 427 ft - West leg 4,308 ft - North leg 201 ft - South leg 201 ft - 40% 10
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
10 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
- 40% 10
n/a Lane Markings2 Install yield pavement markings for westbound approach
-
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
11 GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
40% 10
12 GERHART AV & OLYMPIC BL n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
- 40% 10
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/
Pedestrian
13 SLAUSON AVE FROM

GREENWOOD AVE TO TELEGRAPH RD
R22 Upgrade Signage Install Signal Ahead signage with florescent sheeting
All 15% 10
R26 Dynamic Speed
Warning Signs
Install dynamic speed warning signs All
n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
-
14 ATLANTIC BL FROM TELEGRAPH

RD TO WASHINGTON BLVD
n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section
- - -
15 EASTERN AVE FROM ATLANTIC

BL TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane Install a 5ft bike lane from Atlantic Bl to the south City Limit.

P&B 35% 20
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 83 Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
16 GARFIELD AVE FROM MALT AVE

TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane Install an 8ft bike lane from Malt Ave to south City Limit.

P&B 35% 20
17 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S03 Signal Coordination Improve signal coordination All 15% 10 18 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S21PB Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI P&B 60% 10
19 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
Upgrade existing signals with retro-reflective backing plate All 15% 10
20 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Nearside Signals Install nearside signals All 15% 10 21 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Upgrade Signal
heads
Upgrade existing signal heads from 8" to 12" signal heads All 15% 10
22 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS n/a Curb Extensions Install curb extensions: Signalized locations P&B - - NS21PB Curb Extensions Install curb extensions: Non-Signalized locations P&B 35% 20 1 CRF for this countermeasure was found through the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm 2 No CRF is available for this countermeasure

7.3.2 Cost Estimate Cost estimates were developed for each countermeasure. Cost estimates were prepared based on recent bid tabulations and estimates of current construction costs consisting of unit-based cost estimates and contingencies. The costs include construction costs and engineering and administrative costs. A contingency is added to the construction cost of each project, depending on the complexity of the scope. The engineering and administration cost is assumed to be 30 percent of the total construction cost, including the contingency. The cost estimates are included in Appendix C.

7.3.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project’s benefits relative to its costs, and both are expressed in monetary terms. Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits relative to costs. Based on Caltrans's need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for-projects, the benefit and cost calculations were completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The B/C ratios were used to identify the projects with high cost-effectiveness that may have a greater chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects.

Table 7.9 summarizes the proposed safety projects with respective BCRs.

The detail of the safety project, including the BCR analysis summary table, is provided in Appendix D.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 84 Table 7.9 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 ATLANTIC BL &

TELEGRAPH RD
n/a Lane Markings2 0 $0 $0 $256,482 0.0 0% $0 $256,482
n/a Restriping2 n/a Regulatory Signs2 n/a High visibility crosswalks1
2 TELEGRAPH RD &

WASHINGTON BL
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
0 $0 $0 $30,401 0 0% $0 $30,401
3 EASTERN AV &

SLAUSON AV
S02 Signal Hardware 61 $1,958,900 $587,670 $919,085 0.6 90% $827,177 $91,909 n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
4 GAGE AV & SLAUSON
AV
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
0 $0 $0 $26,761 0 0% $0 $26,761
5 GARFIELD AV &

TELEGRAPH RD
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
0 $0 $0 $30,401 0 0% $0 $30,401
6 ATLANTIC BL &

WASHINGTON BL
S02 Signal Hardware 56 $1,884,400 $565,320 $26,324 21.5 90% $23,692 $2,632 7 GREENWOOD AV &

SLAUSON AV
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
2 $3,574,000 $2,859,200 $30,401 94.0 0% $0 $30,401
8 GARFIELD AV &

WASHINGTON BL
n/a Restriping2 0 $0 $0 $310,054 0 0% $0 $310,054
n/a Regulatory Signs n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 85 Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
9 GARFIELD AV &

SLAUSON AV
n/a Restriping2 0 $0 $0 $277,966 0 0% $0 $0 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1
10 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD
AV
n/a Restriping2 0 $0 $0 $104,901 0 0% $0 $0
n/a Lane Markings2 n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
11 GOODRICH BL &

OLYMPIC BL
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
1 $1,787,000 $1,429,600 $30,401 47.0 0% $0 $30,401
12 GERHART AV &

OLYMPIC BL
n/a Restriping2 1 $90,900 $72,720 $60,345 1.2 0% $0 $60,345 n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
13 SLAUSON AVE FROM

GREENWOOD AVE TO TELEGRAPH RD
R22 Upgrade Signage 165 $9,533,700 $2,860,110 $82,395 34.7 90% $74,156 $8,240 R26 Dynamic Speed
Warning Signs
n/a Restriping2
14 ATLANTIC BL FROM

TELEGRAPH RD TO WASHINGTON BLVD
n/a Restriping2 0 $0 $0 $79,847 0 0% $0 $79,847
15 EASTERN AVE FROM

ATLANTIC BL TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane 4 $356,600 $499,240 $722,963 0.7 90% $650,667 $72,296 16 GARFIELD AVE FROM

MALT AVE TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
R32PB Bike Lane 3 $196,700 $275,380 $618,460 0.4 90% $556,614 $61,846 CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 86 Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
17 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S03 Signal
Coordination
811 $45,046,700 $13,514,010 $513,968 26.3 50% $256,984 $256,984 18 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S21PB Leading
Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
9 $6,182,400 $7,418,880 $142,688 52.0 90% $128,419 $14,269 19 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
1000 $54,087,300 $16,226,190 $589,913 27.5 90% $530,922 $58,991 20 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Nearside Signals 296 $18,154,900 $5,446,470 $139,922 38.9 90% $125,929 $13,992 21 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Upgrade Signal
heads
395 $28,392,300 $8,517,690 $354,201 24.0 90% $318,781 $35,420 22 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS n/a Curb Extensions 3 $2,037,800 - $5,428,842 - 0% $0 $5,428,842 NS21PB Curb Extensions 4 $3,184,700 $4,458,580 $3,818,506 1.2 90% $3,436,655 $381,851 1 CRF for this countermeasure was found through the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm 2 No CRF is available for this countermeasure As shown in the table above (Table 7.9), the improvements are listed by intersections, roadway segments, and systemic improvements. Some improvements have a BCR of zero due to no collisions associated with the improvement type. The calculated BCR for each project summarizes the cost-effectiveness of the 19 proposed safety projects without considering how the project would be funded.

7.3.4 Project Prioritization A prioritized list of safety projects for the HSIP application was identified. The B/C ratios may be used to identify the projects with high costeffectiveness that have the greatest chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects. BCR is not the only guide to prioritizing and implementing a countermeasure. The safety project list will be used to reference which safety project to implement first. The implementation timeline will be dependent on the City's goals and funding eligibility. The City may choose to move forward with any of these safety projects in any order, depending on funding availability. If the applications are approved for funding, these projects should not be applied for future HSIP cycles. If the safety projects are not funded by the upcoming HSIP Cycle 11, then those projects could be considered for application from other funding sources. Because HSIP grants are competitive, it is typically appropriate to apply only for projects with a higher BCR. According to the HSIP grant application guidelines, a safety project needs to be at least $100,000 and a minimum of 3.5 BCR to submit an HSIP Cycle application. Considering the HSIP application, Table 7.10 summarizes the BCR CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 87 analysis for the safety projects. The safety projects are categorized by countermeasure ID and are prioritized by BCR. The City may use the list from Table 7.10 to determine which will be implemented based on the City's goals and funding availability. The City may also determine which project to be prioritized based on available funding sources, public support, and other factors.

CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 88 Table 7.10: Safety Project List
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount

GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
2 $3,574,000 $2,859,200 $30,401 94.0 0% $0 $30,401
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S21PB Leading
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
9 $6,182,400 $7,418,880 $142,688 52.0 90% $128,419 $14,269

GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL
n/a High Visibility
Crosswalks1
1 $1,787,000 $1,429,600 $30,401 47.0 0% $0 $30,401
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Nearside Signals 296 $18,154,900 $5,446,470 $139,922 38.9 90% $125,929 $13,992 SLAUSON AVE FROM GREENWOOD AVE TO TELEGRAPH RD R22 Upgrade Signage 165 $9,533,700 $2,860,110 $82,395 34.7 90% $74,156 $8,240 R26 Dynamic Speed
Warning Signs
n/a Restriping2
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
1000 $54,087,300 $16,226,190 $589,913 27.5 90% $530,922 $58,991 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S03 Signal
Coordination
811 $45,046,700 $13,514,010 $513,968 26.3 50% $256,984 $256,984 MULTIPLE LOCATIONS S02 Upgrade Signal
heads
395 $28,392,300 $8,517,690 $354,201 24.0 90% $318,781 $35,420

ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL
S02 Signal Hardware 56 $1,884,400 $565,320 $26,324 21.5 90% $23,692 $2,632 CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL ACTION PLAN 89

8.0 PROGRESS AND TRANSPARENCY
City of Commerce intends to prepare an annual public and accessible reporting on progress toward reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and public posting of the LRSP/SS4A Action Plan on the City of Commerce Public Works Department online webpage (www.ci.commerce.ca.us/city-hall/public-works).

Figure 8.1 City of Commerce Public Works Department Webpage CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

INTERSECTION COLLISION SUMMARY
Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
1 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD 121 1 1 15 104 18 4 2 6 2 1 36 522 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON BL 67 1 1 7 58 9 4 5 4 1 23 21 3 EASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV 65 1 3 12 49 15 5 3 3 1 22 164 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV 60 1 8 51 9 7 2 4 13 255 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD 59 1 6 52 12 4 2 5 1 15 206 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL 56 2 10 44 16 4 2 18 167 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV 50 2 1 12 35 18 6 1 1 11 11 28 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL 48 3 10 35 13 1 2 4 16 129 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV 47 1 2 6 38 14 2 2 14 15 10 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV 45 2 7 36 7 1 2 2 2 1 14 1611 EASTERN AV & TELEGRAPH RD 43 5 6 32 25 4 1 1 1 4 712 FIDELIA AV & WASHINGTON BL 39 4 10 25 11 3 1 1 2 13 7 113 FERGUSON DR & GARFIELD AV 34 1 3 7 23 10 6 1 2 8 714 GERHART AV & OLYMPIC BL 34 1 7 26 10 2 1 3 6 11 1 15 CAMFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD 34 1 5 28 4 1 1 1 10 16 116 AYERS AV & WASHINGTON BL 33 3 30 10 5 2 4 1 4 717 FLOTILLA ST & GARFIELD AV 33 2 2 7 22 7 2 3 1 1 11 7 118 SLAUSON AV & TELEGRAPH RD 32 2 4 26 3 4 2 11 1219 TELEGRAPH RD & TUBEWAY AV 32 3 2 27 9 4 1 6 1220 ATLANTIC BL & SHEILA ST 30 1 1 5 23 13 4 2 5 621 EASTERN AV & STEVENS PL 28 1 1 26 1 2 1 7 1722 MALT AV & SLAUSON AV 27 3 1 23 8 3 1 1 7 723 GARFIELD AV & RANDOLPH ST 25 3 22 5 6 3 5 624 EASTERN AV & RANDOLPH ST 22 2 3 3 14 8 1 12 125 GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL 21 2 2 4 13 8 2 7 3 126 ATLANTIC BL & FERGUSON DR 20 1 1 18 2 1 1 1 7 827 EASTERN AV & JILLSON ST 19 1 3 15 14 2 1 228 WASHINGTON BL & YATES AV 18 2 3 13 6 1 1 1 1 5 329 ATLANTIC BL & EASTERN AV 18 2 16 3 1 6 8

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
30 EASTERN AV & WASHINGTON BL 16 1 1 14 6 5 5
31 EASTERN AV & SHEILA ST 16 16 5 1132 ARROWMILL AV & WASHINGTON BL 16 1 3 12 4 1 6 533 ATLANTIC BL & EVERINGTON ST 15 2 13 5 1 1 1 1 634 ELM ST & GARFIELD AV 15 2 13 2 2 1 7 335 LEO AV & WASHINGTON BL 14 14 3 2 1 6 236 ATLANTIC BL & HARBOR ST 14 7 7 3 2 6 337 CITADEL DR & TELEGRAPH RD 14 1 1 12 3 1 144138 SAYBROOK AV & WASHINGTON BL 13 1129233 2339 CONNOR AV & WASHINGTON BL 13 1 12 1 1 2 6 340 MCBRIDE AV & TELEGRAPH RD 12 11288 1 2141 RANDOLPH ST & SCOTT WY 12 1 1 10 7 1 1 342 TELEGRAPH RD & WOODS AV 12 2 10 3 1 1 6 143 26TH ST & GARFIELD AV 12 1 4 7 7 1 444 BEDESSEN AV & WASHINGTON BL 11 11 5 1 1 445 ATLANTIC BL & JARDINE ST 11 1 2 2 6 4 4 1 246 61ST ST & EASTERN AV 11 1 1 9 1 1 6 347 RANSOM ST & WASHINGTON BL 10 10 2 1 1 4 248 COMMERCE WY & WASHINGTON BL 10 2 2 6 4 4 249 HOEFNER AV & TELEGRAPH RD 10 113551 1 350 BOXFORD AV & SLAUSON AV 10 1911 1 13351 EASTERN AV & EVERINGTON ST 10 1 2 7 5 1 1 2 152 GASPAR AV & TELEGRAPH RD 10 136323 1153 SLAUSON AV & TRIANGLE DR 9 11713 1 31 54 ONEILL AV & WASHINGTON BL 9 18 3 1 4155 MALT AV & TELEGRAPH RD 9 1 8 2 2 3 256 GARFIELD AV & YATES AV 9 11751 2157 ATLANTIC BL & LEONIS ST 9 274 3258 GOODRICH BL & GRACE PL 9 3 6 6 2 1 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
59 STRONG AV & WASHINGTON BL 9 126411 21
60 BANDINI BL & EASTERN AV 9 324211 1 3161 HEPWORTH AV & WASHINGTON BL 9 2711 1 12362 GAYHART AV & WASHINGTON BL 8 2651 263 SLAUSON AV & ZAMBRANO ST 8 1 2 5 2 664 EASTERN AV & RICKENBACKER RD 8 1 7 1 1 4 1 165 GERHART AV & GRACE PL 8 261 4366 ATLANTIC BL & JILLSON ST 8 1 7 11 2467 FRASER AV & TELEGRAPH RD 8 23342 1168 EASTERN AV & UNION PACIFIC AV 8 8 2 1 1 469 CLELA AV & TELEGRAPH RD 8 2631 1111 70 BEWLEY AV & WASHINGTON BL 7 2 52 14
71 ALEXANDER ST & SLAUSON AV 7 2511 2372 BANDINI BL & MALT AV 7 163 11 273 FERGUSON DR & GERHART AV 7 342 1 474 ATLANTIC BL & TRIGGS ST 7 1 64 2 175 EASTERN AV & HARBOR ST 7 161 1 3276 GERHART AV & WHITTIER BL 7 111411 4177 CORSAIR ST & WASHINGTON BL 7 741 1178 FLOTILLA ST & HOEFNER AV 7 7311 279 WASHINGTON BL & WILMA AV 7 1641 1 180 FIDELIA AV & SHEILA ST 7 1 6 3 1 381 ELM ST & VAIL AV 7 1 61 5182 ESTEBAN TORRES AV & OLYMPIC BL 7 431 1 4183 CONDOR ST & VAIL AV 6 11132 2 284 CHURCH RD & TELEGRAPH RD 6 1142 3185 GOODRICH BL & WHITTIER BL 6 123 1 31186 DUNCAN AV & TRIGGS ST 6 6 1 587 GAGE AV & ZINDELL AV 6 151 32 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
88 MCBRIDE AV & TRIGGS ST 6 1 5 1 1 1 1 289 ARIZONA AV & TELEGRAPH RD 5 5 1 1 1 290 BANDINI BL & GREENWOOD AV 5 5 1 2 1 191 GERHART AV & UNION PACIFIC AV 5 5111 1 1 92 OAK ST & WASHINGTON BL 5 2 3 1 3 193 FERGUSON DR & GOODRICH BL 5 1 4 1 3 194 DUNCAN AV & TELEGRAPH RD 5 1132 11 195 ATLANTIC BL & STEVENS PL 5 5 1 3196 FERRIS AV & TELEGRAPH RD 5 1 1 3 1 1 397 COMMERCE WY & JILLSON ST 5 51 1398 GAGE AV & GREENWOOD AV 5 5 2 1 1 199 TELEGRAPH RD & VANCOUVER AV 5 1411 12 100 CANNING ST & GARFIELD AV 4 1321 1101 COMMERCE WY & EASTERN AV 4 13 2 1 1102 GREENWOOD AV & NEENAH ST 4 4 2 2103 EASTERN AV & PEACHTREE ST 4 42 2104 RT 5 & TELEGRAPH RD 4 42 2105 FETTERLY AV & TELEGRAPH RD 4 1 3112106 EASTERN AV & MANSFIELD WY 4 42 11107 GAGE AV & KUHL DR 4 221 1 1 1108 HARBOR ST & WILMA AV 4 43 1109 ATLANTIC BL & EVERINGTON AV 4 41 12110 RALPH LIEBERMAN AV & WASHINGTON BL 4 42 2111 GARFIELD AV & MALT AV 4 1 3 1 111112 RT 5 & WASHINGTON BL 4 42 1 1113 DENNIS AV & WASHINGTON BL 4 4 1 3114 HARBOR ST & STRONG AV 4 411 2115 MARIANNA AV & UNION PACIFIC AV 3 1 2 2 1116 COMMERCE WY & SHEILA ST 3 31 1 1 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
117 GAGE AV & TELEGRAPH RD 3 3 2 1118 GOODRICH BL & UNION PACIFIC AV 3 3 1 2119 CORVETTE ST & TUBEWAY AV 3 121 11 120 COWLIN AV & WASHINGTON BL 3 1 2 1 11121 ARROWMILL AV & SHEILA ST 3 211 2122 ELKGROVE AV & WASHINGTON BL 3 1 2 1 11123 EASTERN AV & NOAKES ST 3 1 2 1 1 1124 GREENWOOD AV & WATCHER ST 3 31 2125 ATLANTIC BL & GAFFORD ST 3 2121126 TELEGRAPH RD & TRIGGS ST 3 121 11127 ATLANTIC BL & FARRAR ST 3 31 2128 BARTMUS ST & COMMERCE WY 3 121 2129 COBB ST & WASHINGTON BL 3 3 1 1 1130 HOEFNER AV & SMITHWAY ST 3 1 2 12131 OLYMPIC BL & SIMMONS AV 3 3 3132 INDIANA ST & WASHINGTON BL 3 3 3133 FERGUSON DR & WESTSIDE DR 3 2 111 1134 JARDINE ST & SENTA AV 3 32 1135 FLOTILLA ST & SAYBROOK AV 33 3136 JARDINE ST & STRONG AV 3 3 11 1137 SENTA AV & WASHINGTON BL 3 123138 JILLSON ST & SENTA AV 3 12 12139 SMITHWAY ST & TUBEWAY AV 3 32 1140 LEO AV & SHEILA ST 33 3141 LEO AV & SMITHWAY ST 3 3 11 1142 GOODRICH BL & VERONA ST 3 3 1 1 1143 CANNING ST & MALT AV 2 21 1144 MCDONNELL AV & TRIGGS ST 2 2 1 1145 SYCAMORE ST & VAIL AV 2 21 1 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
146 BARTMUS ST & KURT AV 2 2 11
147 PINE ST & WASHINGTON BL 2 22148 FITZGERALD AV & JILLSON ST 2 21 1149 EASTERN AV & RT 5 2 2 1 1150 FITZGERALD AV & WASHINGTON BL 2 21 1151 EASTERN AV & EVERINGTON AV 2 21 1152 BARTMUS ST & SENTA AV 2 2 1 1153 CONDOR ST & SUPPLY AV 2 2 1 1154 DUNHAM ST & MCBRIDE AV 2 2 1 1155 COMMERCE WY & HARBOR ST 2 1 11 1156 HOME DEPOT DR & TELEGRAPH RD 2 2 1 1157 FERGUSON DR & HENDRICKS AV 22 2158 ASH ST & WASHINGTON BL 2 1 1 11159 CONCOURSE AV & FERGUSON DR 2 2 1 1160 FLOTILLA ST & YATES AV 2 211161 EASTERN AV & SHEILA AV 2 21 1162 GAGE AV & GARFIELD AV 2 1 1 1 1163 MCDONNELL AV & TELEGRAPH RD 2 1 1 2164 JILLSON ST & LEO AV 2 21 1165 ACCO ST & YATES AV 2 2 1 1166 COUTS AV & WASHINGTON BL 2 2 1 1167 ATLANTIC BL & QUIGLEY ST 2 1111168 KERN AV & TELEGRAPH RD 2 2 2169 COWLIN AV & JARDINE ST 2 2 11170 ASH ST & PACIFIC WY 2 21 1171 ATLANTIC BL & KINSIE ST 2 2 11172 ATLANTIC BL & COMO ST 2 1 1 1 1173 CAROLINA PL & GOODRICH BL 2 11 1 1174 COWLIN AV & GAFFORD ST 2 2 1 1 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
175 CARRIER AV & TELEGRAPH RD 22 2
176 MALT AV & RANDOLPH ST 2 22177 COWLIN AV & QUIGLEY ST 2 2 1 1178 DUNHAM ST & MCDONNELL AV 2 21 1179 SUPPLY AV & SYCAMORE ST 2 1 1 2180 MALT AV & YATES AV 2 2 11181 COUTS AV & LEONIS ST 2 2 1 1182 DAVIE AV & FLOTILLA ST 2 2 1 1183 AGRA ST & GAGE AV 2 2 1 1184 BURRARD AV & FERGUSON DR 22 2185 ATLANTIC BL & FAIR ST 2 2 11186 CORVETTE ST & DAVIE AV 2 21 1187 PACIFIC WY & PINE AV 11 1188 DAVIE AV & GAYHART AV 11 1189 ASTOR AV & HARBOR ST 11 1190 DUNHAM ST & MARIANNA AV 11 1191 NOBLE ST & RANSOM ST 1 1 1192 ELTON AV & FERGUSON DR 11 1193 RT 5 & TRIGGS ST 11 1194 GERHART AV & WHITTIER AV 1 11195 COWLIN AV & KINSIE AV 11 1196 ENTRADA ST & MISSION WY 11 1197 COWLIN AV & HARBOR ST 11 1198 CARRIER ST & TELEGRAPH RD 11 1199 DITMAN AV & UNION PACIFIC AV 1 1 1200 CENTER PL & GOODRICH BL 1 11201 GAGE AV & LANTO ST 1 1 1202 COWLIN AV & KINSIE ST 11 1203 BOSWELL PL & GOODRICH BL 1 11 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
204 COWLIN AV & LEONIS ST 1 1 1205 SYDNEY DR & TRIGGS ST 11 1 206 EVERINGTON ST & STRONG AV 11 1207 TRIUMPH ST & TUBEWAY AV 11 1208 GOODRICH PL & GRACE PL 1 1 1209 DENMAN AV & FERGUSON DR 1 1 1210 DUNHAM ST & SYDNEY DR 11 1211 NOAKES ST & SYDNEY DR 11 1212 CHALET DR & GAGE AV 1 11213 OAK ST & PACIFIC WY 11 1214 BARTMUS ST & FIDELIA AV 1 1 1215 ONEILL AV & SHEILA ST 11 1216 GREENWOOD AV & WELLMAN ST 1 11217 CORVETTE ST & SAYBROOK AV 11 1218 FERGUSON DR & GERHART DR 11 1219 ASTOR AV & COUTS AV 1 1 1220 COWLIN AV & NOBLE ST 11 1221 RT 710 & WASHINGTON BL 1 11222 HEPWORTH AV & LEONIS ST 11 1223 COMMRECE WY & EASTERN AV 11 1224 CHALET DR & WATCHER ST 11 1225 ARROWMILL AV & PACIFIC WY 11 1226 COUTS AV & JARDINE ST 1 1 1227 GASPER AV & TELEGRAPH RD 1 1 1228 FERGUSON DR & NAIRN AV 11 1229 TELEGRAPH RD & WILKINS AV 11 1230 HOEFNER AV & WHITTIER BL 11 1231 ASTOR AV & QUIGLEY ST 1 1 1 232 FERGUSON DR & NICOLA AV 1 1 1
Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
233 BEDESSEN AV & LEONIS ST 1 1 1234 FERGUSON DR & SAYBROOK AV 1 1 1235 FLOTILLA ST & SMITHWAY ST 1 11 236 JARDINE ST & LEO AV 11 1237 NEENAH ST & TODD AV 11 1238 AGRA ST & EMIL AV 1 11239 NOBEL ST & RANSOM ST 1 1 1240 COWLIN AV & EVERINGTON ST 11 1241 NYE AV & WATCHER ST 11 1242 JARDINE ST & WILMA AV 1 11243 ATLANTIC BL & EASTERN AV 1 1 1244 EASTERN AV & LOVETT ST 11 1245 OLYMPIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD 1 1 1246 JILLSON ST & ONEILL AV 11 1247 DUNCAN AV & DUNHAM ST 1 1 1248 FIDELIA AV & JILLSON ST 1 1 1249 PACIFIC WY & PINE ST 1 1 1250 JILLSON ST & STRONG AV 11 1251 RALPH LIEBERMAN AV & SHEILA ST 11 1252 JILLSON ST & WILMA AV 11 1253 ASTOR AV & BARNEY ST 1 11254 FIDELIA AV & SHEILA AV 11 1255 EASTERN AV & TRIGGS ST 1 1 1256 LA VERNE AV & TELEGRAPH RD 11 1257 ASTOR AV & FAIR ST 1 1 1258 LANTO ST & PACIFIC DR 1 11259 BORIS AV & JILLSON ST 1 1 1260 BARTMUS ST & GASPAR AV 1 1 1261 BOXFORD AV & PEACHTREE ST 1 1 1 Commerce LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only
Broadside
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
262 DANIEL ST & SHEILA ST 11 1
263 COMO ST & COWLIN AV 1 1 1264 LEO AV & TRIUMPH ST 1 11265 ELKGROVE AV & JARDINE ST 11 1266 DAVIE AV & FLEET ST 1 1 1267 ELKGROVE AV & JILLSON ST 1 11268 LOVETT ST & MARIANNA AV 11 1 269 TELEGRAPH RD & TRAVERS AV 1 11
270 COUTS AV & JILLSON ST 1 1 1271 GAYHART AV & SAYBROOK AV 11 1272 FITZGERALD AV & WILMA AV 1 11273 GAYHART ST & SAYBROOK AV 11 1274 COBB ST & PACIFIC WY 1 1 1275 ATLANTIC BL & GOODRICH BL 11 1276 FLEET ST & SAYBROOK AV 11 1277 WASHINGTON BL & WASHINGTON BL 11 1278 MARIANNA AV & TELEGRAPH RD 1 1 1279 MARIANNA AV & TUTTLE ST 1 11280 GASPAR AV & JARDINE ST 1 1 1281 EVERINGTON ST & FITZGERALD AV 11 1 CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX

APPENDIX B

LIST OF SAFETY PROJECTS
Commerce LRSP
APPENDIX B: SAFETY PROJECTS
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project Life
(Years)
HSIP Max
Share
1 1.1 n/a Lane Markings Install yield markings for southbound Goodrich Blvd in advance of crosswalk at Atlantic Blvd
- -- -

1.2 n/a
Restriping
Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection):- East leg (Ferguson Dr) 436 ft- North leg (Atlantic Bl) 411 ft- Northeast leg (Goodrich Bl) 400 ft- Southeast leg (Telegraph Rd) 840 ft- Southwest leg (Atlantic Bl) 1,255 ft - -- -

1.3 n/a
Regulatory Signs
● Replace lane assignment signs mounted on the overhead railroad bridge for northbound Atlantic Bl with larger more detailed signs regarding lane destinations● Install regulatory signage for southbound Goodrich Blvd in advance of Atlantic Blvd for right turns only permitted - -- -

1.4 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - 2 2.1 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON BL n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - -3 3.1 S02 Signal Hardware Move left turn signals to a mast arm, all legs All 15% 10 90%

3.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - 4 4.1 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - 5 5.1 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - -6 6.1 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL S02 Signal Hardware Relocate nearside signal on southbound approach All 15% 10 90% 7 7.1 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - -

8.1 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL n/a
Restriping
Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection):- East leg 1,226 ft- West leg 5,094 ft- North leg 351 ft- South leg 370 ft - -- -

8.2 n/a Regulatory Signs Install warning sign northbound - - - -

8.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - -

9.1 n/a
Restriping
Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection):- East leg 427 ft- West leg 4,308 ft- North leg 201 ft- South leg 201 ft - -- -

9.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - -

INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
8 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RD
9 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV

EASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV
Commerce LRSP
APPENDIX B: SAFETY PROJECTS
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project Life
(Years)
HSIP Max
Share

10.1 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV n/a
Restriping
Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection):- East leg 375 ft- West leg 342 ft- North leg 1,233 ft- South leg 284 ft - -- -

10.2 n/a Lane Markings Install yield pavement markings for westbound approach - - - -

10.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - 11 11.1 GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - 12 12.1 GERHART AV & OLYMPIC BL n/a
Restriping
Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured from the middle of the intersection):- North leg 1,494 ft- South leg 1,473 ft - -- -

12.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs - - - - A A.1 R22
Upgrage Signage
Install Signal Ahead signage with florescent sheeting:● Slauson/Telegraph, eastbound● Slauson/Gage, westbound● Slauson/Greenwood, northbound All 15% 10 90%
A.2 R26 Dynamic Speed Warning
Signs
Install dynamic speed warning signs at:● Slauson/Todd Ave, westbound● Slauson/I-5 bridge, eastbound All 30% 10 90%
A.3 n/a Restriping Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section - - - - B B.1 Atlantic Bl from Telegraph Rd to
Washington Blvd
n/a Restriping Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section - - - - C C.1 Eastern Ave from Atlantic Bl to South
City Limit
R32PB Bike Lane Install a 5ft bike lane from Atlantic Bl to the south City Limit. P&B 35% 20 90% D D.1 Garfield Ave from Malt Ave to South
City Limit
R32PB Bike Lane Install a 5ft bike lane from Malt Ave to south City Limit. P&B 35% 20 90% S1 S1.1 Multiple Locations S03 Signal Coordination Garfield Ave from Flotilla St to Randolph St - Improve signal timing, coordination of 10 signalized intersectionsWashington Blvd from I-5 SB On/Off Ramp to Yates Ave- Improve signal timing, coordination of 6 signalized intersectionsAtlantic BL from Telegraph Rd to Sheila St- Improve signal timing, coordination of 10 signalized intersectionsSlauson Ave from Eastern Ave to Telegraph Rd- Improve signal timing, coordination of 10 signalized intersections All 15% 10 50%

SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURESROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTERMEASURES 10 Slauson Ave from Greenwood Ave to
Telegraph Rd
Commerce LRSP
APPENDIX B: SAFETY PROJECTS
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project Life
(Years)
HSIP Max
Share
S2 S2.1 Multiple Locations S21PB Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI at the following locations:

Data driven :
- Atlantic Bl & Jardine St (eastbound/westbound)- Goodrich Bl & Olympic Bl (northbound/southbound)- Eastern Av & Everington St (eastbound/westbound)- Fidelia Av & Washington Bl (northbound/southbound)- Atlantic Bl & Everington St (northbound/southbound)Non-data driven:- Atlantic Bl & Harbor St (eastbound/westbound)- Eastern Ave & Harbor St (eastbound/westbound)- Atlantic Blvd & Washington Bl P&B 60% 10 90%
S3 S3.1 Multiple Locations S02 Retro-reflective backing plates
Upgrade existing signals with retro-reflective backing plate at the following locations: Data driven locations:- Atlantic Bl & Telegraph Rd - Eastern Av & Sheila St- Garfield Ave & Telegraph Rd - Eastern Av & Washington Bl - Atlantic Bl & Washington Bl - Malt Av & Slauson Av- Garfield Av & Slauson Av - Eastern Av & Harbor St- Telegraph Rd & Washington Bl - Ayers Av & Washington Bl- Ferguson Dr & Garfield Av - Gaspar Av & Telegraph Rd- Flotilla St & Garfield Av - Eastern Av & Everington St- Garfield Av & Randolph St - Commerce Wy & Washington Bl - Gage Av & Slauson Av - Citadel Dr & Telegraph Rd- Greenwood Av & Slauson Av - Telegraph Rd & Tubeway Av- Bandini Bl & Garfield Av - Eastern Av & Slauson Av - Gerhart Av & Olympic Bl - Atlantic Bl & Harbor St
- Camfield Av & Telegraph Rd - Goodrich Bl & Olympic Bl- Atlantic Bl & Sheila St - Eastern Av & Telegraph Rd All 15% 10 90%
S4 S4.1 Multiple Locations S02 Nearside Signals Install nearside signals at the following locations:
- Eastern Ave & Slauson Ave (all approaches)- Greenwood Ave & Slauson Ave (all approaches)- Ferguson Dr & Garfield Ave (southbound approach)- Atlantic Blvd & Sheila Ave (northbound approach)- Atlantic Blvd & Telegraph Rd (northbound and southbound approaches) All 15% 10 90%
Commerce LRSP
APPENDIX B: SAFETY PROJECTS
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project Life
(Years)
HSIP Max
Share
S5 S5.1 Multiple Locations S02 Upgrade Signal heads Upgrade existing signal heads from 8" to 12" signal heads at the following locations:- Atlantic Blvd & Jardine St- Gerhart Ave & Olympic Blvd - Ferguson Dr & Garfield Ave- Atlantic Blvd & Shiela Ave- Eastern Ave & Telegraph Rd- Goodrich Blvd & Olympic Blvd- Eastern Ave & Slauson Ave- Telegraph Rd & Tubeway Ave- Citadel Dr & Telegraph Rd- Greenwood Ave & Slauson Ave- Slauson Ave & Telegraph Rd- Eastern Ave & Harbor St- Malt Ave & Slauson Ave All 15% 10 90%
S6.1 Multiple Locations n/a Curb Extensions Install curb extensions at the following locations:

Data driven locations:- Atlantic Blvd & Jardine St (all corners)- Atlantic Blvd & Everington St (all corners)Non-data driven:- Atlantic Blvd & Harbor St (northwest, northeast, and southwest corners) - -- -
S6.2 Multiple Locations NS21PB Curb Extensions Data driven locations:
- Atlantic Blvd & Como St (northwest corner)Non-data driven:- Couts Ave & Leonis St (northeast corner)- Couts Ave & Jillson St (southwest corner)- Couts Ave & Kinsie St (southeast corner)- Atlantic Blvd & Leonis St (northwest corner)- Atlantic Blvd & Kinsie St (northwest corner)- Atlantic Blvd & Quigley St (northwest corner)- Atlantic Blvd & Gafford St (northwest corner) - Atlantic Blvd & Farrar St (northwest corner)- Entrada St & Harbor St (southside of intersection)- Harbor St & Rosewood Park North Entrance (northside of midblock crossing)- Bartmus St & Commerce Wy (southeast corner)- Commerce Wy & Harbor St (all corners)- Commerce Wy & Jardine St (westside of intersection)- Greenwood Ave & Watcher St (northeast and northwest corner) P&B 35% 20 90%
S6
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
Appendix C

SAFETY PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS 30 SF $4 $120

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING 1 LS $103,015 $103,015

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE SIGN 1 EA $100 $100
INSTALL SIGN AND POST 1 EA $500 $500
INSTALL LARGE SIGN 1 EA $1,000 $1,000

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 6 EA $2,000 $12,000
$116,735
$11,674
$11,674
$15,000
$9,400
$11,674
$52,847
$27,480
$256,482
N/A
N/A
N/A

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND TELEGRAPH ROAD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$8,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$1,880
$3,000
$6,264
$3,257
$30,401
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

TELEGRAPH ROAD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNAL (LEFT-TURN SIGNAL INSTALLED ON MAST ARMS ALL LEGS) 1 LS $500,000 $500,000

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$508,000
$50,800
$2,000
$14,000
$5,640
$50,800
$189,372
$98,473
$919,085

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

EASTERN AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A
S02
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 3 EA $2,000 $6,000
$6,000
$1,500
$2,000
$4,000
$1,880
$3,000
$5,514
$2,867
$26,761
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GAGE AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$8,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$1,880
$3,000
$6,264
$3,257
$30,401
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GARFIELD AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALL 3 - 12" VEHICLE HEAD WITH MOUNTING 1 EA $1,200 $1,200 $1,200
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$1,880
$3,000
$5,424
$2,820
$26,324

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S02

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$8,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$1,880
$3,000
$6,264
$3,257
$30,401
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GREENWOOD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING 1 LS $137,215 $137,215

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL SIGN AND POST 1 EA $500 $500

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$145,715
$14,572
$14,572
$16,000
$7,520
$14,572
$63,885
$33,220
$310,054

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GARFIELD AVENUE AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A
N/A
N/A
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING 1 LS $125,285 $125,285

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$133,285
$13,329
$13,329
$12,000
$5,640
$13,329
$57,273
$29,782
$277,966
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
N/A

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GARFIELD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING 1 LS $38,255 $38,255

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS 30 SF $4 $120

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$46,375
$4,638
$4,638
$8,000
$3,760
$4,638
$21,614
$11,239
$104,901
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

BANDINI BOULEVARD AND GARFIELD AVENUE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A
N/A
N/A

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$8,000
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$1,880
$3,000
$6,264
$3,257
$30,401
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GOODRICH BOULEVARD AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING 1 LS $14,835 $14,835

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 4 EA $2,000 $8,000
$22,835
$2,284
$2,284
$8,000
$3,760
$2,284
$12,434
$6,465
$60,345
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GERHART AVENUE AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A
N/A

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL SIGN AND SIGN POST 3 EA $500 $1,500

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL DYNAMIC SPEED WARNING SIGN (SOLAR) 2 EA $10,000 $20,000

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING (LIGHT CONCRETE SECTION) 1 LS $12,625 $12,625 $34,125
$3,413
$2,000
$8,000
$5,640
$3,413
$16,977
$8,828
$82,395
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
N/A
R22

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SLAUSON AVENUE FROM GREENWOOD AVENUE TO TELEGRAPH ROAD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
R26

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW STRIPING (LIGHT CONCRETE SECTION) 1 LS $35,800 $35,800 $35,800
$3,580
$2,000
$8,000
$1,880
$3,580
$16,452
$8,555
$79,847

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

ATLANTIC BOULEVARD FROM TELEGRAPH RD TO WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL BIKE LANE STRIPING 1 LS $354,816 $354,816
$354,816
$35,482
$35,482
$24,000
$11,280
$35,482
$148,962
$77,460
$722,963

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

EASTERN AVENUE FROM ATLANTIC BOULEVARD TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
R32PB

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

COUNTER

MEASURE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE

ITEM TOTAL

SIGNING AND STRIPING
INSTALL BIKE LANE STRIPING 1 LS $304,128 $304,128
$304,128
$30,413
$30,413
$20,000
$9,400
$30,413
$127,430
$66,264
$618,460

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

GARFIELD AVENUE FROM MALT AVENUE TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
R32PB
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
GARFIELD AVENUE FROM FLOTILLA STREET TO RANDOLPH STREET (10 INTERSECTIONS) 10 EA $5,000 $50,000 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD FROM I-5 SB ON/OFF RAMP TO YATES AVENUE (6 INTERSECTIONS) 6 EA $5,000 $30,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD FROM TELEGRAPH ROAD TO SHEILA STREET (10 INTERSECTIONS) 10 LS $5,000 $50,000 SLAUSON AVENUE FROM EASTER AVENUE TO TELEGRAPH ROAD (10 INTERSECTIONS) 10 LS $5,000 $50,000 $180,000
$2,000
$2,000
$144,000
$5,000
$20,000
$105,900
$55,068
$513,968

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S03

SIGNAL COORDINATION

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND JARDINE STREET (EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 GOODRICH BOULEVARD AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD (NORTHBOUND/SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 EASTERN AVENUE AND EVERINGTON STREET (EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 FIDELIA AVENUE AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD (NORTHBOUND/SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND EVERINGTON STREET (NORTHBOUND/SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND HARBOR STREET (EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 EASTERN AVENUE AND HARBOR STREET (EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $40,000
$2,000
$2,000
$32,000
$2,000
$20,000
$29,400
$15,288
$142,688

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S21PB LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
(LPI)

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 GARFIELD AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 GARFIELD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
TELEGRAPH ROAD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 FERGUSON DRIVE AND GARFIELD AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
FLOTILLA STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
GARFIELD AVENUE AND RANDOLPH STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
GAGE AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
GREENWOOD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
BANDINI BOUEVARD AND GARFIELD AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 GERHART AVENUE AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 CAMFIELD AVENUT AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND SHIELA STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 EASTERN AVENUE AND SHIELA STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
EASTERN AVENUE AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 MALT AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
EASTERN AVENUE AND HARBOR STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
AYERS AVENUE AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 GASPAR AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
EASTERN AVENUE AND EVERINGTON STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 COMMERCE WAY AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 CITADEL DRIVE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
TELEGRAPH ROAD AND TUBEWAY AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
EASTERN AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND HARBOR STREET 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 GOODRICK BOULEVARD AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 EASTERN AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
$70,000
$7,000
$28,000
$280,000
$13,160
$7,000
$121,548
$63,205
$589,913

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S02

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

RETRO-REFLECTIVE BACKING PLATES

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
NEAR-SIDE SIGNAL HEADS EASTERN AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE (ALL APPROACHES) 4 EA $1,200 $4,800 GREENWOOD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE (ALL APPROACHES) 4 EA $1,200 $4,800 FERGUSON DRIVE AND GARFIELD AVENUE (SOUTHBOUND APPROACH) 1 EA $1,200 $1,200 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND SHEILA AVENUE (NORTHBOUND APPROACH) 1 EA $1,200 $1,200 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND TELEGRAPH ROAD (NORTHBOUND/SOUTHBOUND APPROACH) 2 EA $1,200 $2,400 $14,400
$5,000
$2,000
$50,000
$4,700
$20,000
$28,830
$14,992
$139,922

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S02

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
UPGRADE SIGNAL HEADS ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND JARDINE STREET 4 EA $1,500 $6,000 GERHART AVENUE AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD 3 EA $1,500 $4,500 FERGUSON DRIVE AND GARFIELD AVENUE 4 EA $1,500 $6,000
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND SHIELA AVENUE 3 EA $1,500 $4,500 EASTERN AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 8 EA $1,500 $12,000
GOODRICH BOULEVARD AND OLYMPIC BOULEVARD 6 EA $1,500 $9,000 EASTERN AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 2 EA $1,500 $3,000
TELEGRAPH ROAD AND TUBEWAY AVENUE 5 EA $1,500 $7,500
CITADEL DRIVE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 3 EA $1,500 $4,500
GREENWOOD AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 7 EA $1,500 $10,500 SLAUSON AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD 1 EA $1,500 $1,500
EASTERN AVENUE AND HARBOR STREET 7 EA $1,500 $10,500
MALT AVENUE AND SLAUSON AVENUE 4 EA $1,500 $6,000
$85,500
$5,000
$2,000
$130,000
$12,220
$8,550
$72,981
$37,950
$354,201
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
S02

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
CURB EXTENSIONS ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND JARDINE STREET (ALL CORNERS) 4 EA $240,000 $960,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND EVERINGTON STREET (ALL CORNERS) 4 EA $240,000 $960,000

ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND HARBOR STREET (NORTHWEST, NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS) 3 EA $240,000 $720,000
$2,640,000
$264,000
$22,000
$15,000
$107,000
$413,600
$264,000
$3,000
$1,118,580
$581,662
$5,428,842
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
N/A

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

COUNTER

MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM
TOTAL
CURB EXTENSIONS ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND COMO STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 COUTS AVENUE AND LEONIS STREET (NORTHEAST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 COUTS AVENUE AND JILLSON STREET (SOUTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $120,000 $120,000 COUTS AVENUE AND KINSIE STREET (SOUTHEAST CORNER) 1 EA $90,000 $90,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND LEONIS STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND KINSIE STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND QUIGLEY STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND GAFFORD STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $120,000 $120,000 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND FARRAR STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 ENTRADA STREET AND HARBOR STREET (SOUTHSIDE OF INTERSECTION) 1 EA $120,000 $120,000

HARBOR STREET AND ROSEWOOD PARK NORTH ENTRANCE (NORTHSIDE OF MIDBLOCK CROSSING) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000
BARTMUS STREET AND COMMERCE WAY (SOUTHEAST CORNER) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 COMMERCE WAY AND HARBOR STREET (ALL CORNERS) 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 COMMERCE WAY AND JARDINE STREET (WESTSIDE OF INTERSECTION) 2 EA $60,000 $120,000 GREENWOOD AVENUE AND WATCHER STREET (NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNER) 2 EA $60,000 $120,000 $1,470,000
$147,000
$34,000
$75,000
$415,000
$319,600
$147,000
$15,000
$786,780
$409,126
$3,818,506
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CITY OF COMMERCE LRSP

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
NS21PB

TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
CITY OF COMMERCE | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
Appendix D

COLLISION BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Commerce LRSP
APPENDIX D: SAFETY PROJECTS BENEFIT/COST RATIO ANALYSISRoadSafe Collision Database From 6/1/2016 to 5/31/2021 Location Type
EPDO
Score CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project Life
(Years)
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 1.1 Signalized n/a Lane Markings2 Install yield markings for southbound Goodrich Blvd in advance of crosswalk at Atlantic Blvd
-

1.2 n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section -

1.3 n/a Regulatory Signs2 ● Replace lane assignment signs mounted on the overhead railroad bridge with larger more detailed signs regarding lane destinations● Install regulatory signage for right turns only permitted -

1.4 n/a High visibility crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
2 2.1 TELEGRAPH RD & WASHINGTON BL Signalized n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10 0 $0 $0 $30,401 0 0% $0 $30,401
3 3.1 Signalized S02 Signal Hardware Move left turn signals to a mast arm, all legs All

3.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
4 4.1 GAGE AV & SLAUSON AV Signalized n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, existing 3 legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10 0 $0 $0 $26,761 0 0% $0 $26,761
5 5.1 GARFIELD AV & TELEGRAPH RD Signalized n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10 0 $0 $0 $30,401 0 0% $0 $30,401
6 6.1 ATLANTIC BL & WASHINGTON BL Signalized S02 Signal Hardware Relocate nearside signal on southbound approach All 15% 10 56 $1,884,400 $565,320 $26,324 21.5 90% $23,692 $2,632 7 7.1 GREENWOOD AV & SLAUSON AV Signalized n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10 2 $3,574,000 $2,859,200 $30,401 94.0 0% $0 $30,401

8.1 GARFIELD AV & WASHINGTON BL Signalized n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section - $310,054

8.2 n/a Regulatory Signs Install Signal Ahead warning sign northbound -8.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian

9.1 Signalized n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section (measured - $0

9.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian

10.1 BANDINI BL & GARFIELD AV Signalized n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section -

10.2 n/a Lane Markings2 Install yield pavement markings for westbound approach -

10.3 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
11 11.1 GOODRICH BL & OLYMPIC BL Signalized n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10 1 $1,787,000 $1,429,600 $30,401 47.0 0% $0 $30,401 12 12.1 GERHART AV & OLYMPIC BL Signalized n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section -

12.2 n/a High Visibility Crosswalks1 Install high visibility crosswalks, all legs Vehicle/ 13 13.1 Roadway R22 Upgrage Signage Install Signal Ahead signage with florescent sheeting All

13.2 R26 Dynamic Speed Warning Signs Install dynamic speed warning signs All13.3 n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section - 14 14.1 Atlantic Bl from Telegraph Rd to
Washington Blvd
Roadway n/a Restriping2 Repaint striping with contrast striping on the light concrete section - - - 0 $0 $0 $79,847 0 0% $0 $79,847 15 15.1 Eastern Ave from Atlantic Bl to South City
Limit
Roadway R32PB Bike Lane Install a 5ft bike lane from Atlantic Bl to the south City Limit. P&B 35% 20 4 $356,600 $499,240 $722,963 0.7 90% $650,667 $72,296 16 16.1 Garfield Ave from Malt Ave to South City Roadway R32PB Bike Lane Install a 8ft bike lane from Malt Ave to south City Limit. P&B 35% 20 3 $196,700 $275,380 $618,460 0.4 90% $556,614 $61,846 17 17.1 Multiple Locations Roadway S03 Signal Coordination Improve signal coordination All 15% 10 811 $45,046,700 $13,514,010 $513,968 26.3 50% $256,984 $256,98418 18.1 Multiple Locations Signalized S21PB Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI P&B 60% 10 9 $6,182,400 $7,418,880 $142,688 52.0 90% $128,419 $14,269 19 19.1 Multiple Locations Signalized S02 Retro-reflective backing plates Upgrade existing signals with retro-reflective backing plate All 15% 10 1000 $54,087,300 $16,226,190 $589,913 27.5 90% $530,922 $58,991 20 20.1 Multiple Locations Signalized S02 Nearside Signals Install nearside signals All 15% 10 296 $18,154,900 $5,446,470 $139,922 38.9 90% $125,929 $13,992 21 21.1 Multiple Locations Signalized S02 Upgrade Signal heads Upgrade existing signal heads from 8" to 12" signal heads All 15% 10 395 $28,392,300 $8,517,690 $354,201 24.0 90% $318,781 $35,420

22.1 Signalized n/a Curb Extensions Install curb extensions: Signalized locations P&B - - 3 $2,037,800 - $5,428,842 - 0% $0 $5,428,842

22.2 Non-Signalized NS21PB Curb Extensions Install curb extensions: Non-Signalized locations P&B 35% 20 4 $3,184,700 $4,458,580 $3,818,506 1.2 90% $3,436,655 $381,851 1 CRF for this countermeasure was found through the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm2 No CRF is available for this countermeasure $82,395 34.7 90% $74,156 $8,240$60,345 1.2 0% $0 $60,345 $104,901 0 0% $0 $0
$277,966 0 0% $0 $0
$0 0.0 0% $0
0 $0 0% $310,054
$256,482
$919,085 $827,177 0.6 90% $91,909
$256,482
$587,670
10 ATLANTIC BL & TELEGRAPH RDEASTERN AV & SLAUSON AV
89 GARFIELD AV & SLAUSON AV
15% 10 61
40% 10 040% 10 140% 10 040% 10 0
$0
$1,958,900
$0$0$0
$0
$90,900 $72,720
$9,533,700 $2,860,110
$0
15% 10 165
22 Multiple Locations
Slauson Ave from Greenwood Ave to Telegraph Rd
40% 10 0

Commerce City CouncilSeptember 13, 2022

Commerce City Council
September 13, 2022