Concord City Council
May 12, 2026

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

Citywide Pedestrian Sidewalk
Improvements 11
Project 11 would address sidewalk gaps citywide, with prioritization informed by HIN corridor collision data and pedestrian collision history. Priority segments identified for further evaluation include Clayton Road (Fabian Way to Barbis Way), 6th Street (Willow Pass Road to Alameda Avenue), and Cowell Road (Galindo Street to Treat Boulevard), among others. Citywide pedestrian-involved collision data reflects 187 collisions over the study period, including 7 fatalities and 37 severe injuries.
$156,119,000
Fill Sidewalk Gaps Citywide
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
ØØ
ØØ
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Bailey Road
Farm
Bure
au
Road
Cowell Roa
d
Willow
Pass Road
Detroit
Avenue
Ygnacio
Val ley Road
Salvio
Street
Whitman Road
Por
t
Chicago H
ighw
ayArnold
Industrial Way
Conco
rd Boul
evard
Treat Bou
leva
rd
Oak G
rove
Roa
d
Bates Avenue
Olivera
Roa
d
Grant
Street
M
ohr
Lane
Turtle CreekRoad
Lan
dan
a
Drive
Solano
Way
Sa
n
M
ig
uel
Roa
d
Burnett
Avenue
Camino
Estr ad a
Crys
tyl Ranch Drive
MarketStreet
BabelLane
La rwin
Avenue
Myrtle Drive
Minert
Road
Willow
Wa
y
Willow Pass Road
Clayton Road
Olive Drive
Aye
rsRoa
d
Kirkwood Drive
West Street
Thorn
woodDrive
Bonifac
io
Stre
et
Denk
inger
Road
Kirk
er Pass Road
Michig
anBoulevard
Clayton Way
Chestnut
Avenue
Sunvalley
Boulevard
Coventry Road
Walnut Avenue
Pine Hollow RoadCitrus
Avenue
Mt Diablo
Street
San S
imeonDr
ive
EastStreet
Mead
owLane
AlbertaWay
Wash
ington
Boul
evard
Six th
Street
Park
sid
e
Drive
Lynw
ood Dr
ive
Hillsborough
Drive
Laguna
Street
ConcordBoulevard
Sanfo
rd
St
reet
David
Avenue
Galaxy
WayOrionAvenue
Meri
dian
Park
Boul
evard
Cha
llenge
Driv
e
ÄÅ242
ÄÅ242
ÄÅ4
ÄÅ4
ÄÅ4
680
680
Collisions by severity
Ø Fatal
Ø Severe Injury
Ø Visible Injury
Ø Complaint of pain
Primary Highways
Major Roadways
Other Roadways
Water
Parks
Concord Citylimit
0 1 20.5
Miles
0 1 Miles
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Intersection
Nighttime
Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian Violation
181 Collisions
163 Collisions
60 Collisions
75 Collisions
95%
86%
32%
39%
25%
1 2
4 3
5 COLLISION TRENDS
48 Collisions
190
INJURY
COLLISIONS 7(4%)
39(20%)
91(48%)
53(28%)
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain

ESTMATED COST
Contingency Cost
$31,223,000
Engineering Cost
$65,570,000
Total Cost
$252,912,000

IMPROVEMENTS

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

Citywide Pedestrian Signal
Improvements12
Project 12 would evaluate the installation of leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) and right-turn-on-red restrictions at approximately 15 locations where pedestrian severe-injury collisions have been recorded at intersections citywide. Pedestrian-involved intersection collision data indicates 159 collisions over the study period, including 6 fatalities and 31 severe injuries.

Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
ØØ
ØØ
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ØØ
ØØ Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Bailey Road
Farm
Bure
au
Road
Cowell R
oad
Willow
Pass
Road
Detroit
Avenue
Ygnacio
Val ley Road
FryW
ay
Salv
io
Street
Whitman Road
Port Chi
cago
High
w
ayArnold
Industrial Way
Conco
rd Bo
uleva
rd
Treat B oulevard
Oak G
rove
Roa
d
Bates Avenue
Olivera
Road
Grant
Street
Mohr
Lane
Turtle CreekRoad
Lan
dan
a
Drive
Solano
Way
San Mig
uelRoad
Burnett
Avenue
Camino
Estr ad a
Crys
tyl Ranch Drive
Babel Lane
La rwin
Avenue
Myrtle Drive
M
ark
et
Street
Minert
Road
Willo
w
Way
Willow Pass Road
Clayton Road
Olive Drive
Aye
rsRoad
Kirkwood Drive
West Street
Thorn
woodDrive
Monument Boulevard
Bonifacio
Street
Denk
inger
Road
Kirk
er Pass Road
Michig
anBoulevard
Concord
Avenue
Bailey
Road
Clayton Way
Chestnut
Avenue
Sunvalley
Boulevard
Coventry Road
Walnut Avenue
Pine Hollow RoadCitrus
Avenue
Mt
Diablo Str
eet
San S
imeonDr
ive
GalindoStreet
Marsh
Drive
EastStreet
Meadow
Lane
Alberta Way
Wash
ington
Boulev
ard
Pacheco
Street
Sixth Street
Par
ksid
e
Drive
Lynw
ood Dr
ive
MesaStreet
HillsboroughDr
ive
Lagu na Street
ConcordBoulevard
Sanford Street
David Avenue
Galaxy
WayOrionAvenue
Me
ridian P
ark
Boulevard
Cha
lle
nge
Driv
e
ÄÅ242
ÄÅ4
ÄÅ4
ÄÅ4
680
680
Collisions by severity
Ø Fatal
Ø Severe Injury
Ø Visible Injury
Ø Complaint of pain
Primary Highways
Major Roadways
Other Roadways
Water
Parks
Concord Citylimit
0 1 20.5
Miles
0 1 Miles
Intersection
Broadside
Nighttime
Unsafe Speed
Traffic Signals & Signs
85 Collisions
84 Collisions
27 Collisions
43 Collisions
100%
99%
32%
51%
20%
1 2
4 3
5 COLLISION TRENDS
17 Collisions
85 INJURY

COLLISIONS
5(6%)
16(19%)
38(45%)
26(30%)
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
$180,000
Leading Pedestrian Interval

ESTMATED COST
Contingency Cost
$36,000
Engineering Cost
$75,000
Total Cost
$291,000

IMPROVEMENTS

Policy & Process
Changes

CHAPTER SEVEN
CSAP

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

1 Safe Routes to School Coordination Public Works (PW)
+ MDUSD 2027 Inter-agency MOU + SRTS Master Plan ATP, OTS 2 Corridor Speed Management Program PW 2027 PW Policy + CIP integration SS4A, HSIP 3 Transit-Oriented Development Planning 2027 CDC 18.105 amendment + CRP Specific Plan OBAG, AHSC
4 Access Management PW + Planning 2028 New Corridor Access Management Policy HSIP, SS4A
5 Complete Streets & Context-Sensitive Design PW + Planning 2026 Council Resolution + design references SS4A, ATP, OBAG
6 Transportation Demand Management Planning 2028 CMC 19.35 update TFCA, MTC 7 Multimodal Active Transportation Planning PW + Planning 2028 New Active Transportation Plan ATP, SS4A 8 Marked Crosswalk Installation Policy PW 2026 PW Policy (per CMC 10.50.010) HSIP, SS4A, OTS 9 Traffic Impact Analysis & VMT Modernization PW + Planning 2027 P&P 144 update (per CMC 19.30) SB 743 compliance 10 Engineering Design Standards Update PW 2027+ CMC 12.05.010 + Standard Plans update HSIP, SS4A
11 Proactive Safety Analysis & Smart Infrastructure PW 2026+ Operational pilot → scale 2027–28 SS4A, HSIP 12 Traffic Calming Policy Update PW 2027 PW Policy (existing-streets retrofit) SS4A, ATP 13 Quick-Build & Demonstration Project Policy PW 2026 PW Policy (per CMC 10.10.070) SS4A, ATP, OTS 14 Street Lighting & Nighttime Visibility Policy PW 2027 PW Policy + IES RP-8 reference HSIP, SS4A 15 Post-Crash Response & Systemic Review Protocol PW + PD 2026 Inter-departmental Protocol (per CMC

10.10) SS4A foundational
16 Curb Management & Daylighting Policy PW 2026 CMC 10.30 amendment AB 413, SS4A 17 Performance Monitoring & Open Data Policy PW + PD 2026 Council Resolution + dashboard maintenance SS4A, FHWA SPM
18 Safety Investment Prioritization Methodology PW 2026 Council Resolution SS4A, ATP, HSIP Primary Grant AlignmentLead# Policy Initiative Adoption VehicleTarget

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICY INITIATIVES
Transforming Concord’s transportation system into one that is safe by design requires more than capital investment. It requires that the policies, standards, and procedures governing how the City plans, reviews, and delivers transportation projects be aligned with Safe System principles. This chapter presents recommended planning and policy initiatives that address identified gaps in Concord’s current regulatory and operational framework, spanning speed management, street design
standards, active transportation planning, traffic analysis, and performance monitoring. Each initiative is grounded in existing municipal authority and is structured to strengthen the City’s competitiveness for state and federal safety grant programs.

Together, these initiatives form the institutional foundation upon which the capital improvements and programs described throughout the CSAP can be delivered, sustained, and evaluated over time.

The following table summarizes the 19 recommended policy initiatives, identifying lead department, target adoption year, primary adoption vehicle (resolution, code amendment, or operational policy), and the federal or state grant programs each initiative most directly supports.

Detailed narrative for each item follows.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

COORDINATION & MASTER PLAN

CORRIDOR SPEED

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT
Implementation note: With uniform school zone speeds
already in place, the remaining policy work is institutional (MOU) and programmatic (SRTS Master Plan), neither
requires additional code changes, and both strengthen
competitiveness for SRTS-eligible state and federal funding.

Implementation note: With posted speeds already updated through the recent citywide action, the corridor program focuses on physical and operational measures — not signage — and can be phased over multiple capital cycles.

Implementation note: The awarded MTC grant provides near-term capacity and funding to achieve TOC compliance for the Concord BART station area in the next 18 months, positioning the City more competitively for future MTC One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), and other regional funding programs while ensuring that planned growth is anchored by safe, multimodal access. 1 2 3
Concord has established uniform 25 mph speed
limits in school zones citywide through Council
action, providing a consistent standard across all
K–12 campuses and replacing the prior segment-by-
segment approach. The 2025 citywide speed limit
update applied AB 43 flexibilities to standardize
school zone speeds and improve driver expectancy.

Building on this foundation, the City should formalize
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Mt.

Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) to coordinate
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programming, and pursue
a citywide SRTS Master Plan that aligns engineering
treatments, education, and encouragement activities
across all campuses within Concord.

Through Council action, Concord recently completed a
comprehensive citywide speed limit update grounded
in updated Engineering and Traffic Survey data and
AB 43 flexibilities, establishing current posted speed
limits across all functional classifications. Posted speeds, however, are only one element of corridor-level speed
management; sustained operating-speed reduction
typically requires the integration of self-enforcing
roadway design, traffic calming measures, and targeted
enforcement. The City should develop a Corridor Speed
Management Program that builds on the recent posted-
speed update by adding a tiered countermeasure
toolkit organized by functional classification and target speed, with priority given to corridors on the High Injury Network (HIN).

Transit-oriented development (TOD) in Concord is supported by a strong foundation, including the 2014 Downtown Specific Plan and the Transit Station Overlay District (TSOD) under CDC 18.105. However, CDC 18.105.020 expressly excludes the study district adjacent to the North Concord BART station from TSOD applicability, and the City has not completed a formal compliance submittal under the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.

The City has taken a significant step toward achieving TOC compliance through the successful award of an MTC TOC Planning/Rezoning Technical Assistance grant. This grant will fund targeted amendments to the 2030 General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Development Code to increase minimum residential densities and commercial intensities within the Concord BART station area, conduct community engagement, and complete any necessary environmental review. The effort is specifically intended to bring the Concord TOC area into compliance with MTC’s TOC Policy requirements, including minimum density and floor area ratio thresholds, while advancing implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan.

Building on this funded effort, the City should continue advancing full TOC Policy compliance for both BART station areas, extend TSOD or equivalent overlay zoning to North Concord through the forthcoming Community Reuse Project Specific Plan, and integrate active transportation safety and multimodal access standards into that plan.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

ACCESS

MANAGEMENT

COMPLETE STREETS &

CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DESIGN

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT
Implementation note: Building on existing parcel-level
provisions limits new policy work to corridor-scale analysis and coordination, avoiding duplication of code already in force.

Implementation note: Adopting design references by
resolution and applying a project review checklist to CIP projects avoids duplicating the substantial Complete Streets requirements already in CMC 17.20.

Implementation note: The awarded MTC parking management grant provides near-term funding and technical support to develop and implement a comprehensive TDM and parking policy framework within approximately 18 months, positioning the City to achieve full TOC Policy compliance while reducing vehicle miles traveled and supporting higher-density, transit- oriented growth.
4 5 6
Access management at the parcel level is well-
established in Concord through CDC 18.160.110
(Driveways and Site Access), CDC 18.160.100 (Curb
Cuts and Parking Lots), and CMC 12.25.010 (driveway
widths and separation). Together these provisions
limit driveway and curb-cut frequency by frontage,
require a minimum 28-foot separation centerline to
centerline between driveways and a minimum 60-foot
setback from intersections, mandate median strips for
parking entrances serving more than 25 vehicles, and
differentiate driveway widths by speed limit on the
abutting street. CMC 17.20.030(b)(12) further restricts direct residential access to community and regional
streets in new subdivisions. What is not currently
codified is a corridor-level access management
framework, including arterial median typology, a
redevelopment-triggered driveway consolidation
program, and a High Injury Network (HIN) screening
trigger that flags access decisions on the City’s most
collision-prone corridors. The City should adopt a
corridor-level Access Management Policy that builds
on these existing parcel-level provisions and addresses these three remaining elements.

Concord has substantial Complete Streets foundations
in place. CMC 17.20.030(b)(2) requires new subdivision
streets to comply with the City’s Complete Streets
policies and to meet the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and persons of different
physical capabilities. CMC 17.20.040 requires bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit facilities for new subdivisions, including marked crosswalks, curb extensions, refuge
islands, and lighting, per the 2016 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to Transit Plan. CDC 18.150.050 (Frontage
Improvements) requires curbs, sidewalks, paving,
lighting, and planting on all planning permits, and CDC

18.155.L applies pedestrian-friendly design (including
curb bulbs, raised crosswalks, and roundabouts) to
small lot subdivisions. What is missing is a standalone Complete Streets Resolution aligned with MTC
Resolution 4493 (2022), formal adoption of the NACTO
Urban Street Design Guide and FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures as governing references for safety
improvement projects, and consistent application to
retrofit and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects on existing streets. The City should adopt this resolution and design-reference framework to extend the existing
parcel-level requirements to the rest of the network.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in Concord is governed by CMC Chapter

19.35, adopted in 1997 to align with state legislation eliminating mandatory employer- based trip reduction. The chapter establishes goals and objectives but does not impose project-level requirements or mode share targets. On the development-code side, CDC

18.160.050(H) provides up to a 25 percent parking reduction for projects that implement a TDM program, and CDC 18.160.060(B)(2)(d) allows downtown in-lieu parking fees to fund TDM efforts. The City currently relies primarily on countywide programs, including 511 Contra Costa and the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, to support TDM delivery. The City has taken a significant step toward modernizing its TDM framework through the successful award of an MTC TOC Parking Management Implementation grant. This grant will fund development of a comprehensive parking and transportation demand management (PTDM) policy applicable to both Concord and North Concord BART station areas, including updates to parking requirements, evaluation of parking supply and demand, establishment of parking maximums, and creation of a toolbox of TDM strategies with associated monitoring and performance metrics. The effort also includes community and stakeholder engagement and is intended to bring the City into compliance with the MTC TOC Policy’s parking management and TDM requirements.

Building on this funded effort, the City should update CMC 19.35 to codify a project- level TDM Ordinance that includes mode share targets, monitoring requirements, and graduated trip reduction expectations for major developments, while aligning with the broader parking management framework being developed through the grant.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

MULTIMODAL ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

COMPLETE STREETS &

CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DESIGN

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT
Implementation note: The updated plan should be
calibrated to current Caltrans Active Transportation
Program (ATP) competitive scoring criteria so that
subsequent project applications are pre-aligned with
state funding priorities.

Implementation note: Building on the existing CMC

10.50.010 authority allows immediate adoption through a Public Works policy without requiring code amendments;
a published decision matrix tied to roadway speed, ADT, and number of lanes provides a consistent, defensible
response framework.

Implementation note: The City already has a strong foundation through its adopted TIA Guidelines, which require VMT analysis and multimodal review. Updating the referenced policy framework to explicitly reflect this practice, and to incorporate Safe System principles, can be accomplished through targeted revisions to P&P 144 without requiring a full ordinance update, aligning the City with state-mandated practices and evolving best practices in transportation safety and performance. 7 8 9
Multimodal active transportation in Concord is
guided by the 2016 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe
Routes to Transit Plan, which remains the City’s
primary active transportation document nearly a
decade after adoption with no update currently
underway. In parallel, BART’s Safe Streets and
Roads for All (SS4A) planning effort “Safe Trips to
BART” identifies Concord Station as a Focus Station
Area and includes targeted countermeasure
recommendations that have not yet been formally
incorporated into City plans. The City should
update its Active Transportation Plan, integrate
BART’s Safe Trips to BART recommendations, and
establish a Vision Zero target as the overarching
framework for all multimodal capital and planning
investments.

Marked crosswalk installation in Concord is
authorized under CMC 10.50.010, which empowers
the Director of Public Works to establish, designate,
and maintain crosswalks at intersections and
other locations upon determination of need,
with mid-block crosswalks limited to blocks of
400 feet or longer. There is, however, no formal
citywide policy establishing engineering warrants,
default treatment standards, or evaluation criteria
for community requests; requests are received
informally through the Concord Connect portal.

The City should adopt a Marked Crosswalk
Installation Policy based on FHWA STEP (Safe
Transportation for Every Pedestrian) guidance
and NCHRP Report 562, establish high-visibility
continental markings as the default treatment,
and integrate AB 413 daylighting requirements (no
parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk approach).

Traffic impact analysis in Concord is governed by CMC Chapter 19.30 (Land Development and Transportation Improvements), which is administered through Policy and Procedure No. 144 (CMC 19.30.020) and implemented through the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. While the framework continues to include a vehicle level-of-service (LOS) approach for local operational analysis, the City has already incorporated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for CEQA compliance consistent with SB 743 through its adopted TIA Guidelines.

Specifically, discretionary projects are required to evaluate VMT impacts, apply screening criteria, and assess consistency with adopted thresholds aligned with state guidance.

In addition, the TIA Guidelines include multimodal analysis requirements, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit assessments, as well as safety-related components including collision analysis, site access review, and evaluation of potential hazards. However, these elements are not yet fully integrated into a unified Safe System–based screening framework or tied to a formal High-Injury Network (HIN) prioritization process.

Building on the City’s existing VMT-compliant framework, the City should update P&P 144, and CMC 19.30 if needed, to formalize VMT as the primary CEQA metric in policy language, clarify the role of LOS as an operational (non-CEQA) tool, and integrate a Safe System–based safety screening step. This could include incorporating HIN-based screening criteria that trigger a focused safety assessment for projects within or adjacent to high-injury corridors, as well as strengthening multimodal level-of-service or person-throughput considerations in project review.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

ENGINEERING DESIGN

STANDARDS UPDATE

PROACTIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS &

SMART INFRASTRUCTURE

TRAFFIC CALMING

POLICY UPDATE
Implementation note: The updated plan should be calibrated to current Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) competitive scoring criteria so that subsequent project applications are pre-aligned with state funding priorities.

Implementation note: A pilot-first approach builds on
the Traffic Engineer’s existing CMC 10.10.060 analytical authority; SS4A and HSIP funding can offset initial
deployment costs.

Implementation note: A standalone existing-streets policy complements the in-place new-development requirements
in CMC 17.20 and CDC 18.155, providing residents with a predictable, equitable pathway for retrofit consideration. 10 11 12
Engineering design standards in Concord are defined through the City of Concord Standard Specifications referenced in CMC 12.05.010 (dated January 1990) and the CA-series Standard Plans. Engineering design standards in Concord are defined through the City of Concord Standard Specifications, as referenced in Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Section 12.05.010 (dated January 1990), along with the CA-series Standard Plans. The City also maintains a publicly accessible library of Standard Plans and Specifications on its website, which includes commonly used details such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements (e.g., Standard Plan S-3), driveway approaches (S-7), and traffic calming elements such as speed humps/ raised crosswalks (S-42). These documents provide a strong baseline for typical infrastructure improvements.

However, the current standards do not include standard details for several widely accepted and proven safety countermeasures. These include, but are not limited to, curb extensions (bulb-outs), hardened centerlines, protected intersection geometry, and vertical bikeway separation treatments.

In addition, the City has not formally adopted nationally recognized design guidance documents—such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide or FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures—as governing or reference standards. As a result, implementation of these treatments often requires project-specific engineering justification, which can add time and complexity to project delivery.

The City should update its Standard Specifications and expand its Standard Plans library, including those maintained on the City’s website, to incorporate priority safety countermeasures, while also formally adopting applicable national design guidance by resolution. This approach would streamline project delivery, improve consistency across projects, and support the City’s broader safety objectives.

Traffic safety analysis in Concord is anchored in
CMC 10.10.060, which directs the Traffic Engineer to
conduct engineering analyses of traffic accidents
and devise remedial measures. This framework is
currently reactive, drawing on reported collision
data; proactive tools such as conflict analysis
and AI-based near-miss video analytics are not
part of standard practice. The City has also not
widely deployed advanced traffic management
technologies, such as adaptive signal control, real-
time monitoring, or connected vehicle systems,
to support data-driven safety interventions. The
City should incorporate AI-based near-miss video
analytics into its safety toolkit, beginning with a pilot at HIN intersections, and continue investment in
advanced traffic management systems that enable
real-time monitoring, proactive signal performance
review, and improved multimodal safety outcomes.

Traffic calming for new development is partially codified:

CMC 17.20.030(b)(10) authorizes traffic management
techniques such as traffic circles, narrow lanes, and bulb- outs in residential subdivisions, and CMC 17.20.030(b)(13) lists specific design features for speed control, including jogs, traffic circles, narrowed streets, neck-downs, and median islands. CDC 18.155.L further encourages curb
bulbs, raised crosswalks, and roundabouts in small
lot subdivisions. What is not currently in place is a
comprehensive citywide policy applicable to existing
streets and request-driven retrofit installations. The
City should adopt a Traffic Calming Policy for existing streets that establishes clear eligibility criteria, a
transparent prioritization process, and a toolkit of
context-appropriate measures organized by street type.

Implementation should prioritize locations on the HIN
and in school zones.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

QUICK-BUILD & DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT POLICY

POST-CRASH RESPONSE &

SYSTEMIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

STREET LIGHTING & NIGHTTIME

VISIBILITY POLICY
Implementation note: Building on existing experimental
authority allows administrative implementation without a code amendment; treating demonstrations as evaluation rather than capital construction limits City exposure. Implementation note: The protocol formalizes existing CMC

10.10.020–040 authorities rather than creating new ones; existing collision data sources support implementation, and an annual public summary supports grant-application reporting.

Implementation note: Building on the City’s existing lighting standards allows the new policy to focus on prioritization and safety performance rather than baseline design requirements; lighting upgrades are eligible for HSIP, SS4A, and Caltrans Local Highway Safety Improvement funding.
13 1514
CMC 10.10.070 already empowers the Director of Public
Works to make temporary or experimental regulations and to test traffic control devices under actual conditions of traffic, providing the underlying authority for quick-build and demonstration projects. What the City lacks is a formal policy structure that defines project scope, materials, evaluation period, and pathway to permanent installation. Quick-build projects are increasingly favored by SS4A Implementation Grants, ATP, and OTS because they accelerate benefit
delivery and provide field-tested designs prior to permanent construction. The City should adopt a Quick-Build and
Demonstration Project Policy that builds on the existing CMC

10.10.070 authority, defines administrative review for time- limited demonstrations, allows the use of CA-MUTCD interim treatments, and requires pre/post evaluation.

Concord has a long-standing post-crash framework in
CMC Title 10 that pre-dates the modern Safe System
Approach: CMC 10.10.020 directs the Police Department
to cooperate with Public Works in conducting accident
studies and determining remedial measures; CMC 10.10.030 establishes the accident-report filing system; and CMC

10.10.040 requires the Police Department to annually
prepare a traffic safety report including fatalities, injuries, and recommendations for future safety activities. What
this framework lacks is alignment with current Safe System practice: defined timelines for site review and interim countermeasure consideration following fatal and severe- injury collisions, multi-disciplinary review participation beyond Police and Public Works (e.g., emergency response, public health), and a public-facing summary product. The City should adopt a Post-Crash Response and Systemic
Review Protocol that formalizes these elements within the existing CMC 10.10 authority structure.

Site and subdivision lighting in Concord is well-covered: CDC 18.150.110 establishes outdoor lighting standards (full cut-off luminaires, glare control), CDC 18.160.100(D) requires 0.5–3.0 foot-candle illuminance in parking lots serving 10 or more vehicles, and CMC 17.20.030(b)(15) and 17.20.040(g)(3) require subdivision street lighting per City standard plans, including lighting tied to pedestrian improvements. The City also maintains adopted street lighting design standards and details that establish illumination levels, pole spacing, and design criteria for roadway and pedestrian environments.

These existing standards provide a technical foundation for the design and installation of street lighting. However, they function primarily as design criteria and do not establish a citywide Street Lighting and Nighttime Visibility Policy that prioritizes lighting improvements based on safety outcomes. In particular, the City does not currently define targeted minimum illuminance and uniformity expectations for high-priority safety locations such as High Injury Network (HIN) corridors and intersections, marked crosswalks, transit stops, and school approaches.

The City should adopt a Street Lighting and Nighttime Visibility Policy that builds on its existing standards and establishes prioritized, safety-based lighting targets consistent with IES RP-8 guidance. The policy should also include a programmatic upgrade strategy tied to the HIN and incorporate lighting evaluation into project scoping for roadway and corridor improvements.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

CURB MANAGEMENT &

DAYLIGHTING POLICY

PERFORMANCE MONITORING &

OPEN DATA POLICY

SAFETY INVESTMENT

PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
Implementation note: AB 413 codification can be implemented as a CMC

10.30 amendment; HIN-prioritized marking is operational rather than regulatory and can be phased through routine striping cycles.

Implementation note: Building on the existing CMC 10.10.040 annual report and the concordsafestreets.org infrastructure keeps ongoing maintenance cost low while substantially strengthening grant-application reporting. Implementation note: The methodology should rely on existing collision and CSAP survey datasets to keep ongoing maintenance cost low, and should be adopted by Council resolution to provide multi-year grant- application durability across funding cycles.
16 17 18
Concord has a mature curb-management framework in CMC Title

10. CMC 10.30.250 establishes the curb color/marking hierarchy (red, yellow, white, green) governing parking, commercial loading, passenger loading, and time-limited parking; CMC 10.30.240 authorizes loading zones; CMC 10.30.300 authorizes bus zones; and CMC 10.30.305 authorizes valet loading zones. CMC 10.30.040(8) prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk or intersection where so marked, and CMC 10.30.340–360 authorize Vision Safety Parking Zones for visibility at intersections, driveways, and other areas requiring unobstructed visibility, providing the underlying daylighting authority. CDC 18.150.170 separately addresses sight- distance triangles on private property. What is not currently codified is recognition of AB 413’s default 20-foot daylighting rule (effective January 1, 2025), an active marking program to physically establish daylighting at HIN locations, and a published curb-use prioritization hierarchy for resolving competing demands. The City should adopt a consolidated Curb Management and Daylighting Policy that updates CMC 10.30 to recognize AB 413, establishes a HIN-prioritized marking program, and publishes a curb-use prioritization hierarchy.

CMC 10.10.040 already requires the Police Department to annually prepare a traffic safety report, filed with the City Manager, which includes fatalities, injuries, accident counts, safety activities, and plans/recommendations for future activities. This is the foundational element of the performance-monitoring commitment that federal and state grant programs increasingly expect. The current report is internal, not modally disaggregated, and not aligned with current Safe System metrics. Concord also publishes selected safety information through the CSAP and concordsafestreets.org, but no formal policy commits to sustained public reporting. The City should adopt a Performance Monitoring and Open Data Policy that updates the existing CMC 10.10.040 annual report to include KSI rates by mode, HIN coverage, and project delivery metrics, and that commits to a maintained public dashboard at concordsafestreets.org consistent with FHWA Safety Performance Management practice.

Federal and state safety grant programs increasingly expect a transparent, repeatable basis for project ranking. To support consistent decision-making across the City’s safety project pipeline, capital programming, grant applications, and operational deployment, the City should adopt a published Safety Investment Prioritization Methodology. The methodology should anchor the High Injury Network (HIN) as the primary investment geography, weight collision frequency and severity using FHWA Safety Performance Management practice (with severe-injury and fatal outcomes weighted significantly higher than property-damage-only outcomes), incorporate exposure (vehicle volume, pedestrian volume, and mode share) as a normalizing factor, and integrate community- reported safety concerns from the CSAP survey as a separate, documented input. Once adopted, the methodology should be applied consistently across SS4A, ATP, HSIP, and OTS applications, providing reviewers a single, defensible basis for project ranking that does not require re-justification with each new application cycle.

Implementation,
Evaluation &
Funding Strategy

CHAPTER EIGHT
CSAP

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

This chapter establishes the framework for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) to ensure continued progress toward the City of Concord’s safety goals. Consistent with the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and the Safe System Approach, CSAP is intended to function as a living document. Regular evaluation and periodic updates, recommended every two to five years will be conducted to assess effectiveness, incorporate new data, and refine strategies in response to evolving community needs and emerging best practices.

CSAP identifies a comprehensive set of countermeasures spanning engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions. These strategies are organized across five key areas: Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles and Emergency Response, and Program Initiatives and Evaluation.

Implementation of CSAP recommendations will be coordinated with the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and other planned infrastructure investments to ensure efficient delivery and maximize cost-effectiveness. Project prioritization will be guided by a data-driven methodology that emphasizes collision frequency and severity, with a focus on locations identified within the City’s High Injury Network (HIN).

To ensure accountability and continuous improvement, the City will establish a performance monitoring framework aligned with SS4A objectives. This framework will include tracking key safety measures, such as reductions in fatal and serious injury collisions, as well as implementation progress for prioritized projects and programs.

Ongoing data collection and analysis will inform periodic evaluations of CSAP effectiveness. Findings will be used to adjust strategies, refine prioritization criteria, and identify additional safety needs.

Regular reporting will support transparency and maintain alignment with federal and state safety performance expectations.

Securing sustainable funding is essential to the successful implementation of CSAP. The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), represents a primary funding opportunity for implementation activities. This CSAP satisfies SS4A Action Plan requirements and positions the City of Concord to compete for SS4A Implementation Grant funding.

In addition to SS4A, the City will pursue a diversified funding strategy that includes federal, state, regional, and local sources. Table in the next page identifies potential grant programs and funding opportunities that align with CSAP’s safety objectives and project types, including infrastructure improvements, behavioral safety programs, and emergency response enhancements.

By leveraging multiple funding sources and aligning project delivery with available resources, the City will advance implementation of the CSAP in a strategic and fiscally responsible manner.

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

MONITORING & EVALUATION
FUNDING STRATEGYIn addition to safety performance data, prioritization will incorporate equity considerations, including the needs of disadvantaged communities and vulnerable road users. Other key factors include the cost-effectiveness of proposed countermeasures, project readiness, and consistency with community-identified priorities.

Effective implementation will require clearly defined roles and responsibilities across City departments, including Public Works and the City Manager’s Office, as well as coordination with external partners such as Caltrans District 4, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The City will also continue to engage community
stakeholders, including the Concord Unified School District, to support coordinated and context-sensitive delivery of safety improvements.

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) USDOT Up to $993.5M total (FY 2026)
May 26, 2026 Engineering, Education,
Enforcement, Emergency
Response
Primary funding vehicle for CSAP implementation. Implementation grants range $2.5M–$25M (80/20 Fed/local split). FY26 adds priority for Public Safety Infrastructure, directly supporting LA County Fire/EMS improvements. Planning grants may be used to update the CSAP.

Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Caltrans Varies; distributed
through Caltrans cycle-
based solicitations
TBD; most recent in 2024 Engineering, Education,
Enforcement, Emergency
Response
Data-driven program aligned with FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures.

Primary source for HIN engineering improvements.

Active Transportation Program (ATP) Caltrans / California Transportation Commission
(CTC)
~$540M statewide in
Cycle 7 (2024); next cycle
TBD
TBD; most recent in 2024 Engineering, Education Funds bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, Safe Routes to School programs, and safety education.

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants California Office of Traffic Safety
Varies by grant type Annual; applications
close January 31
Education, Enforcement,
Emergency Response
Eligible public agencies may apply annually. Supports DUI checkpoints, speed enforcement saturation patrols, pedestrian and bicycle safety campaigns, and EMS training. Applications must be supported by local collision data aligned with OTS priority program areas.

RAISE Grant U.S. DOT ~$1.5B total TBD Engineering, Education Discretionary federal grant for larger infrastructure investments. Supports projects that improve safety, sustainability, quality of life, and economic competitiveness. Best suited for corridor-scale capital improvements.

Local Streets and Roads Maintenance and
Rehabilitation (SB 1 / RMRA)
CTC (distributed by formula
to local agencies)
Varies; allocated by
formula
Distributed annually;
deadline May 1
Engineering Formula-based funds for road maintenance and rehabilitation. CSAP countermeasures such as restriping, bulb-out construction, signal timing upgrades can be bundled into SB 1-funded resurfacing projects to minimize unit costs and accelerate delivery.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) Measure J / Measure X
CCTA Formula-based Ongoing (annual
allocations)
Engineering Local sales tax funding for transportation improvements in Concord Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) FHWA / MTC (ACTC suballocated)
Varies Annual RTIP
programming cycle
Engineering Flexible federal funds for roadway safety capital improvements programmed through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (ACTC) Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Best suited for long-term safety capital projects.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC)
Strategic Growth Council
and CA Department of
Housing and Community
Development
~$380M in Cycle 6 (FY
2024–25)
TBD; Cycle 6 most recent
in 2024
Engineering, Education Requires connection to affordable housing development. Applicable where safety projects are sited proximate to affordable housing areas in Concord.

Eligible for active transportation and pedestrian safety infrastructure as co- benefits.

Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
(STEP)
California Air Resources
Board (CARB)
~$32.6M per program
cycle
TBD; most recent cycle
2023
Engineering, Education Targets transportation equity improvements in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs).

Strong nexus with lower-income Census tracts within Concord. Supports active transportation safety infrastructure, pedestrian safety programs, and community engagement.

One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
$750M - $800M per Cycle OBAG Cycle 4, April to
October 2026
Engineering, Planning Major regional funding source for local streets and active transportation Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) FHWA / MTC Varies Programmed through regional cycles
Engineering Funds projects that reduce emissions, including active transportation improvements
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Caltrans / MTC ~$1.5B total for 2026 Cycle-based (last: 2023; next expected early 2026)
Engineering, Education Supports active transportation and Complete Streets improvements NotesAmount AvailableFunding AgencyFunding Source Applicable E’sNext Call for Projects* Next Call for Projects*: Most Recent Call

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan

For location-specific and higher-cost safety improvements, the City will conduct rigorous before-and-after evaluations to assess effectiveness. Prior to implementation, baseline data will be collected, including collision characteristics, traffic volumes, multimodal activity levels, operating speeds, and observed user behavior.

Post-implementation data will be collected after an appropriate observation period, typically one to three years, using consistent methodologies to ensure valid comparison. Where feasible, shorter or longer evaluation periods may be applied based on traffic volumes and statistical significance.

The City will apply established statistical techniques, including Empirical Bayes methods and regression analysis, consistent with the FHWA Highway Safety Manual (HSM), to account for regression- to-the-mean and other confounding factors. Performance will be evaluated by comparing predicted and observed outcomes, including changes in total collisions, KSI collisions, collision types, operating speeds, and multimodal conflicts. Observed results will be compared against established Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to assess effectiveness.

Consistent with the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and the Safe System Approach, the City of Concord will implement a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) and support continuous improvement over time. This framework emphasizes data-driven decision-making, accountability, and transparency in advancing roadway safety outcomes.

The City will establish quantifiable performance measures to track progress toward reducing fatal and serious injury (KSI) collisions.

Key indicators will include, but are not limited to, total and KSI collisions, traffic citation data, observed operating speeds, and community feedback. A standardized data collection protocol will be implemented citywide to ensure consistency and reliability.

Data sources will include the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (TIMS/SWITRS), roadway condition assessments, 85th percentile (P85) speed studies, enforcement data from the Concord Police Department, and public input mechanisms. A designated lead entity, such as CSAP Task Force, will be responsible for coordinating data collection and reporting across departments, including Public Works, Engineering, Planning, Community Development, and the City Manager’s Office, with support from external partners such as Caltrans District 4 and public safety agencies.

To support ongoing monitoring, the City will develop and maintain a GIS-based dashboard to track implementation progress and safety performance trends over time. Both output-based measures (e.g., number of countermeasures implemented) and outcome-based measures (e.g., reductions in KSI collisions, particularly along the High Injury Network [HIN]) will be evaluated.

Each evaluated project will be documented in a formal Project Evaluation Report. These reports will include a description of the project scope and countermeasures, implementation costs and funding sources, data collection and analytical methodologies, and before-and-after performance outcomes. Reports will also identify lessons learned and provide recommendations to inform future project delivery, policy development, and design practices.

Findings will be made publicly available through the City’s website and incorporated into annual CSAP progress reporting, supporting transparency and ongoing stakeholder engagement.

The City will establish a recurring schedule for monitoring and reporting, including the preparation of an annual CSAP Progress Report. Findings from performance evaluations will be used to refine implementation strategies, adjust prioritization criteria, and reallocate resources toward the most effective safety interventions.

This adaptive management approach ensures that CSAP remains responsive to changing conditions and maximizes safety benefits.

The CSAP will be updated on a regular cycle of approximately two to five years to maintain relevance and effectiveness. Updates will incorporate the latest collision data, reassess safety trends, evaluate the status and performance of implemented projects, and reflect evolving best practices and funding opportunities.

The update process will include stakeholders and community engagement to ensure that the plan continues to address the needs of all users, particularly disadvantaged communities and vulnerable road users. Maintaining an up-to-date CSAP will also support the City’s continued eligibility for competitive funding programs, including SS4A Implementation Grants.

PROJECT-LEVEL EVALUATION METHODOLOGYMONITORING, EVALUATION & PLAN UPDATES

ONGOING MONITORING &

PERFORMANCE TRACKING

PERFORMANCE REPORTING & DOCUMENTATION

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT &

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PLAN UPDATES

END OF DOCUMENT

# Project Name Category Key Locations / Corridors Key Improvements / Treatments Collision Context 1 High Injury Corridor Improvements HIN Corridors – Project 1 Clayton Rd (SR-242 to Washington Blvd)
Monument Blvd (Cowell Rd to Mohr Ln)
Willow Pass Rd (I-680 to Avila Rd)
Concord Ave (John Glenn Dr to Salvio St)
Galindo St (Salvio St to Cowell Rd)
Speed feedback signs · Enhanced street & intersection lighting · Pedestrian passive detection · Leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) · High-visibility crosswalks · ADA curb ramps · Curb Reconfiguration · Sidewalk gap closures · CV2X connected vehicle technology · Emergency vehicle preemption (EVP GPS) · Access management medians · High-friction surface treatment (HFST) · Intersection safety analytics · Protected intersection design 687 injury collisions across 5 corridors,
incl. 8 fatalities & 52 severe injuries
4 Bicycle Safety Improvements Citywide + (Focus) HIN
Corridors – Project 4
Including Monument Blvd (Systron Dr to Mohr Ln)
Galindo St (Salvio St to Cowell Rd)
Cowell Rd · Market St (Feasibility Study)
Class I shared-use paths · Protected bike lane intersections · Bike lane gap closures · Crossing improvements at major intersections 149 bicycle collisions citywide; multiple
severe injuries at identified gap locations
5 Concord Blvd Safety Improvements HIN Corridors – Project 5 Concord Blvd: SR-242 to Kirker Pass Rd
Sidewalk gap closures · Crosswalk enhancements (HAWK conversion / LED beacons) · Sight triangle clearance · Raised/separated path near schools · Speed feedback signs
35 unsafe speed collisions; 29 rear-end
collisions; pedestrian activity near 2
schools
6 Port Chicago Traffic Calming HIN Corridors – Project
6 Port Chicago Hwy: North of High School Ave to City Limits Bonifacio St · E. Olivera Rd · N. 6th St
Median expansion / curb extension · Speed feedback signs · Signal timing modifications (split phase) · Protected left turn phasing · Leading pedestrian intervals · High-visibility crosswalks · ADA curb ramps 13 broadside collisions; 4 broadside at 6th
St; 1 pedestrian severe injury at Bonifacio
7 Willow Pass Rd – Northern Improvements HIN Corridors – Project 7 Willow Pass Rd: North of Lynwood to City Limits Median delineators (prevent passing) · Enhanced curve delineation · Widened edge lines · Object markers · Rumble strips · Streetlights Curve-related collision pattern on
northern segment
8 Treat Blvd Safety Improvements HIN Corridors – Project 8 Treat Blvd: Winton Dr to Clayton Rd (3.1 miles)
Complete street feasibility study & preliminary design · Mast-arm signal head upgrades · Sidewalk improvements & gap closures · HAWK signal installation · LPI corridor-wide · Speed feedback signs · Curve safety treatments (HFST, warning beacons)· Evaluate Bike/Ped Connection between San Miguel Rd to Marietta Cir
76 total collisions; 5 pedestrian, 1 bus, 5
bicycle involved
9 Oak Grove Rd Improvements HIN Corridors – Project
9 Oak Grove Rd: City Limits to Monument Blvd Raised median · Speed feedback signs · Crosswalk enhancements at various locations including Contra Costa Trail crossing · Sight distance improvements Elevated speed and sight distance
concerns along corridor
10 Kirker Pass / Ygnacio Valley Rd HIN Corridors – Project 10 Ygnacio Valley Rd: Alberta Way/Pine Hollow to Park Highlands Blvd Kirker Pass Rd: Concord Blvd to City Limits
Geometric revisions (curb radii & striping) · Sidewalk / shared path gap closures · Overhead signal warning beacons · High-friction surface treatment (HFST) · Raised median / barrier · Median street lighting · Full corridor restriping · Guardrail · Crash cushion
High-speed corridor with curve and sight
distance concerns; downhill segments

HIN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF CONCORD — Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Proposed Safety Projects
Attachment 3

# Project Name Category Key Locations / Corridors Key Improvements / Treatments Collision Context 2 Complete Street Design & Construction Complete Streets – Project 2
Monument Blvd: Iron Horse Trail to Walters Way Cowell Rd: Monument Blvd to Ygnacio Valley Rd
Galindo St: Concord Blvd to Cowell Rd
Design & construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements · Transit connection & circulation improvements based on completed feasibility study Feasibility study previously completed;
priority near schools and parks
3 Safe Routes to School Program Complete Streets –
Project 3 School proximity areas citywide (from SS4A 2024 grant proposal) Curb Reconfiguration · High-visibility crosswalks with advance stop bars · Raised crosswalks · Dynamic warning signage · Bike lanes · Enhanced school zone circulation
131 pedestrian & bicycle collisions near
schools, incl. 4 fatalities & 21 severe
injuries
11 Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements Citywide – Project 11 Citywide (priority: Clayton Rd Fabian to Barbis · 6th St Willow Pass to Alameda · Cowell Rd Galindo to Treat)
Fill sidewalk gaps throughout the City, prioritizing HIN corridors with pedestrian collision history
187 citywide pedestrian involved
collisions, incl. 7 fatalities & 37 severe
injuries
12 Pedestrian Signal Improvements Citywide – Project 12 ~15 locations with pedestrian severe-injury collisions citywide Leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) · Right-turn-on-red restrictions at high-risk pedestrian crossings
159 citywide pedestrian involved
collisions at intersections, incl. 6 fatalities
& 31 severe injuries
13 Complete Street Feasibility Study and
Preliminary Design Planning – Project 13
Clayton Rd: SR-242 to Farm Bureau Rd (2.3 mi)
Willow Pass Rd: West City Limits to Port Chicago Hwy (~3 mi) Treat Blvd: Winton Dr to Clayton Rd (3.1 mi)
Concord Ave: Concord Blvd to Meadow Ln (1.0 mi)
Market St: Concord Ave to Meadow Ln (0.9 mi)
Detroit Ave: Monument Blvd to Whitman Rd (0.6 mi)
Preliminary design · Traffic analysis · ROW evaluations · Public outreach · Engineering basis for future capital investment
Combined 667 collisions on study
corridors including 58 pedestrian and 40
bicycle collisions
14 Corridor Speed Management and Safety
Improvement Project Planning – Project 14 All HIN corridors with unsafe speed collision history Speed data collection · Speeding hotspot identification · Speed feedback sign deployment
Unsafe speed factor in 483 of 1,804
collisions, incl. 1 fatality & 24 severe
injuries
15 Traffic Calming Policy Update +
Implementation Planning – Project 15 Residential neighborhoods citywide Establish formal citywide traffic calming policy · Define program criteria, process, and eligible treatments for neighborhood applications Unsafe speed contributing factor in 483 of
1,804 total collisions
16 Traffic Conflict Analysis & Advanced
Traffic Management (Smart
Infrastructure)
Planning – Project 16 Key corridors & school zones citywide Traffic conflict (near-miss) data collection · Machine-learning sensors for vulnerable road user detection · Street-light-mounted hardware · School zone monitoring
Supports Transportation Management
Center vision; aligned with SMART grant
eligibility

EXHIBIT B
CITY OF CONCORD — Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Proposed Safety Projects

CITYWIDE SAFETY PROGRAMS

PLANNING & POLICY INITIATIVES

HIN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF CONCORD
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD ADOPTING

THE COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN (CSAP) AND COMMITTING TO A

VISION ZERO GOAL OF ELIMINATING ALL TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES BY 2050
WHEREAS, the City of Concord is committed to the health, safety, and wellbeing of all people who live, work, and travel within the City, regardless of their mode of transportation; and
WHEREAS, traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and represent a significant public safety and public health concern requiring a proactive and coordinated response; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program to support local agencies in developing and implementing Comprehensive Safety Action Plans to significantly reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and
WHEREAS, crashes within the City of Concord necessitate a comprehensive and coordinated approach to street planning, design, policy, enforcement, legal processes, education, and public communication; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) to analyze collision trends, identify high-injury locations, and establish data-driven strategies to improve roadway safety and reduce traffic-related harm for all users; and WHEREAS, the City of Concord recognizes that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, children, older adults, and people with disabilities are among the most vulnerable roadway users and deserve particular attention and protection in transportation planning and design; and
WHEREAS, a commitment to zero traffic deaths and serious injuries reflects the value of human life and the equitable opportunity for all Concord residents to travel safely; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that achieving safer streets requires a comprehensive approach that integrates engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response strategies; and
WHEREAS, safety improvements must be pursued in a data-driven and equitable manner responsive to the needs of all communities within the City, including historically underserved and disadvantaged populations, to ensure that safety benefits are distributed fairly across all neighborhoods; and
Attachment 4

WHEREAS, implementation of the CSAP requires ongoing collaboration among City departments, partner agencies, community members, residents, business owners, and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of coordination with regional partners, including the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, law enforcement agencies, and community organizations, to improve the safety, comfort, and accessibility of streets throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the CSAP establishes a long-term vision of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries and provides a framework for prioritizing safety investments and pursuing future grant funding opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Concord is committed to regular monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of safety outcomes to ensure accountability and measure progress toward achieving the goals of the CSAP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Concord hereby:

1. Commits to a Vision Zero goal of reducing traffic related fatalities and severe injuries (also referred to as serious injuries under the SS4A program) on City streets by fifty (50) percent by the year 2040, with the eventual goal of eliminating all traffic related fatalities and severe injuries on City streets by the year 2050, through a holistic and proactive Safe System Approach;

2. Adopts the Comprehensive Safe ty Action Plan (CSAP) as the City’s guiding policy framework for achieving this Vision Zero goal through a holistic and proactive Safe System Approach;

3. Directs City staff to implem ent the strategies, programs, and projects identified in the CSAP, prioritizing engineering solutions, education initiatives, equitable enforcement, and interagency coordination;

4. Acknowledges that achieving this goal requires significant and sustained effort, resources, and dedicated safety planning activities, and commits to allocating appropriate resources toward this end;

5. Ensures that multimodal safet y investments are made in a fair and equitable manner, with special consideration given to vulnerable road users and underserved communities; and

6. Directs City staff to co nduct annual monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of CSAP implementation progress, and to communicate findings clearly to the City Council, partner agencies, and the public.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on the _____ day of __________, 2026.

Mayor of the City of Concord
ATTEST:

_________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Concord

11 Appendix B: Matrix of Relevant Planning Goals, Objectives and Policies

Document Highlights
Safe Trips to BART:

An Action Plan for
Safer Roadways
(2025)
Vision:
 Safe Trips to BART: An Action Plan for Safer Roadways establish es a vision in which riders can get to and from BART stations safely , comfortably, conveniently, and reliably, no matter how they travel. The goal of this Plan is to eliminate fatalities and severe injurie s resulting f r o m t r a f f i c c r a s h e s o n p u b l i c s t r e e t s t h a t p r o v i d e a c c e s s t o BART stations. Designing roadways to prioritize the safety of vulnerable road users leads to better safety for everybody — transit users, drivers and their passengers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, wheelchair users, scooter riders and bicyclists alike.

Systemic Safety Strategies — Four-Tier Toolbox:
 Tier 1 — Remove Severe Conflicts: grade separation, protected intersections, road diets converting vehicle lanes to bicycle and pedestrian space, median barriers, and shared-use paths.  Tier 2 — Reduce Vehicle Speeds: lane narrowing, road diets, raised crosswalks, speed tables, curb extensions and bulb-outs, and signal retiming to encourage lower operating speeds.
 Tier 3 — Manage Conflicts in Time: protected signal phasing, Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), and pedestrian hybrid beacons separating pedestrian and vehicle movements temporally.  Tier 4 — Increase Attentiveness and Awareness: high-visibility continental crosswalk markings, advance stop bars, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian-scale lighting, and wayfinding signage.

Contra Costa County
Complete Streets
Safety Assessment
(2024)
Strategies:
 Prioritize safe target speeds and change road geometry to manipulate crash angles reducing fatal and severe injuries
 Conduct off-cycle speed surveys after complete streets improvements to determine if speed limit reductions are needed
 Consider 15 mph school zones where appropriate
 Form Safe Routes to Schools st eering committees with county sta ff, school district staff, and PTA leaders

12 Document Highlights
 Implement FHWA proven safety countermeasures including Leading Pedestrian Intervals, protected left turns, roundabouts, and medians  Use green pavement markings to highlight conflict zones at larg e intersections
 Review design of slip/trap-right lanes and implement improvements  Identify and create inventory of pedestrian barriers with phase d improvement recommendations
 Conduct formal education campaig ns targeting drivers, pedestria ns, and bicyclists with focus on speed and safe driving
 Implement sustained pedestrian s afety enforcement involving med ia and distributing safety pamphlets
 Include regular walking and bicy cling audits in countywide safe ty programs
Pine Hollow Road
Complete Streets
Feasibility Study
(2023)
Goals and Strategies:
 Create a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network along the

2.2-mile corridor.
 Reduce traffic speed and improve safety.
 Enhance trail connectivity.
 Address challenges associated with high traffic speeds, heavy t ruck traffic, and frequent collisions.
 Provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes where currently lacking.

Concord Local
Roadway Safety Plan
(2022)
Vision Statement:

R o a d w a y s a f e t y i m p a c t s t h e h e a l t h a n d c o m f o r t o f a l l t h o s e w h o live and travel in the City of Concord, and it is imperative to make the transportation system safer and more equitable for users of all transportation modes.

T h e C i t y o f C o n c o r d i s c o m m i t t e d t o e l i m i n a t e t r a f f i c d e a t h s a nd severe injuries by 2033. As part of this commitment, the City will pri oritize safety when trade-off decisions are necessary between competing demand s and visions for the roadway network.

The City of Concord will form a standing Local Roadway Safety W orking Group that will meet regularly t o implement this Local Roadway Safety Plan, monitor progress towards the City ’ s g o a l o f e l i m i n a t i n g t r a f f i c d e a t h s a n d severe injuries, and communicate outcomes to the public regularly.

13 Document Highlights
Safety Goals:
 Equity: Commit to equity in all aspects of Vision Zero, includi ng data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, proj ect prioritization efforts that promo te projects in historically un der- invested communities rather than providing unequal opportunities to those with the historically “loudest” voices or most resources for civic participation, and enforcement strategies that follow data-driv en approaches.
 Eliminating Collisions: Eliminat e fatal and serious injury coll isions, particularly those involving people walking and biking.  Crossings: Enhance roadway crossi ngs, especially near commercia l areas, schools, and other high pedestrian activity areas, to pr omote and support safe travel for people walking and biking.
 Nighttime Visibility: Improve the visibility of roadway users traveling at night, especially for people walking.
 Safe Speeds and Safer Streets: Encourage safe driving practices (such as driving at lower speeds, obeying signal controls at intersec tions, a nd a vo i di ng dri vi ng un der t he influence) through roadway desig n, outreach, and enhanced enforcement, including considerations of automated enforcement methods.

City of Concord
Complete Streets
Feasibility Study:

Willow Pass Road,
Galindo Street &
Cowell Road (2020)
Key Issues:

1. Visual quality of corridors lackin g safe and comfortable pedestrian environment

2. Auto-centric infrastructure with excessive lane widths and corner radii

3. Perceived safety concerns from high speeds and lack of bufferin g mechanisms

4. Lack of connectivity with excessive block sizes (1,000+ feet) l imiting access

5. Lack of well-distributed open space network along corridors

6. Lack of place type and building type variety limiting community identity
Key Design Strategies:

1. Establish distinct identity along each corridor and segments based on context

14 Document Highlights

2. Support walkability and bikeabilit y prioritizing space-efficien t transportation modes

3. Include frontages and gifts-to-the-street activating public rea lm and encouraging social interaction

4. Ensure 5-minute walk access to daily goods and services with 300-foot block faces

5. Provide smaller, high-quality, well-distributed public open spaces and trails

6. Define place types as destinations and building types as ingred ients of place
Bicycle, Pedestrian &
Safe Routes to Transit
Plan (2016)
Vision:

The City of Concord envisions an environment that supports walking, bicycling and active living, and enables people of all ages and abilities to comfortably access jobs, schools, recreation, shopping and transit by foot or on bicycle as a part of daily life.

Goals, Objectives and Policies:

GOAL 1: Safety
Prioritize travel safety for all modes of transportation.

Objective 1.A: Seek to eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian related injuries by 50 percent by 2020, consistent with the City's adopted Climate Action Plan.
 Policy 1.A.1: Annually review most recent available crash data, including causes, to implement ongoing improvements throughout the transportation network.
 Policy 1.A.2: Identify viable funding for an enforcement campaign targeting violations associated with severe and fatal injuries, high injury areas and corridors, schools and housing for seniors and people with disabilities.
 Policy 1.A.3: Prioritize suggested roadway improvements at intersections and corridors with significant numbers of injuries and fatalities.

15 Document Highlights
 Policy 1.A.4: Identify viable funding for an education campaign focusing on road safety for all users and the City's objective to reduce traffic fatalities.

GOAL 2: Design
Design active transportation projects that are accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.

Objective 2.A: Utilize designs that emphasize safety and comfort on all vulnerable road users.
 Policy 2.A.1: Apply state of the practice & emerging designs including Design Guidelines supplemented to this plan, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and national manuals such as NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) guides.
 Policy 2.A.2: Incorporate sustainable designs into transportation projects, recognizing limited maintenance resources.
 Policy 2.A.3: Prioritize pedestrian and bikeway designs to address the needs and safety for people of all ages and abilities, considering issues such as street design speed, hierarchy of streets, connectivity and level of stress experienced.
 Policy 2.A.4: Seek to provide enhanced walking and bicycling facilities that may require separation on higher volume and higher speed roads such as the City's Downtown, Community, Regional, and Service streets, and in school areas.

Objective 2.B: Preserve and enhance access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities for all new construction.
 Policy 2.B.1: Consider developing a policy to ensure new development plans do not block access to existing trails or active transportation facilities.

GOAL 3: Network
Identify and develop a complete and convenient active transportation network.

16 Document Highlights
Objective 3.A: Develop 5-year, 10 year, and 20 year strategies to realize this Plan's recommendations.

Objective 3.B: Improve school and transit access.
 Policy 3.B.1: Prioritize transportation projects that improve school and transit access.

Objective 3.C: Seek to implement this Plan's recommended bikeways on Downtown, Neighborhood and Community streets by 2026.
 Policy 3.C.1: Develop an implementation strategy for this Plan's recommended bikeway facilities on Downtown, Neighborhood, and Community streets by 2026.

Objective 3.D: Strive to implement this Plan's priority sidewalk projects by 2026.
 Policy 3.D.1: Develop an implementation strategy for this Plan's priority sidewalk projects by 2026.

Objective 3.E: Aim to complete this Plan's recommended studies by 2026.  Policy 3.E.1: Develop an implementation strategy for this Plan's recommended studies on arterial and collector streets by 2026.

Objective 3.F: Seek recommendations for pedestrians.
 Policy 3.F.1: Seek to provide marked crossings at reasonable intervals in areas with existing or potential high pedestrian activity and establish vehicle speed and volume thresholds for appropriate treatments such as crossing control, curb extensions, and refuge islands.

Objective 3.G: Provide plentiful, high quality support facilities that complement the travel network.
 Policy 3.G.1: Identify viable funding to build support facilities such as bicycle parking and community/bikeway wayfinding.

17 Document Highlights
Objective 3.H: Identify viable funding to realize this Plan's recommendations.
 Policy 3.H.1: Apply for available regional and state grants to implement this Plan's recommendations.
 Policy 3.H.2: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of new street design and resurfacing projects where feasible.

GOAL 4: Programs
Increase awareness and support of walking and bicycling through education, encouragement, and evaluation programs.

Objective 4.A: Support educational opportunities for those who drive, bicycle, and walk about their rights and responsibilities.  Policy 4.A.1: Support Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Mt. Diablo Unified School District to implement Safe Routes to School programs.
 Policy 4.A.2: Support the development of adult bicycling education programs.
 Policy 4.A.3: Support the development of a Safe Routes to Transit program that will facilitate walking and bicycling to transit.

Objective 4.B: Support encouragement opportunities that promote walking and bicycling as viable travel choices.
 Policy 4.B.1: Incorporate messaging in all City of Concord social media that promotes the benefits of active transportation and raises awareness of walking and bicycling opportunities.
 Policy 4.B.2: Support encouragement programs sponsored by regional agencies and local employers to encourage walking or bicycling.

Objective 4.C: Evaluate how well the City of Concord is progressing towards meet this Plan's goals.

18 Document Highlights

1. Policy 4.C.1: Review this Plan's recommendations annually with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to evaluate progress and update priorities as necessary.

Concord 2030 General
Plan - Transportation
Element (2015)
 GOAL T-1: A Safe and Efficient Multi-Modal Transportation System  Principle T-1.1: Provide an Easily Accessible, Functional, and Attractive Circulation Network
 Policy T-1.1.1: Maintain streets and pavement in optimal physic al condition to provide safe and efficient travel.
 Policy T-1.1.2: Continue to promote a wide variety of transport ation alternatives and modes to serve all residents and businesses to enhance the quality of life. The C ity will strive to shift auto trips to walking, bicycling, and transit use, particularly in Downtown C oncord and on the Concord Reuse Project site where other modes of trav el are (or will be) available.
 Policy T-1.1.3: Ensure that streets are designed to balance the needs of multiple travel modes, including vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. This policy supports the concept of "complete streets, " consistent with AB 1358. New streets should be designed to bala nce the needs of motorists with the needs of other travelers and sh ould recognize the special needs of children, seniors, and persons w ith disabilities.
 P o l i c y T - 1 . 1 . 4 : M a i n t a i n a n d u p g r a d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m s t o provide smooth flow of traffic, minimize vehicle emissions, and save energy. Transportation improvements should be consistent with statewide greenhouse gas reductio n goals established by Assembl y Bill 32.
 Policy T-1.1.5: Maintain transportation levels of service bench marks which consider not only vehicle speed and intersection delay, but also broader goals relating to enviro nmental quality and community character. Lower levels of service may be acceptable in Downtow n Concord, within one-half mile of the City's two BART stations, along designated transit routes, and in other locations as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
 Policy T-1.1.8: Develop and oper ate a circulation system that d irects the flow of vehicle traffic on residential streets to collector and arterial streets.
 Policy T-1.1.9: Provide a high l evel of multimodal connectivity in the design of the citywide circulation system, particularly in the Concord Reuse Project area.

19 Document Highlights
 Policy T-1.1.14: Enhance the visual quality of public space through the d e s i g n a n d l a n d s c a p i n g o f s t r e e t s , a n d t h e c o n t r o l o f v i s u a l a nd functional aspects of abutting improvements. The City desires t o ensure that streets provide an aesthetic driving, walking, and bicycling experience.
 Policy T-1.1.16: Prioritize funding of pedestrian and bicycle s afety improvements for designated truck routes that are in close prox imity to schools.
 Principle T-1.5: Provide a Safe and Convenient Pedestrian Circu lation System
 Policy T-1.5.1: Prioritize pedestrian safety in the design of n ew streets and the retrofit of existing streets.
 Policy T-1.5.2: Support programs and infrastructure improvement s which create an attractive and safe pedestrian environment, particularly in Downtown and around BART stations. Examples include wide sidewalks, illuminated cro sswalks, signalized crossings, b ulb- outs, and street lighting.
 Policy T-1.5.3: Facilitate pedestrian circulation near high act ivity centers.
 Policy T-1.5.4: Encourage new development to provide pedestrian connections to adjacent open spaces and trails.
 Policy T-1.5.5: Identify critica l deficiencies in the City's pe destrian circulation system and implement strategies, actions, and fundi ng programs to address them. This w ill be done in concert with the Safe R o ut es t o Scho o l s pro gra m, t he C a pi t a l Impro vement P ro gra m a nd the Transportation Improvement P rogram, with priority given to pedestrian circulation improvements that will enhance pedestria n safety and promote walkability.
 Policy T-1.5.6: Incorporate urban design measures in commercial and mixed use districts which accomm odate pedestrians and support walking. Examples include ample shade trees, buildings construc ted t o t h e f r o n t s e t b a c k l i n e , g r o u n d f l o o r s t o r e f r o n t s w i t h w i n d o w displays, frequent building entrances, benches and other street furniture, and parking lots located behind buildings.
 Principle T-1.6: Provide a Safe and Comprehensive Bicycle Network  Policy T-1.6.1: Implement strategies and actions for enhanced b icycle circulation throughout the City.
 Policy T-1.6.2: Require provisio n of bicycle facilities in new developments, where appropriate. Examples include weather

20 Document Highlights
protected bicycle parking and direct and safe access for pedest rians and bicyclists to adjacent routes.
 Policy T-1.6.4: Encourage, and where appropriate require, new development to provide bicycle access to parks, schools, and tr ansit stops in the design of new residential neighborhoods.

Downtown Specific
Plan (2014)

CIRCULATION
Objectives:
 Develop a green street framework of pedestrian friendly streets t o promote healthy, active lifestyles.
 Design and Construct Streets that integrate walking, biking, tr ansit and other green infrastructure.
 Connect Downtown Concord to the rest of the region by improving access to and from BART.

Major Policies:
 Design and retrofit existing streets to adhere to Complete Streets and improve accessibility.
 Incorporate bike lanes into major streets that connect through the Downtown, particularly along Grant Street.
 Provide greater ease of use for transit users in the downtown.  Facilitate a 'Park One Time' Parking Strategy.
 Provide a strong connection between major open spaces within th e downtown/connections between BART, Todos Santos Plaza and Ellis Park.
 Review traffic signal synchronization in the Downtown core.

Major Implementation Strategies:
 Focus on redeveloping Grant Street from BART to Todos Santos Plaza as a walkable and pedestrian friendly street.
 Focus on redeveloping Salvio Str eet from Todos Santos Plaza acr oss Galindo to the Park and Shop.
 Develop a transit circulator shuttle around the downtown with shortened headways.

21 Document Highlights
 Provide more public parking near existing downtown uses- people like to once and walk to their other destinations.

Citywide Climate
Action Plan (2013)
Climate Action Strategies: Transportation Systems:

Strategy TL1: Develop a pedestrian master plan consistent with Citywide Complete Streets Standards to minimize barriers to pedestrian a ccess and maximize pedestrian interconnectivity throughout the City.

Strategy TL2: Implement programs and enforcement for safer active transportation with specific targets: 25% reduction in accident s involving pedestrians and bicyclists compared to baseline by 2017, 50% by 2020, 75% by 2035.

Strategy TL2: Work with Police Department to prioritize traffic enforcement efforts in strategic locations to protect the safety and rights of cyclists and pedestrians.

Strategy TL2: Develop and implement training programs to inform drivers of the need to respect cyclists and pedestrians.

Strategy TL3: Implement pedestrian and bicycle-friendly traffic calming measures including curb bulb-outs, additional street trees, rai sed crosswalks, roundabouts, smaller corner radii, pavement treatments, and lane narrowing.

Strategy TL3: R e q u i r e t r a f f i c c a l m i n g m e a s u r e s a s a c o n d i t i o n o f development approvals where appropriate.

Strategy TL4: Develop a bicycle master plan to make it more convenient and safe to ride bicycles throughout the City, identifying and addr essing barriers and dangers, and maximizing connectivity to key destinations li ke transit stations, schools, medical services, and grocery stores.

Strategy TL4: Leverage the off-road trails network and increase connections to the on-street network. A bicycle master plan could be developed as part of an update to the existing Concord Trails Master Plan.

22 Document Highlights
Strategy TL5: Require bike parking facilities for all multi-family projects and non-residential uses. Provide se cure and convenient bicycle par king at City facilities.

Strategy TL6: Create a comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools program using the "five E's" framework: engineering, enforcement, encouragement, education, and evaluation.

Strategy TL6: Implement 5 projects per year beginning 2017 improving pedestrian and bicycle access to schools, with goal of 80% of children walking or bicycling to school by 2035.

Strategy TL8: Develop multi-modal wayfinding system to facilitate use of bicycles and walking by making it easier to find best routes to key destinations such as transit stations, schools, medical services, and grocery stores.

Strategy TL9: Develop a street tree master plan for Downtown Concord and key street corridors specifying shade trees to provide traffic calming effects, make walking and bicycling more pleasant, and reduce heat island effect.

Strategy TL10: Prioritize active modes in engineering and design by reviewing street reconstruction, development projects, and util ity projects to identify opportunities to implement complete streets principles.

Strategy TL10: Develop and apply a streamlined complete streets checklist for review of proposed transportation improvement projects.

Strategy TL10: Design and improve streets to facilitate safe crossings, including accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, an d pedestrian signals designed to meet needs of people with different abilities and ages.

Strategy TL10: U s e i n n o v a t i v e a n d e f f e c t i v e w a l k w a y f e a t u r e s i n c l u d i n g buffers between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, wide sidewalks , illuminated crosswalks, signalized crossings, bulb-outs, pedestrian-scale l ighting, benches, and street furniture.

Strategy TL11: Prioritize active transportation in 10-year Capital Improvement Program and project funding to ensure systematic in vestment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

23 Document Highlights
Policy: All Transportation Systems and Land Use strategies (TL1-TL26) are mandatory for the City, ensuring systematic integration of safety and climate goals into transportation planning and investment decisions.

Concord Trails Master
Plan (2002)
Goals:
 Create a comprehensive network for recreation and alternative transportation modes including hiking, biking, and equestrian use.  Provide access to BART stations through dedicated trail connect ions enabling safe multimodal travel.
 Provide access to schools throughout the city via safe walking and biking routes.
 Create historic walking tours encouraging pedestrian activity a nd community connection.

Purpose:
 Support outdoor recreation providing healthy activity options f or residents.
 Provide transportation for commuters to get to work and school as alternative to driving, reducing vehicle miles traveled.  Improve public health by encouraging active transportation and outdoor physical activity.
 Support education through environmental and historical interpre tive opportunities along trails.
 Enhance social and economic well-being by increasing economic b enefit and property values through quality trail amenities.
 Provide alternative emergency access and egress routes enhancin g community resilience.

Strategies:
 Identify need for new bridges and filling roadway gaps to provi de continuous safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
 Include plans for pedestrian underpass under Highway 242 to eli minate dangerous at-grade crossings.
 Develop trails within Naval Weapons Station development to provide connectivity for future residents.
 Present regional trail connectors to Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hil l, Clayton, Martinez, and East Bay Regional Parks for seamless regional act ive transportation network.

24 Document Highlights
 Detail bike parking requirements at trail access points to encourage multimodal connectivity.
 Ensure bus and BART bicycle access through coordinated planning of trail connections to transit facilities.
 Develop promotional materials i ncluding bikeway mapping, wayfin ding signage, and basic trail information to encourage use and ensure safety.  Provide school bicycle safety edu cation through Police Departme nt in- class presentations and school newspaper features reaching grades 1-3.  Implement bicycle rodeo program providing hands-on safety training for youth.
 Develop school district programming integrating bicycle and ped estrian safety into curriculum.
 D e p l o y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s o n b i k e s f o r c o m m u n i t y e n g a g e m e n t a n d s afety enforcement on trails.
 Develop auto trip reduction programs encouraging shift from dri ving to active transportation.
 Implement adult bicycle safety and education programs addressin g identified gap in safety training.

25 Appendix C: Road Safety related Projects from Existing Planning

SAFE TRIPS TO BART: AN ACTION PLAN FOR SAFER ROADWAYS (2025)

1. Galindo Street Signal Timing Coordination, Shared-Use Path Planning, and Pedestrian Refuge Location: Galindo Street from Salvio Street to Clayton Road/Willow Pass Road FHWA Tier 1 Safety Countermeasure to Remove Severe Conflicts:
 A shared use path that is physically separated from vehicle traffic will provide safety and access benefits for people to bicycle to and from BART.
 Road diets reduce the number and width of vehicle lanes, which can help reduce vehicle speeds and allow for additional pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments.

FHWA Tier 2 Safety Countermeasure to Reduce Vehicle Speeds:
 Coordinated signal timing can manage vehicle speeds, increasing pedestrian safety. It can also create a steady and predictable flow of traffic, minimizing abrupt stops and starts that can lead to rear-end collisions.

Estimated Cost: $40,000

2. Clayton Road Class IV Cycle Track, Bus Boarding Island, and Crossing Enhancements Location: Clayton Road from Sutter Street to Grant Street FHWA Tier 1 Safety Countermeasure to Remove Severe Conflicts:
 Physically separated bicycle lanes will provide more separation between bicyclist and vehicles to reduce chance for severe conflicts.

FHWA Tier 4 Safety Countermeasure to Increase Attentiveness and Awareness:
 High-visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars increase the v isibility of pedestrians at marked crosswalks.
 Advance stop bars improve visibility of crossing pedestrians by i n c r e a s i n g t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n stopped motorists and crossing pedestrians.

Estimated Cost: $100,000

3. Clayton Road Pedestrian Safety and Complete Street Improvements Location: Clayton Road from Park Street to the Alameda; Sunset Street and East Street FHWA Tier 1 Safety Countermeasure to Remove Severe Conflicts:

26  Bus bulbs reduce pedestrian crossing distance and minimize conflicts caused by buses pulling into and out of the travel lane.

FHWA Tier 2 Safety Countermeasure to Reduce Vehicle Speeds:
 Edge lines reduce the width of the travel lane, encouraging slower speeds.

FHWA Tier 3 Safety Countermeasure to Manage Conflicts in Time:
 Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) allow pedestrians to begin crossing before vehicles are given the green signal.

FHWA Tier 4 Safety Countermeasure to Increase Attentiveness and Awareness:
 High-visibility crosswalks increase the visibility of pedestrians at marked crosswalks.  Advance stop bars improve visibility of crossing pedestrians by i n c r e a s i n g t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n stopped motorists and crossing pedestrians.

Estimated Cost: $100,000

4. Salvio Street Class IV Cycle Track, Bus Bulb, and Intersection Safety Improvements Location: Salvio Street from East Street to Parkside Drive FHWA Tier 1 Safety Countermeasure to Remove Severe Conflicts:
 Physically separated bicycle lanes will provide physical barrier between bicyclist and vehicles to reduce chance for severe conflicts.
 A pedestrian refuge reduces expos ure and allows pedestrians to focus on crossing one direction of traffic at a time.
 Bulb-outs reduce the distance pedestrians need to cross, decreasing the time they are exposed to traffic.

FHWA Tier 4 Safety Countermeasure to Increase Attentiveness and Awareness:
 High-visibility crosswalks make crossing pedestrians more visible to drivers.  Bulb-outs improve sight lines between pedestrians and drivers.

Estimated Cost: $200,000

5. Willow Pass Road and East Street Intersection Safety Improvements Location: Willow Pass Road and East Street intersection FHWA Tier 1 Safety Countermeasure to Remove Severe Conflicts:
 Bus bulbs reduce pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to conflicts with vehicles.

FHWA Tier 2 Safety Countermeasure to Reduce Vehicle Speeds:
 Bus bulbs reduce the width of the roadway and encourage drivers to reduce speed.

FHWA Tier 4 Safety Countermeasure to Increase Attentiveness and Awareness:

27  High-visibility continental crosswalks make crossing pedestrians more visible to drivers.

Note: This intersection is adjacent to the Concord Village mixed-use development site (approximately 230 residential units), where increased pedestrian demand is anticipated upon project completion.

Estimated Cost: $100,000

6. Willow Pass Road and Parkside Drive Intersection Safety Improvements Location: Willow Pass Road and Parkside Drive intersection, near the Concord Civic Center FHWA Tier 2 Safety Countermeasure to Reduce Vehicle Speeds:
 Bulb-outs reduce the turn radii and vehicle turning speed by forcing vehicles to make sharper turns.

FHWA Tier 4 Safety Countermeasure to Increase Attentiveness and Awareness:
 High-visibility crosswalks make crossing pedestrians more visible to drivers.  Advance stop bars improve visibility of crossing pedestians and increase distance between crossing pedestrians and stopped motorists.

Estimated Cost: $20,000 (Quick Build) – $200,000
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS SAFETY ASSESSMENT (2024) Focus Area #1: Concord Avenue/Contra Costa Boulevard to Diamond Boulevard - Install continuous sidewalks minimum 6-foot width, ADA-compliant curb ramps, pedestrian-scale lighting at 30-foot spacing, street trees, protected bicycle facilities (Class II or IV), hi gh-visibility crosswalks with refuge islands, curb extensions, countdown pedestrian timers, Leading Pedestrian Intervals, and narrowed travel lanes (10-11 feet).

Focus Area #2: Concord Avenue/John Glenn Drive to Via Mercados (Iron Horse Trail Access) - Enhance trail access with clear wayfinding signage, accessible pathways , bicycle parking, improved visibility at crossings with high-visibility markings and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, separated bicycle facilities connecting to trail network, pedestrian-scale lighting at access points, traffic calming with speed feedback signs, and consider grade-separated crossing at high-volume locations.

Focus Area #3: Concord Avenue at SR-242 Interchange - Redesign interchange ramps with tighter corner radii, install protected bicycle facilities with physical separ ation, provide high-quality lighting throughout undercrossing, implement pedestrian refuge islands, upgrade signal timing for adequate crossing time, add green conflict zone markings, coordinate with Caltrans, and consider long-term grade-separated crossing.

Countywide Safe Routes to School Program - Co nduct w al ki ng/ bi ki ng a udi ts, pri ori ti ze i nf rastr uct ure improvements including sidewalk extensions, crossing guards, en hanced crosswalks with beacons, traffic c a l m i n g n e a r s c h o o l s , i m p l e m e n t e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s , p r o v i d e e n forcement, encourage active transportation, and evaluate program effectiveness.

28 Systemic Signalized Intersection Enhancement Program - Implement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (3-7 seconds), protected left turn phasing, pedestrian countdown sig nals, accessible pedestrian signals, bicycle detection, signal timing optimization, high-visibility crosswal ks, advance stop bars, green conflict zone markings, and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at uncontrolled crossings.

FY2025-FY2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2024)
School Safety Assessment Program (Project 2539) - L o c a t i o n : C i t y w i d e . O n g o i n g p r o a c t i v e s a f e t y a s s e s s m e n t f o r 5 0 s c h o o l s f o c u s i n g o n p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e i nfrastructure conditions near schools, providing recommendations for engineering solutions, education, and enforcement to address traffic calming for school-related transportation issues including drop -off/pick-up operations, traffic circulation, and parking in residential and commercial neighborhoods.

Streetlighting and Safety Improvement (Project 2695) - Location: Citywide with arterial lighting improvements on Port Chicago Highway, Clayton Road, Cowell Road, Monument Boulevard, Galindo Street, Kirker Pass Road, Treat Boulevard, Ygnacio Valley Road, and Concord Boulevard. Project updates streetlights to LED fixtures and adds street lights where feasible to address the critical safety issue that 46 percent of pedestrian crashes and 66 percent of fatal and severe injury pe destrian collisions occur in dark conditions.

Funded through HSIP Cycle 11 with total grant award of $7,409,470.

Traffic Safety and Traffic Calming Program (Project 2464) - Location: Citywide. Provides traffic calming for school-related transportation issues and neighborhood safet y concerns, ensuring overall traffic safety through engineering interventions and systematic implementation of proven countermeasures.

Citywide Traffic Monitoring (Project 2537) - Location: Citywide. Collects average daily traffic data at a ll major streets every two years, updates citywide radar speed sur veys for up to 30 segments annually, and deploys 35-40 devices to identify cut-through traffic using ano nymous Bluetooth and Wi-Fi data to continuously monitor routes and implement mitigation measures.

West Concord Bikeways Phase 2 (Project 2524) - Location: West Concord area. Continues implementation of dedicated bicycle facilities to provide safe connectivity for cyclists in western portions of the city.

Sun Terrace Elementary School Crossing Enhancements (Project 27 12) - L o c a t i o n : S u n T e r r a c e Elementary School vicinity. Implements safety improvements at school crossings to protect students walking and biking to school.

Village Road/Cowell Road Crossing Improvements (Project 2717) - Location: Village Road and Cowell R o a d i n t e r s e c t i o n . E n h a n c e s p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e c r o s s i n g s a fety at this key intersection through infrastructure improvements.

David Avenue Bicycle Improvements (Project 2605) - L o c a t i o n : D a v i d A v e n u e c o r r i d o r . P r o v i d e s dedicated bicycle facilities along this corridor to improve cyclist safety and connectivity.

29 Court Lane Bicycle Improvements (Project 2617) - Location: Court Lane corridor. Implements bicycle infrastructure improvements to create safer cycling conditions and fill network gaps.

Salvio Street Bikeway Improvements Phase 2 (Project 2619) - Location: Salvio Street corridor. Continues implementation of bicycle facilities on this important downtown connector street.

P i n e H o l l o w R o a d C o m p l e t e S t r e e t P r o j e c t ( P r o j e c t T R A - 3 0 - 0 0 3 ) - L o c a t i o n: Pi ne Ho l l o w R o a d a nd A l b e r t a W a y , 2 . 2 - m i l e s e g m e n t f r o m C l a y t o n V a l l e y C h a r t e r H i g h School to Mount Diablo Elementary School. Constructs pedestrian and bicycle improvements includin g continuous sidewalks and bike lanes, implements multi-modal and operational strategies to improve safety, transit connections, and circulation.

Based on 2022 feasibility study recommendations.

HSIP Cycle 11 RRFB Crossing Enhancements (Project 2696) - Location: Various high-priority crossing locations citywide. Implements R ectangular Rapid Flashing Beaco n systems at pedestrian crossings to improve visibility and driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled crossings.

Citywide Bike Lane Enhancements (Project 2697) - Location: Citywide. Systematic improvements to existing bike lane network including upgraded striping, signage, and pavement markings to improve safety and comfort for cyclists.

Willow Pass Road Cycle Track (Project 2572) - Location: Willow Pass Road corridor. Provides protected cycle track facility on this major arterial to create safe separated space for cyclists.

East Downtown Concord PDA Access and Safe Routes to Transit Project (Project 2457) - Location: East Downtown Concord Priority Development Area. Improves pedestrian and bicycle access to transit facilities including BART station with focus on complete streets improvements and connectivity.

ADA Transition Plan Update (Project 2377) - Location: Citywide. Updates the citywide ADA transition plan to systematically identify and prioritize accessibility improvements throughout the pedestrian network.

Citywide Sidewalk Repair Program (Project 2666) - L o c a t i o n : C i t y w i d e . O n g o i n g p r o g r a m t o r e p a i r damaged sidewalks and maintain pedestrian infrastructure in safe, accessible condition.

Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Program (Project 2341) - Location: Citywide. Systematic replacement of deteriorated sidewalk segments to maintain continuous, safe pedestrian facilities throughout the city.

PINE HOLLOW ROAD COMPLETE STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY (2023) The Study identified a set of recommended improvements that wou l d c r e a t e a s a f e a n d c o n n e c t e d transportation network for all users, prioritizing the needs of those most vulnerable and to encourage use of alternative modes. Improvements are proposed throughout the study area, in both the cities of Concord and Clayton:
 Sidewalk Improvements
 Protected Bike Lane
 Crosswalk Improvements
 Traffic Calming Features

30 A p p r o a c h t o d e v e l o p i n g p o t e n t i a l I m p r o v e m e n t C o n c e p t s : T h e s e i nputs led to the development of the three, key improvement objectives:
o Reduce auto speeds and improve traffic safety
o Continuous, safer, and more comfortable pedestrian facilities o Connected bicycle facilities throughout the corridor
Proposed Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements:
o New sidewalks
o New crosswalks
o High-visibility crosswalk markings and advanced stop bars o Raised crosswalks/raised intersections
o Rapid rectangular flashing beacons
o Median refuges
o Pedestrian lighting at crossings
o Upgrading curb ramps to current standards
o Tighten curb radii
o Landscape trimming and utility pole relocation to increase pedestrian visibility o Adding leading pedestrian intervals to improve accessibility and safety Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements:

A two-way cycle track on one side of the street, as proposed west of Indiana Drive, while the image on the bottom represents a one-way cycle track on both sides of the road, which is proposed east of Pennsylvania Boulevard. Note that these examples are representative of the basic concept only and differ in landscaping widths and roadway configuration from what is proposed for Pine Hollow Road.

Focused Intersections:
o Mitchell Canyon Road and Pine Hollow Rd
o Pine Hollow Road and Indiana Dr
o Pine Hollow Road and Pennsylvania Blvd
o Kaiser Quarry Road and Pine Hollow Road
o Rolling Woods Way and Pine Hollow Road
o Pine Hollow Road and Campus Dr
o Pine Hollow Road/ Albert Way and Ygnacio Valley Road
o Albert Way and Academy Road

CITY OF CONCORD LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (2022)
No Safety Projects Identified.

COMPLETE STREETS FEASIBILITY STUDY: WILLOW PASS ROAD, GALINDO STREET & COWELL ROAD (2020)
Willow Pass Road Enhanced Cycle Track (CIP #2449 Integration) - Location: Landana Drive to Parkside Drive, north side. Implement two-way protected cycle track with vertical delineators, special pavement markings, public realm improvements including street trees and lighting, and enhanced crossings with green conflict zone markings.

31 Willow Pass Road Long-Term Complete Streets Transformation - Location: Galindo Street to Market Street. Implement road diet removing one westbound lane, wider two-way cycle track on north side, move curb line toward center allowi ng sidewalk widening to 8-10 feet , street tree double rows at 25-30 foot s p a c i n g , g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e b ioswales, enhanced transit stops, traffic calming through lane width reduction, and enhanced crossings with curb extensions and refuge islands.

Willow Pass Road Bicycle Network Connectivity - Location: Parkside Drive to Salvio Street, Salvio Street to Grant Street and Galindo Street. Create continuous low-stres s bicycle network connecting downtown corridors with dedicated facilities, wayfinding signage, bicycle parking at destinations, and coordination with downtown circulation plans.

Galindo Street Complete Street Redesign - Location: Willow Pass Road to Monument Boulevard/Cowell R o a d ( 1 . 2 m i l e s ) . M a i n t a i n t w o t h r o u g h l a n e s e a c h d i r e c t i o n w i th varied turn lanes, implement varying shared spaces and pedestrian amenity zones (8-12 feet wide), install street trees at 30-foot spacing with double rows, integrate green infrastructure bioswales, implement bicycle facilities connecting to downtown, simplify intersection designs, enhance transit infrastructure, and evaluate transitioning Concord Boulevard and Clayton Road to two-way operation.

Cowell Road Complete Street Implementation - Location: Monument Boulevard to Ygnacio Valley Road (2.1 miles). Maintain existing la nes on most segments, implemen t r o a d d i e t o n C o m m u n i t y P a r k a r e a converting four lanes to two lanes with center turn lane, devel op combination of shared-use paths and shared spaces between Mesa Stree t and Treat Boulevard, install enhanced bike lanes between Treat Boulevard and Ygnacio Valley Road, extend Community Park into roadway as shared space, upgrade Cowell Road/Treat Boulevard intersection, install street trees at 30-f oot spacing, and enhance trail connections to East Bay Regional Parks.

Corridor-Wide Intersection Safety Improvements - Location: All intersections along three study corridors. Implement high-visibility crosswalk markings, curb extensions reducing crossing distances by 10- 20 feet, ADA-compliant curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals , advance stop bars setback 4-8 feet, green conflict zone markings, signal timing optimization with p rotected/permissive left turns, Leading Pedestrian Intervals, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at uncontrolled crossings, refuge islands, and tight corner radii (10-15 feet).

Wayfinding and Connectivity Enhancements - Location: All three corridors connecting downtown, BART, schools, parks, and regional tra ils. Implement directional sign age for pedestrians and bicyclists, distance and time information to key dest inations, bicycle route signage w i t h p a v e m e n t m a r k i n g s , i n t e r p r e t i v e signage at gateway features, maps at key decision points, integration with transit information, connectivity improvements filling gaps, and coordination with Downtown Specific Plan and Bicycle Pedestrian Plan.

Green Infrastructure and Streetscape Program - Location: All three corridors with focus at Community Park, downtown gateway, and neig hborhood sections. Implement bi oswales and rain gardens managing stormwater, permeable pavements, street trees at 25-30 foot spacing providing 50-60% canopy coverage, pedestrian-scale lighting at 30-40 foot spacing, street furniture including benches at 200-300 foot spacing, bicycle parking, wayfinding kios k s , p u b l i c a r t a n d g a t e w a y f e a tures, and coordination with frontage improvements for outdoor dining and active uses.

32 MONUMENT CORRIDOR COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2020) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has allocated funds to develop Community- Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) updates for the Bay Area’s Communities of Concern, including the Monument Corridor in the City of Concord.

Recommended Transportation Strategies (Tier I):
 Safe Routed to School Improvements:

Concord has been actively support ing a local Safe Routes to Sch ool (SR2S) Program to make it easier, safer, and more enjoyable to walk or bike to school. Th e program consists of constructing bicycle and pedestrian infrastru cture, in-classroom bicycle and pedestrian safety education, encouragement programs and contests to promote walking and biki ng. The City should continue i t s S R 2 S p r o g r a m , i n c l u d i n g a p p l y i n g f o r g r a n t f u n d i n g t o c o n s t r u c t f u r t h e r s c h o o l - r e l a t e d infrastructure improvements.
o Walkway Improvements: This strategy recommends reviewing existing bus stops that are in close proximity to schools, and the pedestrian infrastructure around the stops, including nearby crosswalks, sidewalks, curb ramps, traffic signals, etc. , to catalog those which need improvement, and then making the changes necessary to make all stops in the areas around schools accessible.
o Walking School Bus/Bicycle Train: Safety is one of the most common reasons parents who live within walking or bicycling distance to school are reluctant to allow their children to walk to school. Providing adult supervision may help reduce those worries for families.

Two ways to help alleviate parents’ concerns are to encourage p arents to start a walking school bus or a bicycle train.
o Low- Stress Bikeways: Adding and improving bike lanes will help guide bicyclists and alert cars to their presence. Bicycle network improvements should be targeted towards several different street segments with a goal of enhancing the City’s network of bicycle facilities to provide continuous access to key destinations in and beyond the Monument Corridor. o Transit youth Passes: Outreach indicated community support for a discounted transit pass program for youth for CCCTA, BART, and other bus services. Such a program could help improve the mobility and transit use of youth who have difficul ty affording transit fares.

W h i l e t h i s s t r a t e g y s h o u l d b e s p o n s o r e d a n d c o o r d i n a t e d o n a C ounty-wide level, community groups, such as Monument Impact, youth groups, or loc al churches, could be responsible for disseminating passes from CCCTA, BART, or other transit agencies to eligible youth.
o Mobility Education: This strategy recommends creati ng transportation information centers at schools, with up-to-date materials in English and Sp anish including local and intercity transit information and maps, car sharing bulletin boards, school carpool matching services, walking or biking programs, and, potentially, internet access for adults.

 Infrastructure Improvements:
o Improve intersections, enhanced crossings at specific distances , and traffic signal coordination: Intersections pose challenges t o bicyclists/pedestrians, inclu ding long crossing distances, uncontrolled free right-turn movements. Bik e lane treatments at intersections are inconsistent. The City should consider evaluating and improving selected

33 signalized intersections (for ex ample, intersections with a his tory of bicycle-pedestrian- motor vehicle conflict, intersections located near schools, and intersections adjacent to major transit stops and centers). In particular, the City lanes, when necessary, so that they are located to the left of right turn lanes. Consider ways to e liminate conflicts between bicycle traffic and motor traffic (e.g. advanced or separate signal phases for bicycles). o Sidewalk gaps and consolidation of commercial driveways: There was a strong interest in improved pedestrian facilities including safer roadway cross ings and slower traffic speeds. Broken and misaligned sidewalks, and commercial drivewa ys were also a significant concerns expressed.
o Bus stop amenities: Adding bus stop amenities is both relatively inexpensive and popular within the community as a very tangible improvement in the qual ity of the public transit e x p e r i e n c e . A l t h o u g h t h e s o l u t i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i m p r o v e origin-to-destination mobility in the community, it improves the experience of using transit service which can in turn encourage increased use of transit.

 Bicycle Improvements:
o Bike share: The system is expected to expand to 7,000 bicycles around 540 stations in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and San Jose. Concord , on behalf of the Monument Corridor area, could reach out to Bay Wheels and priva te providers to gauge the feasibility of stationing docked or dockless bicycles in the Study Area. o Separated Bikeways: Community outreach indicated interest in improving bicycle safety and wayfinding through Monument Corridor streets by creating se parated bikeways.

Ideally, “separated” means protec ted by vertical separation ele ments, but it could also include paint-only facilities where motor traffic speeds and volumes are low enough. o “Bike Kitchens”: Bike Kitchen teaches people of all ages and backgrounds how to repair bicycles. Bike Concord offers a community bicycle shop as well as a pop-up repair shop known as the “The Bike Tent”.

CITY OF CONCORD BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN & SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT PLAN (2016) The City of Concord envisions an environment that supports walking, bicycling and active living, and enables people of all ages and abilities to safely and comfortably acce ss jobs, schools, recreation, shopping and transit.
 High Visibility Crosswalk Project:
o Babel Lane and Clayton Road
o Bacon St and East Street
o Bel Air Dr and Treat Blvd
o Clayton Road and Kirker Pass Road
o Clayton Road and Farm Bureau Road
o Commerce Avenue Concord Avenue
o Concord Blvd and Landana Drive
o Cowell Rd and Monument Blvd
o Clayton Rd and Denkinger Ct (Shared Use Path Study)
o Detroit Avenue and Monument Blvd
o East St and Willow Pass Rd
o Fairfield Avenue and Grant St

34 o Franquette Avenue and Willow Pass Road
o Fry Way and Willow Pass Rd
o Grant St and Olivera Rd
o Harrison St and Concord Avenue
o Mesa St and Cowell Road
o Oak Grove Road and Treat Blvd
o Palm Lake E and Oak Grove Road
o Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Rd
o Sutter St and Willow Pass Road
o Clayton Road and Terry Lynn Lane
o Clayton Road and Thornwood Dr
o 6th St and Concord Blvd
o Almond Avenue and East St
o Ayers Rd and Concord Blvd
o Ayers Rd and Clayton Rd
o Bailey Rd and Clayton Rd
o Bailey Rd and Concord Blvd
o Bonifacio St and East St
o Cary Dr and Monument Blvd
o Chestnut Ave and Clayton Rd
o Clayton Avenue and Clayton Rd
o Clayton Rd and Oakland Avenue
o Clayton Rd and Treat Blvd
o Clayton Rd and Park St
o Clayton Rd and Concord Blvd
o Concord Ave and Market St
o Concord Blvd and Kirker Pass Road
o Concord Blvd and Farm Bureau Rd
o Concord Blvd and West St
o Concord Blvd and Mendocino Dr
o Coventry Rd and Clayton Rd
o Coventry Rd and Cowell Rd
o Treat Blvd and Cowell Rd
o Babel Lane and Cowell Rd
o Cowell Rd and Ygnacio Valley Rd
o David Ave and Oak Grove Rd
o Denkinger Rd and Concord Blvd
o Diamond Blvd and Willow Pass Rd
o East St and Salvio St
o Esperanza Rd and Monument Blvd
o Erickson Rd and Monument Blvd
o Fredrick St and Grant St
o High School Ave and Grant St
o Hillside Avenue and Solano Way
o Hookston Rd and Creek
o Huron Dr and Ronald Way

35 o Keswick Lane and Oak Grove Rd
o Market St and Willow Pass Rd
o Michigan Blvd and Ygnacio Valley Rd
o Minert Rd and Oak Grove Rd
o Mohr Lane and Monument Blvd
o Monument Blvd and Mohr Lane
o Monument Blvd and Detroit Ave
o Monument Blvd and Walters Way
o Monument Blvd and Systron Dr
o Monument Blvd and Erickson Rd
o Monument Blvd and Carey Dr
o Moretti Dr and Esperanza Dr
o 6th St and Willow Pass Rd
o N Larwin Ave and Cowell Rd
o Navaronne Way and Treat Blvd
o Oak Grove Road and Minert Rd
o Oak Grove Road and Whitman Rd
o Oak Grove Road and David Ave
o Olivera Rd and Hillsborough Dr
o Pacheco St and Concord Ave
o Pacheco St and East St
o Park Highlands Blvd and Ygnacio Valley Rd
o Parkside Dr and Concord Blvd
o Parkside Dr and Willow Pass Rd
o Salvio St and Treat Blvd
o San Simeon Dr and Treat Blvd
o Solano Way and Broadmoor Avenue
o Systron Dr and Monument Blvd
o Terry Lynn Lane and Clayton Rd
o The Alameda and Clayton Rd
o West St and Clayton Rd
o West St and Concord Blvd
o Whitman Rd and Oak Grove Rd
o Willow Pass Rd and Farm Bureau Rd
o Willow Pass Rd and Diamond Blvd
o Willow Pass Rd and Market St
o Willow Pass Rd and Parkside Dr
o Clayton Rd and Colfax St
o Clayton Rd and Sunset Avenue
o Greenbush D and Thornwood Dr
o Lacey Lane and S Side of Cambridge Elementary Driveway Loop o Olivera Rd and Sanford St

 Complete Street Study Project:
o Babel Lane and Cowell Road

36 o Clayton Road and The Alameda
o Clayton Road and Market St
o Concord Ave and Contra Costa Blvd
o Concord Blvd and Grant St
o Diamond Blvd and Concord Avenue
o Galindo St and Concord Blvd
o Grant St and Fairfield Avenue
o Grant St and Willow Pass Road
o Oak St and Galindo St
o Solano Way and Hilltop Road
o Systron Dr and Trailside Cir
o Treat Blvd and Clayton Road
o Willow Pass Road and Market St
o Willow Pass Road and 6th St
o Detroit Avenue and Monument Blvd
o Franquette Ave/ Waterworld Pkwy and CA-242 Undercrossing o Galaxy Way and Meridian Park Blvd
o Market St and Meadow Lane
o Meadow Lane and Leland Way
o Minert Rd and Bancroft Rd
o Oak Grove Road and Chalomar Rd

 Class I Bike Boulevard Project:
o Bailey Rd and 180ft SW of Laura Dr
o Concord Community Park
o Market St and Meadow Lane
o Rolling Woods Way and Vista Point Lane
o Franquette Ave and Franquette Ave

 Class II Bike Boulevard Project:
o Clayton Road and Ashbury Drive
o Concord Blvd and Sattler Drive
o Fairfield Avenue and Crystal Avenue
o Galaxy Way and Meridian Park Blvd
o Grant St and Willow Pass Road
o John Glenn Dr and Concord Avenue
o Meridian Park Blvd and Concord Blvd (Buffered)
o Port Chicago Hwy and Salvio St
o Willow Way and Meridian Park Blvd
o Burnett Avenue and Meridian Park Blvd
o Clayton Rd and Village Rd
o Farm Bureau Rd and Wren Avenue
o Meadow Lane and 500ft NW of Oak Grove Rd
o Oakland Ave and Clayton Rd

37  Class III Bike Boulevard Project:
o Bonifacio St and Port Chicago Highway
o Bonifacio St and Concord Avenue (Shared Lane Marking) o Burnett Avenue and Diamond Blvd
o Chestnut Avenue and Clayton Road
o Commerce Avenue Concord Avenue
o Fairfield Avenue and Crystal Avenue
o Laguna St and Detroit Avenue
o Concord Blvd and Landana Drive (Shared Lane Marking)
o Parkside Dr and Bonifacio St
o Salvio St and Broadway St (Shared Lane Marking)
o Victory Lane and Linden Dr
o 6th St and Willow Pass Rd
o Argonne Dr and Biscay Way
o Avon venue and Solano Way
o Babel Lane and Merridan Dr
o Bantley St and Bancroft Rd
o Broadway St and Market St
o Cape Cod Way and Cowell Rd
o Clayton Rd and Diamond Blvd
o Concord Blvd and Bailey Rd
o Consuelo Rd and Esperanza Dr
o Coventry Rd and Cowell Rd
o Court Lane and S Terminus
o Diamond Avenue and Burnett Avenue
o Esperanza Dr and W Terminus
o Grant St and Gill Dr
o Grove Way and Orchard Avenue
o Hickroy Dr and Birch Avenue
o Hillsborough Dr and Olivera Rd
o Kaski Lan and Hitchcock Rd
o Landana Dr and Willow Pass Rd
o Live oak Avenue and Clayton Way
o Maria Avenue and Dover Way
o Clayton Rd and Mendocino Dr
o Merridan Dr and Lancashire Dr
o Minert Rd and Oak Grove Rd
o Mohr Lane and Monument Blvd
o Mt Diablo St and Mesa St
o Mt Diablo St and Oak St
o Mt Diablo St and Coventry Rd
o Mt Diablo St and Laguna St
o 6th St and Port Chicago Hwy
o Nuala St and Mohr Lane
o Oasis Dr and Whitman Rd
o Olivera Rd and Solano Way

38 o Olivera Rd and Esperanza Dr
o Orchard Ave and W Terminus
o Panoramic Dr and St George Dr
o Reed Way Grove Way
o Rosal Lane and Joan Avenue
o Salvio St and Esperanza Dr
o Silverwood Dr and Village Rd
o St Francis Dr and Liscome Way
o The Alameda and Clayton Rd
o The Alameda and Walnut Avenue
o Third St and Willow Pass Rd
o Via De Mercados and Concord Ave
o Clayton Way and Village Rd
o Weaver Lane and Minert Rd
o Whitman Rd and Oasis Dr
o Wren Ave and 6th St
o Birch Avenue and Fairfield Ave
o Biscay Way and Weaver Lane
o Cardinal Dr and Thunderbird Dr
o Euclid Ave and Third St
o Falcon Dr and Cardinal Dr
o Galaxy Way and Via De Mercados
o Gelbke Lane and Evergreen Dr
o Hitchcock Rd and Court Lane
o Joan Ave and Babel Lane
o Liscome Way and St Francis Dr
o Lyon Cir and Wilmore Ave
o Marice Ct and Hitchcock Rd
o Ryan Rd and Wilmore Avenue
o St George Dr and Hillsborough Dr
o Sutter St and Market St
o Wilmore Ave Lyon Cir

 Sidewalk Improvement Project:
o Concord Blvd and Galindo Street
o E Olivera Rd and Salvio St
o E Olivera Rd and Mars St
o Oak St and Laguna St
o Willow Pass Road and Granada Dr
o Willow Pass Road and 6th St
o Willow Pass Road and Olivera Rd
o 5th Street and S of Marvalle Lane
o 5th Avenue and Clayton Rd
o Amador Avenue and Clayton Rd
o Arnold Industrial Way and Industrial Way

39 o Arnold Industrial Way and Pike Lane
o Arnold Industrial Way and Port Chicago Hwy
o Ayers Rd and Kenmore Dr
o Bailey Rd and Hakimi Ct
o Barbis Way and Gerald Dr
o Barbis Way and Pancho Via St
o Beach St and Bonifacio St
o Belmont Rd and Waltham Rd
o Bonifacio St and Port Chicago Hwy
o Chalomar Rd and Oak Grove Rd
o Chestnut Avenue and W of McCarl Lane
o Chestnut Avenue and Calyton Rd
o Chestnut Avenue and W of Stillman Ct
o Clayton Rd and S Willow Pass Rd
o Concord Avenue and W of Commerce Ave
o Concord Blvd and Vincente Rd
o Concord Blvd and NW of Kirker Pass Rd
o Concord Blvd and Denkinger Rd
o Concord Blvd and Yvonne Dr
o Concord Blvd and Mahoo Lane
o Concord Blvd and Princeton Ct
o Concord Blvd and Bailey Rd
o Coventry Rd and Cowell Rd
o Cowell Rd and Hale Dr
o Cowell Rd and Almendra Ct
o Cowell Rd and Monument Blvd
o Cowell Rd and Babel Lane
o Cowell Rd and S of Plumleigh Lane
o Cowell Rd and S of Treat Blvd
o Cowell Rd and Kaski Lane
o Cowell Rd and Almar St
o Craig Dr and Cowell Rd
o Crystal Avenue and Fairfield Ave
o David Ave and Cowell Rd
o Detroit Avenue and Monument Blvd
o Detroit Avenue and Walters Way
o E Olivera Rd and S of Montgomery Avenue
o East St and Crescent Dr
o Fabian Way and Clayton Rd
o Granada Dr and Willow Pass Rd
o Gross Lane and Orchard Avenue
o Grove Way and Orchard Ave
o Grove Way and Cowell Rd
o Hampton Dr and Hookston Rd
o Hilltop Rd and Solano Way
o Keswick Lane and Honister Lane

40 o Laguna St and Galindo St
o Laura Alice Way and Arnold Industrial Way
o Lee Lane and David Avenue
o Leland Way and Backfield Dr
o Maria Avenue and Dover Way
o March Dr and Iron Horse Regional Trail
o Mohr Lane and N of Mohr Ct
o Mohr Lane and N of Bentley St
o Mohr Lane and N of DaviD Avenue
o Monument Blvd and Cowell Rd
o Navaronne Way and NW of Viola Pl
o Oak Grove Road and Whitman Rd
o Olivera Rd and Peralta Rd
o Parkside Dr and Concord Blvd
o Parkside Dr and Salvio St
o Parkside Dr and Bonifacio St
o Peach Pl and Oak Grove Rd
o Pear Dr and Oak Grove Rd
o Port Chicago Hwy and S of Bates Ave
o Port Chicago Hwy and S of S of Salvio St
o Port Chicago Hwy and S of S of Kinne Blvd
o Port Chicago Hwy and S of S of Concord Blvd
o Ridgewood Dr and Ridgewood Ct
o Ridgewood Dr and Cowell Rd
o Risdon Rd and Risdon Ct
o Rose Lane and Treat Blvd
o Salvio St and 160ft W of Grant St
o Salvio St and Beach St
o Salvio St and N 6th St
o San Carlos Ave and Laguna St
o San Miguel Rd and Systron Dr
o Solano Way and Hilltop Rd
o St Francis Dr and Cowell Rd
o The Alameda and Corvada Way
o Thompson Dr and N of Thompson Dr
o Thunderbird Dr and Olivera Rd
o Treat Blvd and N of Thompson Dr
o Treat Blvd and Navaronne Way
o Treat Blvd and Vista Kelly Oaks Ct
o Treat Blvd and S of Marietta Ct
o Treat Blvd and N of Kingswood Dr
o Treat Blvd and Lynn Dr
o Treat Blvd and Cobblestone Dr
o Treat Blvd and NE of Cowell Rd
o Treat Blvd and E of Navaronne Way
o Whitman Rd and Oak Grove Rd

41 o Willow Pass Rd and St Phillps Ct

 Corridor Conceptual Plan Project:
o Monument Blvd and Walnut Creek
o Clayton Rd and Farm Bureau Rd
o Willow Pass Rd and Lynwood Dr

 Short Term Bike Parking Project:
o Mt Diablo St and 130ft S of Salvio St
o Pacheco St and 18ft E of Mt Diablo St
o Willow Pass Road and Mt. Diablo St
o Willow Pass Road and 200ft E of Grant St
o Willow Pass Road and Grant St
o Concord Community Park
o Meadow Home Park
o Parkside Cir and Between Beach St/ Parkside Dr
o Parkside Cir and 600ft NE of Beach St
o Parkside Cir and 600ft NW of Parkside Dr
o Salvio St and 160ft W of Grant St
o Victory Lane and Rea Anne Rd
o Willow Pass Community Park and N of Salvio Dr
o Willow Pass Community Park and S of Salvio Dr

 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Project:
o Alberta Way and N of Valmer Dr
o Alberta Way and Academy Rd
o Cowell Rd and Quail Ct
o Olivera Rd and Sanford St
o West St and Forest view Ave
o Floyd Lane and Cardinal Dr
o Lacey Lane and S Side of Cambridge Elementary Driveway Loop

 Wayfinding/Sign Improvement Project:
o Bonifacio St and Port Chicago Hwy
o CA-242 N and Undercrossing
o Wren Ave and Contra Costa Canal Trail

 Pedestrian Scaled Lighting Project:
o Clayton Rd and Sunset Avenue
o Colfax St and Pacheco St
o Concord Blvd and Galindo St
o East St and Pacheco St
o Grant St and Oak St
o Mt Diablo St and Concord Blvd
o Oakland Ave and Clayton Rd

42 o Pacheco St and Concord Ave
o Park St and Grant St
o Salvio St and Concord Ave
o Sunset Ave and Galindo St
o Willow Pass Rd and Concord Ave

 Bicycle Access Study Project:
o Monument Blvd and Iron Horse Trial
o Olive Dr and Mt Diablo Creek
o Panoramic Dr and Port Chicago Hwy
o Meridian Park Blvd and Willow Way

CONCORD COMPLETE STREETS STUDY (2014)
The City of Concord, located in Contra Costa County, faces a nu mber of challenges i n providing safe and accessible biking and walking facilities. The purpose of this s t u d y i s t o p r o v i d e p r e l i m i n a r y s u p p o r t i n starting the process of creating a safer, bike friendly, walkable and livable Concord.

Proposed Treatments:
 Galindo Street and Salvio Street Intersection (Intersection Improvement):
o Intersections create the biggest risk factors for bicyclists. o At intersections, right turning vehicle soften cross the bicycle lane to turn creating a conflict zone with bicycles. The most su ccessful solution to this proble m i s t h e p r o t e c t e d intersection design with refuge islands, also called Dutch intersection design because it was first developed and tested in the Netherlands.
o Protected intersections resolve conflicts between bicyclists, p edestrians and vehicles by improving visibility and minimizing vehicle-bicycle conflicts.  Babel Lane and Cowell Road (Intersection Improvement):
o Bicyclist and pedestrian volume for this particular intersection is very low. However, to plan for future growth and greater use of the facilities, there appe ars to be a need for specific treatments. An addition of grade-separated sidewalks through much of this intersection will allow for safe use for both pedestrians and bicyclists. o Grade separated sidewalks will encourage walking and greater us e by the residents living in the neighborhood. Next, striped signalized crossings will re inforce yielding of vehicles turning during a green signal phase.
o Striping the crosswalks as wide as or wider than the walkway it connects to will ensure that when people walk, they can comfortably pass.
o The use of high-visibility, zebra crosswalk markings are more v isible to approaching vehicles. In addition, the crossing distances should be as short as possible for pedestrians. o For bicyclists, a clearly demarcated Class II bicycle lane with green striping in the existing pathway would help to alleviate confusion for pedestrians, cycl ists and drivers. The high volume traffic and speeds along Cowell pose a risk to the safety of cyclists. o A “trail of bread crumbs” will guide the bicyclist across the i ntersection, while alerting drivers to approaching cyclist crossing. In the future, when bike path circulation is further coordinated and connected, implem enting a buffered bike path wi th flexible delineators would help to shield cyclists from high volume and high-speed traffic.

43 o A Class I facility would be appropriate for Babel as there were few bicyclists turning in from Babel onto Cowell. Most cyclists used Cowell.
 Meadow Lane/Oak Grove Road Intersections and Monument Boulevard (Intersection Improvements):
o Add a protected/buffered Class II (Bike Lane) facility on Monum ent Blvd and improve the current.
o Class II (Bike Route) on Oak Grove Rd/Meadow Lane to a protected/buffered Class II (Bike Lane). In order to achieve this, a road diet will need to be pe rformed to allocate proper widths of the bike lanes and vehicular lanes. Add a Standard Crosswalk to complement the current textured crosswalk.
o This will help to contrast the textured crosswalk, make pedestr ians more visible, and cars will stop ahead of time. Since, cars were noticed to stop directly on the textured crosswalk adding a solid white border can help prevent cars from doing so . Add a bus shelter and bench on each bus stop to improve transit rider usage.
 Clayton Road and The Alameda (Intersection Improvements):
o This is true for the existing advance stop lines at this intersection as well. It is also suggested that higher visibility pedestrian and cyclist warning signs and rectangular rapid flashing beacons to be installed to improve driver awareness of the trail crossing ahead. o Larger more visible signs, and the flashing beacons at the cros swalk can increase visibility for oncoming traffic when activated by pedestrians or cyclists.  Willow Pass Road and Diamond Boulevard (Intersection Improvements):
o This report strongly urges the city of Concord to reduce the ov erall width of automobile lanes, to under ten feet, and in troduce highly visible Class II bicycle facilities throughout the corridor. As shown above, the Class II bicycle facilities w ill strategically utilize green paint throughout the intersection to increase bicycle visibility. o As the bicycle lanes approach the intersection, the design patt ern shifts from a stripe pattern where the bicycle lane is marked with green paint every 10-15 feet, to a solid green line.
o This is done to further increase bicyclist visibility near the intersection and to act as a traffic calming device. At turning lanes, where it is much more difficult to implement a bike-only lane, we introduce “sharrows”; large green arrows that let auto mobile drivers know that bicyclists are equally as able to utilize that lane to turn as they are.  Clayton Road and Fry Way (Intersection Improvements):
o A fully painted, dashed Class II bicycle lane is proposed, poss ible with textured pavement to visuals and physically inform drivers that they are crossing the bicycle lane. Due to the lower traffic volumes and a fewer n u m b e r o f l a n e s o n F r y W a y , s h a r r o w s a r e a m o r e appropri ate measure as t here i s no t e no ugh r oom for a ful l 5 foot Class II bicycle lane immediately off the intersection with the raised median further down the road. o Additional, and alterations at this intersection could include textured pavement along the crosswalk across Clayton Rd, the development of an elevated ped estrian bridge from the b u s s t o p a l o n g e a s t b o u n d C l a y t o n R d t o t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e , a n d a Class II bicycle lane between the two turning lanes on southbound Fry Way.
o These alternatives would be more costly than the initially proposed intersection alterations, but can have a greater effect on increasing pedestrian and bicycle comfort and safety.  Willow Pass Road and Galindo Street (Intersection Improvements):

44 o Diagonal crossings stop all vehicular traffic at the intersection and safety allow pedestrians and cyclists alike to cross diagonally as they please.
o Furthermore, in order to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrian safety, this suggests highly visible Class II bicycle lanes along both Galindo Street and Willow Pass Road.  Galindo Street and Laguna Street (Intersection Improvements):
o A “zebra crossing” at this cross walk in particular will help to increase the visibility of the intersection for pedestrians and drivers. Zebra crossings are r ecommended for all other crosswalks at this intersection.
o The distance between these cor ners is approximately 101 feet in l e n g t h . B e c a u s e t h e average person walks at 3.4 feet per second, it would take appr oximately 30 seconds for the average person to cross the proposed diagonal crossing. o Bulb-outs are proposed on each corner of the intersection to re duce pedestrian crossing distance and the speed of turning vehicles. Improvements to sig nal timing would better accommodate pedestrian mobility at every crossing at this inter section, especially along the southern crosswalk on Galindo Street.
o Class II bicycle lanes with green stripping for both Galindo an d Laguna streets increase bicyclist safety and help to guid e b i c y c l i s t s t h r o u g h t h e i n t e rsection. Although class II bicycle lanes may currently conflict with existing automobile t raffic volumes, they should be considered for future implementation as Concord’s bicycle pa th circulation network is further developed.
 Mt Diablo Street/Oakland Avenue and Mt Diablo Street/Mesa Street: (Intersection Improvements):
o To convert both intersections into roundabouts. This will improve traffic flow, and improve motorist satisfaction which will likely improve the chances of them yielding to pedestrians. o To further improve pedestrian safety at these two intersections the crosswalks should also include bulb outs and high visibility crosswalks.
 Clayton Road and Grant Street: (Intersection Improvements):
o In order to embrace the TOD, higher visibility be given to cros swalks. Although there are different pavers to alert drivers of crossing an intersection, more visibility can be given in a zebra-like manner as shown in the image above. The design pattern would be striping every 16 inches to 2 feet along the crosswalk.
o This allows for pedestrians to be clearly seen from further awa y, as well as accommodate for an increase in pedestrian usage. This in turn encourages mo re pedestrian-oriented development within the area and emphasizes on the TOD overlay of the site.  Panoramic Drive and Port Chicago Highway: (Intersection Improvements):
o M u l t i p l e i n t e r v e n t i o n s a r e s u g g e s t e d f o r t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a t P or t C h i c a g o H i g h w a y a n d Panoramic Drive.
o These suggested improvements are made based on observations and pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts made during AM and PM peak hours on May 7th and 8th. Measures are necessary to increase bicycl e and pedestrian access, visibi l i t y , a n d s a f e t y . I t i s recommended that the sidewalk is continued on the east side of Port Chicago Highway north of Panoramic Drive.
o This should continue to the north in order to connect with the existing sidewalk at the Hwy 4 North off ramp. In order to shorten crossing time and create a safer pedestrian crossing, improvements need to be made to the crosswalks.

45 o The crosswalks with the highest pedestrian volumes should have their medians extended into the crosswalks and pedestrian islands should be included. o A crosswalk should also be added to the north side of the intersection. All crosswalks should have zebra stripping in order to increase visibility.
o This will improve access for pedestrians. In order to create a more comfortable transit riding experience, a shelter and bench should be added to the bus stop on southwest corner of the intersection. The class I bike path that travels along the BART line and Port Chicago Highway needs substantial improvement.
o This path is the key bicycle connection between the North Conco rd BART station and the surrounding neighborhoods with the rest of the city.
o It is underutilized and has the potential to increase bicycle usage throughout Concord. The path needs to be clearly marked with painted bicycle symbols and lanes. It must be connect to the rest of the path through proper street crossings and way -finding signage. Way- finding signage needs to be prom inent at all cross streets and within the BART station to direct people to the class I path and the destinations found near the route. o The path needs to be fully connected throughout the route. There should be no gaps in this path.
o This means that there needs to be a clear bicycle crossing within the BART station. Also the gap in the path to the north, between the intersection and the freeway entrance ramp, must be filled in. These improvements will become more necessary as the Naval Weapons Station Reuse Plan comes into effect. It is recommended that these improvements are made before development construction begins.

CONCORD DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (2014, AMENDED 2021)
Central Concord Pedestrian Improvements and Streetscape Project - Location: Downtown area at 30 intersections. Rehabilitate crosswalks including pothole repair and re-staining of colored concrete crosswalks, improve curb ramps on Grant and Salvio Streets, install bicycle racks and lanes on Grant Street, add striping and sharrows on Salvio Street, update wayfinding at BART plaza, refurbish pedestrian light poles and tree lighting on Grant Street to improve pedestrian safety and visibility.

Concord BART Plaza Improvements - Location: Concord BART Station area, Grant Street, and Oak Street. Install bicycle lanes on Grant and Oak Streets, provide additional pedestrian lighting along Grant Street, create new pedestrian walkway from BART entrance to Grant Street, relocate taxi and Kiss 'N Ride parking for improved pedestrian flow, install new wayfinding signage to enhance pedestrian orientation and safety.

Downtown Concord Bicycle Lane Improvements - Location: Clayton Road, Concord Boulevard, Grant Street, Oakland Avenue, and Mt. Diablo Street. Implement bicycle routes and lanes throughout downtown corridor, construct and widen sidewalks on Clayton Road and Grant Street (east side between Concord Boulevard and Willow Pass Road) to provide dedicated safe space for cyclists and pedestrians.

Downtown Sewer and Streetscape Improvements - Location: Grant Street and surrounding downtown streets. Phased project combining sewer system replacement with street paving and striping, sidewalk

46 repair on portions of Grant Street, selected curb replacements to improve overall pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure quality during utility work.

Salvio Street Improvements at Mt. Diablo Street - Location: Salvio Street east of Mt. Diablo Street.

Remove diagonal parking along north side of Salvio Street to improve sight lines and safety, enhance sidewalk conditions at intersection to create safer pedestrian environment.

Salvio Street Bicycle Lanes - Location: Salvio Street from Port Chicago Highway to Parkside Drive. Install bicycle sharrows to provide designated bicycle space and improve cyclist safety along this key downtown connector.

Willow Pass Road and Nearby Intersections Traffic Signal Upgrades - Location: Willow Pass Road and downtown intersections. Upgrade traffic signals and install new signals at multiple downtown intersections, add protected left turn phasing to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, implement ADA upgrades on Willow Pass Road including accessible curb ramps and crossing infrastructure.

Grant Street Two-Way Conversion - Location: Grant Street between BART Station and Todos Santos Plaza. Convert one-way street segments to two-way operation with consistent travel lanes, dedicated bike lanes, and wider sidewalks to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for all users.

BART Linear Park and Greenway - Location: Along BART tracks from North Concord BART station to Downtown Concord BART station. Develop open space and bicycle/pedestrian path beneath BART elevated tracks to create safe grade-separated active transportation connection providing direct access to BART station from surrounding neighborhoods.

Pedestrian Priority Zone Treatments - Location: Downtown core area within 10-minute walk of BART.

Implement raised crosswalks, signal timing changes limiting traffic speeds, curb extensions, decorative pavement treatments, enhanced lighting, and other traffic calming measures to prioritize pedestrian safety in high-activity areas.

Clay Alley Pedestrian District - Location: Clay Alley and Salvio Street near Pacheco Adobe. Create pedestrian-oriented retail and dining environment with enhanced sidewalks, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian-scale lighting, and traffic calming measures centered around historic Pacheco Adobe.

CITYWIDE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (2013)
The Climate Action Plan does not identify specific project loca tions but establishes mandatory programmatic safety strategies to be implemented citywide:

Pedestrian Master Plan Development - Location: Citywide. Develop c omprehensive pedestrian master plan to strategize and prioritize efforts making walking easier , safer, and more comfortable, establishing bicycle and pedestrian mode share goals and monitoring provisions.

Safer Active Transportation Programs and Enforcement - Location: Citywide with focus on high-injury areas, schools, and senior housing. Implement enforcement campaigns targeting violations associated with

47 s e v e r e a n d f a t a l i n j u r i e s i n s t r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n s , w i t h a n n u a l collision data review and cause analysis to implement ongoing safety improvements.

Traffic Calming Implementation - Location: Citywide as conditions of development approval. Implement measures including curb bulb-outs, additional street trees, rai sed crosswalks, roundabouts, smaller corner radii, pavement treatments, and lane narrowing to slow traffic and encourage walking and bicycling.

Bicycle Master Plan Development and Implementation - Location: Citywide connecting transit stations, schools, medical services, grocery stores, and key destinations. Identify and address barriers and dangers to bicycling, maximize connectivity , i n c r e a s e l o c a l a c c e s s t o d e d icated bicycle lanes and trails, coordinate infrastructure investments with pedestrian master plan.

Bike Parking Installations - Location: All new multi-family and non-residential development, City facilities citywide. Require and install secure, convenient bicycle parking within 30 feet of entrances, well-lit at night, to increase safety and visibility of bicycling as travel option.

Safe Routes to Schools Comprehensive Program - Location: All 50 schools citywide with priority for high- need areas. Implement engineering improvements including walkways, crossings, bike lanes, traffic calming; enforcement at schools; encourage ment programs like walking sch ool buses; education including bicycle safety training; evaluation through walk and bike audits identifying key safety improvements.

Multi-Modal Wayfinding System - Location: Citywide with emphasis on connections to transit s tations, schools, medical services, grocery stores. Install directional signage helping pedestri ans and cyclists find safest, most convenient routes across town and to key destinations.

City Forest Plan/Street Tree Implementation - Location: Downtown Concord and key street corridors citywide. Plant street trees strategically to provide traffic calming effects, shade sidewalks and bike lanes to make active travel more pleasant and safe, reduce heat island effect.

Complete Streets Checklist Application - Location: All street reconstru ction, development projects, a nd utility projects citywide. Apply streamlined complete streets review ensuring safe crossings with accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge i slands, pedestrian signals, buffers between pedestrians and vehicles, wide sidewalks, illuminated crosswalks, bulb-outs, pedestrian-scale lighting.

Active Transportation CIP Priority Projects - L o c a t i o n : C i t y w i d e p r i o r i t i z e d t h r o u g h 1 0 - y e a r C a p i t a l Improvement Program. Systematically fund bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements identified through master plans, with coordination across all City infrastructure investments.

MAKING CONCORD

STREETS SAFER
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Community Outreach Meeting
March 30, 2026 | City of Concord
City of Concord
Transportation Division
Federally Funded by
U.S. DOT SS4A Program
www.concordsafestreets.org
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 1

Agenda
Community Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026
Welcome & Introductions
What is the CSAP & Why It Matters
Our Vision: Zero Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5-Year Collision Snapshot (2021–2025)
Community Engagement
Your Voice Shapes This Plan
How to Stay Involved
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 2

What is a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan?
What It Is
A data-driven roadmap that identifies high-risk
locations and defines strategies to reduce fatal
and serious injury crashes.

Safe System Approach
No one should die or be seriously injured on our
roadways. Safety is a shared responsibility.

SS4A Federal Funding
Supported by the U.S. DOT Safe Streets and Roads
for All program. Positions Concord for
implementation grants.

1. Collision data analysis

2. High-risk location identification

3. Community & stakeholder engagement

4. Safety countermeasure development

5. Project prioritization & funding plan

6. Monitoring & evaluation framework
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 3

Our Commitment: Zero Traffic Fatalities and
Serious Injuries
Vision Zero – No death on our roads is acceptable or inevitable Data-Driven Priorities
Uses 5 years of crash data to identify
exactly where and why crashes are
happening
Focused on Saving Lives
Every strategy targets fatal and severe
injury (KSI) crashes first
Community Input
Your lived experience tells us which
streets feel unsafe and what
improvements matter most
Systemic Approach
Addresses crash patterns across the
entire city network, not just one
intersection
Funding Readiness
Positions Concord for future SS4A
implementation grants to deliver real
capital improvements
Measurable Outcomes
Clear metrics track progress and
demonstrate impact over time
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 4

CSAP Process
Where we are today — and where we’re heading
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 1 Data
Collection
Compile 6 years of
collision data (Jan
2020–Dec 2025)
▶
2 Collision
Trend Analysis
Examine patterns, time
periods, and
contributing factors
▶
3 Identify
High-Risk
Network
Pinpoint corridors,
intersections, and
zones with highest risk
▶
4 Develop Safety
Countermeasures
Propose engineering,
enforcement, and
education measures
▶
5 Integrate Inputs
& Prioritize
Incorporate stakeholder
feedback and prioritize
projects
▶
6 Action Plan
& Report
Document findings,
strategies, and
recommendations
WE’RE HERE
5 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

5-Year Collision Snapshot
2021 – 2025 | City of Concord
1,804
Total
Collisions
164
KSI
Collisions
19 Fatal
Collisions
145
Severe
Injuries
Key Highlights
Severity Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 3 16 19
Severe Injury 19 126 145
Visible Injury 79 348 427
Complaint of Pain 185 1,028 1,213
Total 286 1,518 1,804
Key Highlights
87% of KSI at intersections
142 of 164 KSI collisions occurred at intersection locations 60% of KSI: Peds, Bikes, Motos
Vulnerable road users far overrepresented in severe outcomes 12% of KSI involve alcohol
20 of 164 KSI collisions were alcohol-related
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 6

Collision Trends Over Time
2021 – 2025 | KSI and Total Collisions by Mode
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 13 19
37 28
8 7
71 11
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Bicycle Motorcycle Car/Pickup Pedestrian
Collisions by Mode (%)
KSI Injury
Key Observations
Peak year: 2022
383 total collisions and 39 KSI
2025 shows decline
341 total collisions (∑11% from peak)
KSI remains elevated
34 KSI in 2025—same as 2021 despite overall
decline
84% at intersections
1,518 of 1,804 collisions occurred at
intersections
7

Where Crashes Are Happening
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 8

Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Locations
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 9

How & Why Crashes Are Happening
Understanding crash patterns helps target the right solutions Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 29 7
16 10 8
27 38
7 9
25 8 10
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Broadside Head-On Hit Object Rear End Sideswipe Veh/Ped By Collision Type
KSI (%) Injury (%)
11 12
14 8
13 14 14
3 13
8 15
5 3
16 23
3 0
5 10
15 20
25 Auto ROW DUI Imp. Turn Ped ROW Ped Viol Signals Unsafe Spd
Wrong Side
By Violation Category
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Key Finding:

Broadside and Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions accounted for 29% and 27% of KSI outcomes respectively, together responsible for over half of all deaths and severe injuries. Pedestrian/bicycle collisions are disproportionately severe relative to their overall share. 10

Vehicle Involvement & Lighting
What is involved and when are crashes most severe?
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 11 16
39 5
27 8 9
65 5 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Bicycle Fixed Obj Motor Veh Parked Veh Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Involved With
KSI (%) Injury (%)
4 34
1 56
42 24
0 70
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Dark-No Lights Dark-Lit Dark -Malfunc. Daylight Dusk/Dawn Lighting Conditions
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Top 5 KSI Corridors:

Willow Pass Rd (17 KSI), Clayton Rd (16), Monument Blvd (13), Treat Blvd (13), Concord Ave (10). Together: 69 of 164 citywide KSI = 42% of all severe crashes.

Lighting & Peak Hours:
38% of KSI occur in dark conditions. PM Peak (4–7 PM) is the single highest-risk period with 33 KSI, followed by evenings at 40 KSI.
11

Community Engagement
What are we doing?
• Webpage with Interactive Map to report your
concern
• Web base survey
• Community Meetings

1. Meeting No. 1 – to receive feedback

2. Meeting with Bike Concord and Community Groups

3. Meeting No. 2 – Present the findings and
recommendations
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 3

Community Survey: What We've Heard So Far
252 responses ꞏ March 11–27, 2026 | All Modes of Travel 252
Responses Received
79%
Had Personal Collision
Experience
96%
Changed Travel Behavior
Due to Safety
72%
Concerned About
School Zone Safety

WHO RESPONDED TOP GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
65 and older 28%
55–64 22%
45–54 17%
35–44 19%
25–34 7%
18–24 0%
Crash Intersections 54%
Commercial Corridors 42%
Residential Streets 31%
Schools & Parks 31%
Poor Lighting Areas 10%
Top ZIP: 94521 (38%) | English: 90% | Disability: 11% Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 15

Top Safety Concerns — What Community is Telling Us
Multi-select responses ꞏ n=252

OVERALL SAFETY CONCERNS
68%
Speeding
60%
Red Light Running
40%
Distracted Driving
22%
Illegal E-Bike Ops
12%
Left-Turn Conflicts
12%
Tailgating
12%
Visibility / Lighting

DRIVERS
62%
Speeding
54%
Red Lights
20%
Distracted Driving
19%
Road Conditions

PEDESTRIANS
37%
Yield Failures
33%
Turning Conflicts
17%
Missing SidewalksCYCLISTS
27% No Rules Followed 17% No Bike Lanes
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 16

School Zone Safety & Collision Experience
Two high-priority themes from community feedback

SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY
72%
concerned about
school-zone safety
Very Concerned 34%
Somewhat Concerned 38%
Not Concerned 13%

TOP SCHOOL ISSUES CITED
41% Speeding near schools
38% Pickup / dropoff backup
30% Double-parking / sight lines
33% Drivers failing to yield

PERSONAL COLLISION EXPERIENCE
79%
have experienced a
collision firsthand
32% Near-miss personally
31% Witnessed a collision
13% Directly involved
21% No experience

INSIGHT
Residents directly involved in collisions cite distracted driving at 53% — 15 points higher than those with no experience (38%).

Collision exposure sharpens concern for all violations.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 17

What Community Wants — Priorities & Behavior Change
% of 252 respondents ꞏ March 11–27, 2026

REQUESTED IMPROVEMENTS
% of 252 respondents selecting each option
Increased Police Enforcement 55%
Pedestrian Signal Upgrades 35%
High-Visibility Crosswalks 31%
Speed Feedback Signs 28%
Bike Lane Additions 21%
Street Lighting 20%
Enforcement leads in every geographic focus area — intersections, commercial corridors, residential streets, and school zones.

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR CHANGED BY SAFETY
96%
of residents have modified
their travel due to safety concerns
36% Avoid certain streets
27% Avoid certain times
26% Drive / walk more cautiously
2% Changed travel mode
4% No change in behavior
Residents 65+ shift time (41% avoid times) ꞏ Working-age adults shift routes (47–52% avoid streets)
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 18

Key Takeaways: What the Survey Is Telling Us
Evidence-based priorities derived from 252 community survey responses ꞏ March 11–27, 2026 01 Enforcement Is the #1 Requested Fix
55% of residents named increased police enforcement as their top improvement — higher than any infrastructure measure. This holds across every geographic focus area.
02 Speeding + Red Lights Dominate Every Mode
68% cite speeding and 60% cite red light running. These dual violations top every subgroup: drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and all age groups. 03 School Zone Safety Is a Shared Urgency
72% are concerned about school-zone safety. Very concerned residents identify speeding; somewhat concerned identify pickup congestion — requiring a two- stream response.
04 Pedestrian Signals Are the Top Infrastructure Ask
35% requested pedestrian signal upgrades, ranking 2nd overall. Residents with disabilities cited signals at 36% — key equity finding for crosswalk investment. 05 96% Changed How They Travel Due to Safety
Route avoidance (36%), time-shifting (27%), and cautious driving (26%) are widespread. Older adults shift when they travel; working-age adults shift where — both responses need parallel interventions.
06 Survey & Data Tell a Consistent Story
Community concerns align directly with collision data: high-injury corridors on Clayton Rd, Willow Pass, and Monument Blvd are the same streets residents call out most.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 19

Your Voice Shapes This Plan
Crash data tells us WHERE. Your experience tells us WHY streets feel unsafe.

Take the Survey
5 minutes, anonymous. Share which streets feel unsafe and your top safety priorities.
concordsafestreets.org/survey
Report a Concern
Pin your exact location on our interactive map at
concordsafestreets.org to report a safety concern.
concordsafestreets.org
Spread the Word
Share the project with neighbors, friends, and community groups. More voices = better plan.

Share with neighbors
Contact the Team
Reach out directly to our project team with questions or detailed feedback.
[email protected]
Stay Informed
Visit concordsafestreets.org for collision data, project updates, and event announcements.
www.concordsafestreets.org
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 12

Thank You — Your Input
Matters
Together we are building safer streets for every person who walks, bikes, drives, and lives in Concord.

City of Concord — Transportation Division
Survey: concordsafestreets.org/survey | Concerns:
concordsafestreets.org
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | 2026
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | March 30, 2026 13

MAKING CONCORD

STREETS SAFER
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Community Outreach Meeting No. 2
April 13th, 2026 | City of Concord
City of Concord
Transportation Division
Federally Funded by
U.S. DOT SS4A Program
www.concordsafestreets.org
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 1

Agenda
Community Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026
Welcome & Introductions
What is CSAP ?
Our Vision: Zero Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5-Year Collision Snapshot (2021–2025)
Community Engagement
Your Voice Shapes This Plan
How to Stay Involved
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 2

What is a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan?
What It Is
A data-driven roadmap that identifies high-risk locations and defines strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

Safe System Approach
No one should die or be seriously injured on our roadways. Safety is a shared responsibility.

SS4A Federal Funding
Supported by the U.S. DOT Safe Streets and Roads for All program. Positions Concord for implementation grants.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 3

Our Commitment: Zero Traffic Fatalities and
Serious Injuries
Vision Zero – No death on our roads is acceptable or inevitable Data-Driven Priorities
Uses 5 years of crash data to identify
exactly where and why crashes are
happening
Focused on Saving Lives
Every strategy targets fatal and severe
injury (KSI) crashes first
Community Input
Your lived experience tells us which
streets feel unsafe and what
improvements matter most
Systemic Approach
Addresses crash patterns across the
entire city network, not just one
intersection
Funding Readiness
Positions Concord for future SS4A
implementation grants to deliver real
capital improvements
Measurable Outcomes
Clear metrics track progress and
demonstrate impact over time
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 4

CSAP Process
Where we are today — and where we’re heading
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 1 Data
Collection
Compile 6 years of
collision data (Jan
2020–Dec 2025)
▶
2 Collision
Trend Analysis
Examine patterns, time
periods, and
contributing factors
▶
3 Identify
High-Risk
Network
Pinpoint corridors,
intersections, and
zones with highest risk
▶
4 Develop Safety
Countermeasures
Propose engineering,
enforcement, and
education measures
▶
5 Integrate Inputs
& Prioritize
Incorporate stakeholder
feedback and prioritize
projects
▶
6 Action Plan
& Report
Document findings,
strategies, and
recommendations
WE’RE HERE
5 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

5-Year Collision Snapshot
2021 – 2025 | City of Concord
1,804
Total
Collisions
164
KSI
Collisions
19 Fatal
Collisions
145
Severe
Injuries
Key Highlights
Severity Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 3 16 19
Severe Injury 19 126 145
Visible Injury 79 348 427
Complaint of Pain 185 1,028 1,213
Total 286 1,518 1,804
Key Highlights
87% of KSI at intersections
142 of 164 KSI collisions occurred at intersection locations 60% of KSI: Peds, Bikes, Motos
Vulnerable road users far overrepresented in severe outcomes 12% of KSI involve alcohol
20 of 164 KSI collisions were alcohol-related
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 6

Collision Trends Over Time
2021 – 2025 | KSI and Total Collisions by Mode
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 13 19
37 28
8 7
71 11
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Bicycle Motorcycle Car/Pickup Pedestrian
Collisions by Mode (%)
KSI Injury
Key Observations
Peak year: 2022
383 total collisions and 39 KSI
2025 shows decline
341 total collisions (∑11% from peak)
KSI remains elevated
34 KSI in 2025—same as 2021 despite overall
decline
84% at intersections
1,518 of 1,804 collisions occurred at
intersections
7

Where Crashes Are Happening
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 8

Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Locations
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 9

How & Why Crashes Are Happening
Understanding crash patterns helps target the right solutions Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 29 7
16 10 8
27 38
7 9
25 8 10
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Broadside Head-On Hit Object Rear End Sideswipe Veh/Ped By Collision Type
KSI (%) Injury (%)
11 12
14 8
13 14 14
3 13
8 15
5 3
16 23
3 0
5 10
15 20
25 Auto ROW DUI Imp. Turn Ped ROW Ped Viol Signals Unsafe Spd
Wrong Side
By Violation Category
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Key Finding:

Broadside and Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions accounted for 29% and 27% of KSI outcomes respectively, together responsible for over half of all deaths and severe injuries. Pedestrian/bicycle collisions are disproportionately severe relative to their overall share. 10

Vehicle Involvement & Lighting
What is involved and when are crashes most severe?
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 11 16
39 5
27 8 9
65 5 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Bicycle Fixed Obj Motor Veh Parked Veh Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Involved With
KSI (%) Injury (%)
4 34
1 56
42 24
0 70
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Dark-No Lights Dark-Lit Dark -Malfunc. Daylight Dusk/Dawn Lighting Conditions
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Top 5 KSI Corridors:

Willow Pass Rd (17 KSI), Clayton Rd (16), Monument Blvd (13), Treat Blvd (13), Concord Ave (10). Together: 69 of 164 citywide KSI = 42% of all severe crashes.

Lighting & Peak Hours:
38% of KSI occur in dark conditions. PM Peak (4–7 PM) is the single highest-risk period with 33 KSI, followed by evenings at 40 KSI.
11

Community Engagement
What are we doing?
• Webpage with Interactive Map to report your
concern
• Web base survey
• Community Meetings

1. Meeting No. 1 – to receive feedback

2. Meeting No. 2 – to receive feedback

3. Meeting No. 3 – Present the findings and
recommendations
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 3

4. Meeting with Bike Concord and Community Groups

Community Survey: What We've Heard So Far
523 responses ꞏ March 11–April 12, 2026 | All Modes of Travel 523
Responses Received
73%
Reported a Traffic Incident
Experience
96%
Changed Travel Behavior
Due to Safety
70%
Expressed Concern About
School Zone Safety

WHO RESPONDED TOP GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
65 and older 31%
55–64 20%
45–54 18%
35–44 18%
25–34 8%
18–24 0%
Crash Intersections 54%
Commercial Corridors 36%
Residential Streets 34%
Schools & Parks 31%
Poor Lighting Areas 10%
Top ZIP: 94521 (37%) | English: 91% | Disability: 11% Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 15

Top Safety Concerns — What Community is Telling Us
Multi-select responses ꞏ n=523

OVERALL SAFETY CONCERNS
66%
Speeding
59%
Red Light Running
39%
Distracted Driving
24%
Illegal E-Bike Ops
11%
Left-Turn Conflicts
14%
Tailgating
11%
Visibility / Lighting

DRIVERS
60%
Speeding
52%
Red Lights
23%
Distracted Driving
20%
Road Conditions

PEDESTRIANS
37%
Yield Failures
33%
Turning Conflicts
18%
Missing SidewalksCYCLISTS
26% No Rules Followed 16% No Bike Lanes
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 16

School Zone Safety & Collision Experience
Two high-priority themes from community feedback

SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY
70%
concerned about
school-zone safety
Very Concerned 33%
Somewhat Concerned 37%
Not Concerned 16%

TOP SCHOOL ISSUES CITED
40% Speeding near schools
40% Pickup / dropoff backup
30% Double-parking / sight lines
33% Drivers failing to yield

PERSONAL COLLISION EXPERIENCE
73%
have experienced a
collision firsthand
31% Near-miss personally
29% Witnessed a collision
10% Directly involved
27% No experience

INSIGHT
Afternoon (3–6 PM) and morning (6–9 AM) are the periods when the most respondents across all modes cited elevated concerns — 63% of drivers, 33% of pedestrians, and 26% of cyclists. These windows align with collision data peak hours.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 17

What Community Wants — Priorities & Behavior Change
% of 523 respondents ꞏ March 11–April 12, 2026

REQUESTED IMPROVEMENTS
% of 523 respondents selecting each option
Increased Police Enforcement 51%
Pedestrian Signal Upgrades 39%
High-Visibility Crosswalks 34%
Speed Feedback Signs 26%
Bike Lane Additions 21%
Street Lighting 20%
Enforcement ranks first in every geographic focus area. The one exception: residents prioritizing poor-lighting areas chose street lighting first (73%) — the only category where a non-enforcement improvement leads.

SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY CONCERNS
70%
of respondents expressed
concern about school-zone safety
40% Speeding near schools
38% Pickup/dropoff congestion
30% Double-parking near schools
33% Drivers failing to yield to children
19% No dedicated bike route to school
E-bike concerns near schools were cited by 20% of respondents — the highest rate among any school-related bike issue. Physical separation of bike and pedestrian facilities near schools was a common open-text request.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 18

Key Takeaways: What the Survey Is Telling Us
Key findings from 523 community survey responses ꞏ March 11–April 12, 2026 01 Enforcement Is the #1 Requested Fix
51% of respondents selected increased police enforcement as their top requested improvement — the highest of any option. This preference was consistent across all geographic focus areas, from crash intersections to school zones.
02 Speeding + Red Lights Dominate Every Mode
66% of respondents cited speeding and 60% cited red light running as top safety concerns. These two issues were cited consistently across all respondent groups — by drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and every age group. 03 School Zone Safety Is a Shared Urgency
70% of respondents expressed concern about school-zone safety. Speeding near schools (40%), pickup/dropoff congestion (38%), and double-parking (30%) were the most frequently cited issues.
04 Sidewalks and Crosswalks Are Priority Infrastructure Gaps
18% of respondents cited missing sidewalks and 14% cited missing crossings.

These gaps were noted across residential areas and near schools.

Respondents with mobility limitations cited sidewalk gaps at a higher rate than those without.
05 Afternoon and Morning Are the Highest-Concern Time
Windows
63% of respondents identified the afternoon (3–6 PM) as an elevated-concern period for drivers, and 58% identified the morning (6–9 AM). School hours were cited by 34%. These windows align with peak collision periods in the CSAP data.
06 Survey & Data Tell a Consistent Story
Community-cited locations align with collision data. The corridors most frequently mentioned in open-text responses — Clayton Road, Willow Pass Road, Treat Boulevard, and Ygnacio Valley Road — correspond directly with the corridors identified in the CSAP High Injury Network analysis.

Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 19

Your Voice Shapes This Plan
Crash data tells us WHERE. Your experience tells us WHY streets feel unsafe.

Take the Survey
5 minutes, anonymous. Share which streets feel unsafe and your top safety priorities.
concordsafestreets.org/survey
Report a Concern
Pin your exact location on our interactive map at
concordsafestreets.org to report a safety concern.
concordsafestreets.org
Spread the Word
Share the project with neighbors, friends, and community groups. More voices = better plan.

Share with neighbors
Contact the Team
Reach out directly to our project team with questions or detailed feedback.
[email protected]
Stay Informed
Visit concordsafestreets.org for collision data, project updates, and event announcements.
www.concordsafestreets.org
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 12

Thank You — Your Input
Matters
Together we are building safer streets for every person who walks, bikes, drives, and lives in Concord.

City of Concord — Transportation Division
Survey: concordsafestreets.org/survey | Concerns:
concordsafestreets.org
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | 2026
Concord CSAP | Public Outreach Meeting | April 13, 2026 13

COMPREHENSIVE

SAFETY ACTION
PLAN
Steering Committee Meeting #1
February 23, 2026  |  2:00 PM
City of Concord
Transportation Division
Prepared by TJKM
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan  |  CSAP 2026

Agenda
Steering Committee Meeting #1
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 Introduction
Your Role as a Safety Champion
What is a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan?
Benefits of CSAP
CSAP Process Overview
Preliminary Collision Analysis Findings
Next Steps
Discussion & Questions

Steering Committee
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 Abhishek Parikh – City of Concord Public Works Department Virendra Patel – City of Concord Public Works Department, Project Manager Phalen Shwan – City of Concord
Jesse Crawford – City of Concord
Danielle Thomas – Contra Costa County Fire Protection Department Pranjal Dixit – CCCTA
Kamla Parks – BART
Melanie Koslow – Mt. Diablo Unified School District

Your Role as a Safety Champion
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 Set Goals
Help set the goals and objectives of
the CSAP
Share Issues
Tell us about traffic‐safety‐related
issues you see
Community Voice
Tell us what you’ve heard from
community members
Report Concerns
Use the survey and interactive map
on the project webpage
Share Experience
Share your experience with recently
implemented countermeasures
Spread the Word
Share project details and help
increase community awareness
Monitor Progress
Help monitor the program and
evaluate implemented strategies
Stay Informed
Stay up to date on the project and its
milestones

What is a Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan?
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 CSAP Definition
A data‐driven roadmap that identifies high‐risk locations and defines strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. It uses the Safe System approach to prioritize and implement effective roadway safety improvements.

Key Elements
1 Collision data analysis
2 High‐risk location identification
3 Stakeholder engagement
4 Safety countermeasure development
5 Project prioritization
6 Implementation & funding plan
7 Monitoring & evaluation
Safe System Approach
No one should die or be seriously injured on our roadways. Safety is a shared responsibility across road design, vehicle safety, speeds, and user behavior.

Benefits of the CSAP
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 Data‐Driven Priorities
Uses data to identify high‐risk locations and
prioritize improvements
Focused on Saving Lives
Reduces fatal and serious injury (KSI) crashes
Community Input
Incorporates community and stakeholder
feedback
Systemic Approach
Addresses crash patterns across the entire
network
Funding Readiness
Positions the City for state and federal safety
grants
Measurable Outcomes
Establishes clear metrics for monitoring and
evaluation

CSAP Process
Our structured approach to safety improvement
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 1 Data
Collection
Compile 6 years of
collision data (Jan 2020–
Dec 2025)
▶
2 Collision
Trend Analysis
Examine patterns, time
periods, and contributing
factors
▶
3 Identify
High‐Risk Network
Pinpoint corridors,
intersections, and zones
with highest risk
▶
4 Develop Safety
Countermeasures
Propose engineering,
enforcement, and
education measures
▶
5 Integrate Inputs
& Prioritize
Incorporate stakeholder
feedback and prioritize
projects
▶
6 Action Plan
& Report
Document findings,
strategies, and
recommendations
WE’RE HERE

Collision Analysis Findings
2020 – 2025  |  Six‐Year Analysis Period
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 2,108
Total Injury
Collisions
191
KSI
Collisions
23 Fatal
Collisions
168
Severe Injury
Collisions
Collisions by Severity and Location
Severity Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 41 9 23
Severe Injury 23 145 168
Visible Injury 93 416 509
Complaint of Pain 214 1,194 1,408
13 19
38 28
8 6
73 10
0 20
40 60
80 Bicycle Motorcycle C ar/Pickup Pedestrian
Collisions by Mode (%)
KSI Injury

Yearly Collision Trends
2020 – 2025  |  KSI and Total Injury Collisions
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 304 315
383 382
383
341
27 34 39 28 29 34
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Injury Collisions KSI Collisions
Key Observations
Peak year: 2022
383 total collisions and 39 KSI
2025 shows decline
341 total collisions (∑11% from peak)
KSI remains elevated
34 KSI in 2025—same as 2021 despite overall
decline
84% at intersections
1,774 of 2,108 collisions occurred at intersections

Injury and Collision Map
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026

Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Map
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026

Collisions by Type & Violation
What types of crashes are occurring and why?
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 28 9
14 10 8
28 37
8 9
25 8 10
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Broadside Head-On Hit Object Rear End Sideswipe Veh/Ped By Collision Type
KSI (%) Injury (%)
12 13 13 14 13
4 13
4 8
15 10
5 3
16 4
23 0
5 10
15 20
25 Auto ROW DUI Imp. Turn Ped ROW Ped Viol Signals Unsafe Spd
Wrong Side
By Violation Category
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Key Finding:

Broadside and Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions each account for 28% of KSI outcomes together responsible for over half of all deaths and severe injuries.

Pedestrian/bicycle collisions are disproportionately severe relative to their overall share.

Vehicle Involvement & Lighting
What’s involved and when are crashes most severe?
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 11 15
39 5
27 8 9
64 5 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Bicycle Fixed Obj Motor Veh Parked Veh Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Involved With
KSI (%) Injury (%)
4 34
1 56
42 24
0 69
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Dark-No Lights Dark-Lit Dark -Malfunc. Daylight Dusk/Dawn Lighting Conditions
KSI (%) Injury (%)
VRU Disproportionality:

Pedestrians and bicycles account for 38% of KSI but only 18% of all injury collisions, a 2.1x disproportionality ratio.

Darkness Severity Spike:

Dark conditions account for 39% of KSI but only 26% of injury collisions. KSI rate is significantly elevated after dark, especially for pedestrians.

Next Steps
Concord CSAP  |  Steering Committee Meeting #1  |  February 23, 2026 1 High‐Risk Location Identification
Pinpoint specific corridors, intersections, and zones with the highest collision risk for targeted analysis. 2 Safety Countermeasures & Strategies
Develop engineering, enforcement, and education measures tailored to the identified collision patterns. 3 Project Prioritization
Rank safety improvements by impact, feasibility, and cost‐effectiveness to maximize safety investment returns. 4 Safety Action Plan
Compile findings into a comprehensive, adopted plan with timelines, responsibilities, and funding strategies.

Discussion & Questions
Thank you for your partnership in making Concord’s streets safer.

City of Concord — Transportation Division
Virendra Patel
Prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan  |  2026
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan  |  CSAP 2026

COMPREHENSIVE

SAFETY ACTION
PLAN
Steering Committee Meeting #2
April 14, 2026 | 2:00 PM
City of Concord
Transportation Division
Prepared by TJKM
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026

Agenda
Steering Committee Meeting #2
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 Introduction
Your Role as a Safety Champion
CSAP Process Overview
Collision Analysis Findings
Community Survey Findings
Next Steps & Discussion

Steering Committee
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 Abhishek Parikh – City of Concord Public Works Department Virendra Patel – City of Concord Public Works Department, Project Manager Phalen Shwan – City of Concord
Jesse Crawford – City of Concord
Danielle Thomas – Contra Costa County Fire Protection Department Pranjal Dixit – CCCTA
Kamla Parks – BART
Melanie Koslow – Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Cristian Lepe – Mt. Diablo Unified School District

Your Role as a Safety Champion
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 Set Goals
Help set the goals and objectives
of the CSAP
Share Issues
Tell us about traffic-safety-related
issues you see
Community Voice
Tell us what you’ve heard from
community members
Report Concerns
Use the survey and interactive
map on the project webpage
Share Experience
Share your experience with
recently implemented
countermeasures
Spread the Word
Share project details and help
increase community awareness
Monitor Progress
Help monitor the program and
evaluate implemented strategies
Stay Informed
Stay up to date on the project and
its milestones

CSAP Process
Our structured approach to safety improvement
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 1 Data
Collection
Compile 5 years of
collision data (Jan 2021
–Dec 2025)
▶
2 Collision
Trend Analysis
Examine patterns, time
periods, and
contributing factors
▶
3 Identify
High-Risk
Network
Pinpoint corridors,
intersections, and
zones with highest risk
▶
4 Develop Safety
Countermeasures
Propose engineering,
enforcement, and
education measures
▶
5 Integrate Inputs
& Prioritize
Incorporate stakeholder
feedback and prioritize
projects
▶
6 Action Plan
& Report
Document findings,
strategies, and
recommendations
WE’RE HERE

5-Year Collision Snapshot
2021 – 2025 | City of Concord
1,804
Total
Collisions
164
KSI
Collisions
19 Fatal
Collisions
145
Severe
Injuries
Key Highlights
Severity Segment Intersectio
n
Total
Fatal 3 16 19
Severe Injury 19 126 145
Visible Injury 79 348 427
Complaint of Pain 185 1,028 1,213
Total 286 1,518 1,804
Key Highlights
87% of KSI at intersections
142 of 164 KSI collisions occurred at intersection locations 60% of KSI: Peds, Bikes, Motos
Vulnerable road users far overrepresented in severe outcomes 12% of KSI involve alcohol
20 of 164 KSI collisions were alcohol-related
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 6

Where Crashes Are Happening
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 8

Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Locations
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 9

How & Why Crashes Are Happening
Understanding crash patterns helps target the right solutions Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 29 7
16 10 8
27 38
7 9
25 8 10
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Broadside Head-On Hit Object Rear End Sideswipe Veh/Ped By Collision Type
KSI (%) Injury (%)
11 12
14 8
13 14 14
3 13
8 15
5 3
16 23
3 0
5 10
15 20
25 Auto ROW DUI Imp. Turn Ped ROW Ped Viol Signals Unsafe Spd
Wrong Side
By Violation Category
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Key Finding:

Broadside and Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions accounted for 29% and 27% of KSI outcomes respectively, together responsible for over half of all deaths and severe injuries. Pedestrian/bicycle collisions are disproportionately severe relative to their overall share. 10

Vehicle Involvement & Lighting
What is involved and when are crashes most severe?
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 11 16
39 5
27 8 9
65 5 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Bicycle Fixed Obj Motor Veh Parked Veh Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Involved With
KSI (%) Injury (%)
4 34
1 56
42 24
0 70
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Dark-No Lights Dark-Lit Dark -Malfunc. Daylight Dusk/Dawn Lighting Conditions
KSI (%) Injury (%)
Top 5 KSI Corridors:

Willow Pass Rd (17 KSI), Clayton Rd (16), Monument Blvd (13), Treat Blvd (13), Concord Ave (12). Together: 71 of 164 citywide KSI = 43% of all severe crashes.

Lighting & Peak Hours:
39% of KSI occur in dark conditions (all categories). PM Peak (2–5 PM) is the single highest-risk window with 36 KSI, followed by the evening hours (6–11 PM) with 40 KSI.
11

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ꞏ CSAP 2026
What Concord Residents
Are Telling Us
523 residents shared their safety concerns, priorities, and experiences across all travel modes 523
Responses
73%
Reported an Incident
70%
School Zone Concern
51%
Enforcement Requested
City of Concord CSAP Community Safety Survey | March 11 - April 12, 2026 | n = 523 Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 12

Top Safety Concerns Reported by Community Residents
Multi-select question — 523 respondents — March 11 - April 12, 2026 Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 13 Speeding 66%
Red light running 60%
Distracted driving 39%
Illegal e-bike operation 24%
Failure to yield at crosswalks 37%
Missing sidewalks and crossings 18%
School zone safety concern 70%
Poor lighting areas 10%
Focus areas: crash-prone intersections (54%) ꞏ commercial corridors (36%) ꞏ residential streets (34%) ꞏ schools and parks (31% )

Survey vs. Collision Data: Where They Agree
Three community concerns directly confirmed by 5 years of collision records (2021-2025) Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 14 MATCH
Speeding and signal violations lead both survey and crash data 66% of respondents cite speeding; 60% cite red light running — the two top concerns across all age groups and modes.

These exactly match the top 2 Primary Collision Factors in KSI records: Unsafe Speed and Signals/Signs violations.

Together they account for 28% of all KSI events over 5 years and appear consistently on every top HIN corridor.

MATCH
Community-cited corridors match the High Injury Network exactly Clayton Rd, Willow Pass Rd, Treat Blvd, Monument Blvd, and Ygnacio Valley Rd cited most in open-text responses.

Each is a top-5 KSI corridor in the CSAP HIN analysis — Clayton Rd (#1 with 16 KSI, Willow Pass #3 with 17 KSI.

Community-perceived risk is geographically aligned with measured crash concentration — a strong validation of this CSAP.

MATCH
PM peak is the highest-concern and highest-KSI time window 63% of respondents identified the afternoon (3-6 PM) as the period of greatest concern for drivers across all modes.

Collision data confirms: PM peak (4-7 PM) accounts for 36 KSI events — the single highest window in the 5-year record.

School hours (34%) and morning commute (58%) are also cited — aligning with Profile 3 school-zone collision patterns.

Survey vs. Collision Data: What Is New
Three community signals not visible in historical crash records — emerging priorities for the CSAP Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 15 NEW
E-bike safety: an emerging concern not yet in crash data 24% of all respondents cited illegal or unsafe e-bike operation — the 4th highest concern overall.

Historical SWITRS data does not disaggregate e-bikes as a distinct collision category, so this risk is invisible in the record.

Open-text responses specifically cite sidewalk riding near schools and park trails — a forward-looking planning signal.

DIVERG
E
Late-night danger is severely underrepresented in survey perceptions Only 14% of driver respondents flagged late night (10 PM+) as a concern — the lowest of any time window surveyed. 63% of all FATAL collisions occur in dark conditions; nighttime KSI rate = 13% vs. citywide 9.1% average.

Gap likely explained by fewer residents traveling at night — the community underestimates one of the highest-risk scenarios.

NEW
School zone operational issues absent from collision records 70% expressed school-zone concern; pickup congestion (38%) and double-parking (30%) were cited as distinct problems.

These are operational issues — blocking sightlines, impeding pedestrian flow — not captured in SWITRS crash data at all.

The survey is the only data source revealing these conditions, identifying the cause of r isk before crashes occur.

School Zone Safety and Time-of-Day: Operational Priorities Community-identified patterns that inform engineering, enforcement, and operational planning Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 16

SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY
70% of residents expressed concern
33% Very Concerned 37% Somewhat 16% Not

DRIVER ISSUES
40% Speeding near schools
38% Pickup / drop-off congestion
30% Double-parking / sight lines blocked
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE
33% Drivers failing to yield near crossings
21% Child pedestrian habits near schools
19% No dedicated bike route to school

TIME-OF-DAY CONCERNS
All modes of travel | n = 523 respondents
Time Period Drivers Peds Cyclists
Afternoon (3-6 PM) 63% 33% 26%
Morning (6-9 AM) 58% 29% 19%
School hours 34% 27% 17%
Midday (10AM-2PM) 27% 19% 13%
Evening (6-10 PM) 24% 21% 13%
Weekends 23% 15% 13%
Late night (10PM+) 14% 9% 7%
KEY INSIGHT: Afternoon and morning are the only windows where all three modes simultaneously report elevated concern — directly aligning with PM peak KSI concentration in collision data.

High Injury Network — Methodology & Scoring
What is the High Injury Network?
The HIN identifies streets and intersections where fatal and severe injury (KSI) crashes are most concentrated.

FHWA Safe System Weighted Scoring
1 KSI Collisions Weight: 30
2 Pedestrian Collisions Weight: 20
3 Bicycle Collisions Weight: 20
4 Injury Collisions Weight: 20
5 Intersection Collisions Weight: 10
Score = (KSI/Total KSI ×30) + (Injury/Total Injury ×20) + (Intersection/Total Intersection ×10) + (Ped/Total Ped ×20) + (Bicycle/Total Bicycle ×20)
Corridor Prioritization
• Corridors are ranked by their final Safe System Score. • Higher scores indicate a greater concentration of severe crashes and vulnerable road user collisions.

High-Injury Intersection Ranking
• Intersections are ranked by total injury collisions and KSI collisions recorded at each location.

Top Priority Corridor
Clayton Road
SR-242 to Washington Boulevard

11.36 Safe System Score
16 KSI • 224 Injury Collisions
18 Pedestrian • 20 Bicycle Collisions
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 12

High Injury Network - Corridors
Rank Corridor KSI Injur
y
Collisions
occurred at
Intersections
Pedestrian
Collisions
Bicycle
Collisions
Safe
System
Score
A Clayton Rd: SR-242 to Washington Blvd 16 224 208 18 20 11.36 B Monument Blvd: Cowell Rd to Mohr Ln 13 144 114 24 14 9.13 C Willow Pass Rd: I-680 to Avila Rd 17 181 153 16 9 9.02 D Concord Blvd: Galindo St to Yolanda Cir 10 159 150 9 10 6.87 E Treat Blvd: Argonne Dr to Clayton Rd 13 78 71 10 4 5.30 F Concord Ave: John Glenn Dr to Salvio St 12 78 67 5 7 4.97 G Meadow Ln: Market St to Monument Blvd 6 51 43 9 8 3.97 H Oak Grove Rd: Monument Blvd to Canal Trail 7 48 40 3 6 3.20 I Port Chicago Hwy: Clayton Rd to Bates Ave 8 66 52 4 1 3.09 J Cowell Rd: Monument Blvd to Ygnacio Valley
Rd
55 8 5 2 2 6 2.92
K Ygnacio Valley Rd: Clayton Rd to Cowell Rd 7 55 42 3 2 2.75 L Galindo St: Salvio St to Cowell Rd 2 60 60 5 3 2.36
M Market St: Concord Ave to Meadow Ln 1 36 30 4 5 1.87
N Detroit Ave: Clayton Rd to Whitman Rd 1 40 27 6 2 1.70 O Diamond Blvd: Willow Pass Rd to Concord Ave 2 46 30 4 1 1.63

High Injury Network – Corridors

High Injury Network - Intersections
Ran
k Intersection KSI Injury
Pedestria
n
Collisions
Bicycle
Collisions
1 Market Street & Concord Avenue 0 32 1 1
2 Galindo Street & Clayton Road 1 27 2 0
3 Galindo Street & Concord Boulevard 1 26 3 2
4 Monument Boulevard & Meadow Lane 4 23 4 4
5 Treat Boulevard & Oak Grove Road 2 21 0 1
6 Clayton Road & Treat Boulevard 0 20 2 0
7 Willow Pass Road & I-680 1 16 1 0
8 Concord Boulevard & Farm Bureau Road 2 15 0 3
9 Concord Avenue & Salvio Street 3 13 3 1
10 Willow Pass Road & Farm Bureau Road 1 13 0 2
11 Willow Pass Road & Market Street 1 13 1 1
12 Monument Boulevard & Virginia Lane 1 13 4 2

High Injury Network - Intersections

Collision Profiles Summary | 10 profiles | 2021–2025 | City Roads Only #P r o f i l e N a m e Injuries KSI KSI Rate
1 Improve Safety at Intersections 1,518 142 9%
2 Reduce Broadside Collisions 687 47 7%
3 Address Collisions near Schools 667 57 9%
4 Reduce Nighttime Collisions 544 71 13%
5 Reduce Rear-End Collisions 450 16 4%
6 Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions 418 23 6%
7 Address Traffic Signs & Signal Violations 292 23 8%
8 Improve Pedestrian Safety 190 46 24%
9 Improve Bicycle Safety 149 21 14%
10 Reduce DUI-Related Collisions 139 20 14%
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 21

Profile 8 — Improve Pedestrian Safety | 190 Injury Collisions | 46 KSI | KSI Rate: 24% 190
Injury Collisions
46 KSI Collisions
24%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 46 KSI collisions — 24% severity rate, nearly 3× the
citywide 9% average
2 181 of 190 collisions (95%) involve a vehicle striking a pedestrian
3 86% at intersections — pedestrian crossing design is the primary intervention target
86%at intersections 32%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Vehicle/Pedestrian — 181 (95%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Ped Right-of-Way Violation — 75 (39%)
Pedestrian Violations — 48 (25%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 29

Profile 9 — Improve Bicycle Safety | 149 Injury Collisions | 21 KSI | KSI Rate: 14% 149
Injury Collisions
21 KSI Collisions
14%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 21 KSI collisions — 14% severity rate, above the
citywide 9% average
2 133 of 149 collisions (89%) at intersections — bicycle infrastructure at crossings is key
3 33 collisions (22%) occurred at night — lighting and
visibility are critical factors
89%at intersections 22%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 89 (60%)
Sideswipe — 22 (15%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Wrong Side of Road — 52 (35%)
Signal Violations — 30 (20%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 30

Profile 10 — Reduce DUI-Related Collisions | 139 Injury Collisions | 20 KSI | KSI Rate: 14% 139
Injury Collisions
20 KSI Collisions
14%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 20 KSI collisions — 14% severity rate, above the
citywide 9% average
2 107 of 139 collisions (77%) at night — highest nighttime share of all profiles
3 81% at intersections — DUI enforcement and
intersection lighting are primary countermeasures
77%at intersections 81%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Hit Object — 48 (35%)
Rear-End — 35 (25%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
DUI — 139 (100%)
Unsafe Speed — 42 (30%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 31

Next Steps
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 1 Safety Countermeasures & Strategies
Develop engineering, enforcement, and education measures tailored to the identified collision patterns. 2 Project Prioritization
Rank safety improvements by impact, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness — incorporating community-identified priorities from 523 survey responses.
3 Safety Action Plan
Compile collision data findings and community survey input into a comprehensive, adopted plan with timelines, responsibilities, and funding strategies.

APPENDIX
Safe Street Toolkit
Countermeasures Aligned to Concord Collision Profiles
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026

Profile 4 — Reduce Nighttime Collisions | 544 Injury Collisions | 71 KSI | KSI Rate: 13%

RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES
31Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 Add / Upgrade Intersection Lighting
Crash Type: Nighttime CRF: 40% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ
13% KSI severity rate — 44% above citywide average. 84% at intersections. New LED poles + foundations at top dark-condition KSI locations: $60K-$120K per intersection.

C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs)
Crash Type: All CRF: N/A Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ
Broadcast SPaT, MAP, and hazard data to connected vehicles at fatality locations.

Concord's AXIS fiber backbone supports deployment. $30K-$50K per RSU. Leverages existing SS4A project infrastructure.

Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting
Crash Type: All CRF: 15% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ
High-intensity retroreflective sheeting on regulatory and warning signs dramatically improves nighttime conspicuity. Very High systemic opportunity. $500-$1,250 per sign installed systemically.

Pushbutton-Activated Pedestrian Lighting (PPLS)
Crash Type: Pedestrian / Nighttime CRF: 40% Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ Dynamic overhead LED floods that activate on pedestrian pushbutton press.

Concentrates illumination on crosswalk zone only when pedestrians are present. Most effective at nighttime ped collision locations.

DUI Saturation / High Visibility Enforcement
Crash Type: All (DUI) CRF: N/A Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ
20% of nighttime collisions involve DUI — 107 of 544 events. Targeted HVE deployments during high-risk hours (10 PM-3 AM). Coordinate with Concord PD at top nighttime corridors.
31

Discussion & Questions
Thank you for your partnership in making Concord’s streets safer.

City of Concord — Transportation Division
Abhishek Parikh, T.E.

Prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | 2026
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026

Profile 1 — Improve Safety at Intersections | 1,518 Injury Collisions | 142 KSI | KSI Rate: 9% 1,518
Injury Collisions
142
KSI Collisions
9%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 142 KSI collisions — severity rate consistent with the citywide 9% average
2 Broadside collisions dominate — 607 events (40%),
primarily at signalized intersections
3 457 collisions (30%) occurred at night — nighttime
intersection safety is a priority
40%broadside collisions 30%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 607 (40%)
Rear-End — 374 (25%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Unsafe Speed — 340 (22%)
Signal Violations — 287 (19%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 22

Profile 2 — Reduce Broadside Collisions | 687 Injury Collisions | 47 KSI | KSI Rate: 7% 687
Injury Collisions
47 KSI Collisions
7%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 47 KSI collisions — 6.8% severity rate, below the
citywide 9% average
2 607 of 687 collisions (88%) at intersections — signal and right-of-way violations are primary factors
3 Bicycle involvement is significant — 89 bicycle collisions within this profile
88%at intersections 26%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 607 (88% at intersections)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Signal Violations — 253 (37%)
Auto Right of Way — 190 (28%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 23

Profile 3 — Address Collisions near Schools | 667 Injury Collisions | 57 KSI | KSI Rate: 9% 667
Injury Collisions
57 KSI Collisions
9%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 57 KSI collisions — 8.5% severity rate, near the citywide 9% average
2 589 of 667 collisions (88%) at intersections — consistent with the citywide pattern
3 70 pedestrian and 52 bicycle collisions — elevated VRU exposure near school zones
88%at intersections 30%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 243 (36%)
Rear-End — 166 (25%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Unsafe Speed — 155 (23%)
Signal Violations — 105 (16%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 24

Profile 4 — Reduce Nighttime Collisions | 544 Injury Collisions | 71 KSI | KSI Rate: 13% 544
Injury Collisions
71 KSI Collisions
13%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 71 KSI collisions — 13% severity rate, significantly
above the citywide 9% average
2 DUI is a major contributing factor — 107 of 544 collisions (20%) are DUI-related
3 Pedestrians are disproportionately impacted — 60
pedestrian collisions recorded
84%at intersections 20%DUI-related

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 179 (33%)
Rear-End — 136 (25%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Unsafe Speed — 122 (22%)
DUI — 107 (20%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 25

Profile 5 — Reduce Rear-End Collisions | 450 Injury Collisions | 16 KSI | KSI Rate: 4% 450
Injury Collisions
16 KSI Collisions
4%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 16 KSI collisions — 4% severity rate, among the lowest of all profiles
2 373 of 450 collisions (83%) at intersections — signal timing and following distance are key
3 135 collisions (30%) occurred at night — nighttime rear- end risk is elevated
83%at intersections 30%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 354 (79%)
Rear-End — 60 (13%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Unsafe Speed — 152 (34%)
Following Too Closely — 98 (22%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 26

Profile 6 — Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions | 418 Injury Collisions | 23 KSI | KSI Rate: 6% 418
Injury Collisions
23 KSI Collisions
6%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 23 KSI collisions — 6% severity rate, below the citywide 9% average
2 338 of 418 collisions (81%) at intersections — speed
management at signals is critical
3 121 collisions (29%) at night — lighting and speed
enforcement both apply
81%at intersections 29%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Hit Object — 148 (35%)
Rear-End — 89 (21%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Unsafe Speed — 418 (100%)
Unsafe Lane Change — 42 (10%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 27

Profile 7 — Address Traffic Signs & Signal Violations | 292 Injury Collisions | 23 KSI | KSI Rate: 8% 292
Injury Collisions
23 KSI Collisions
8%
KSI Severity Rate

KEY INSIGHTS
1 23 KSI collisions — 8% severity rate, near the citywide 9% average
2 286 of 292 collisions (98%) at intersections — highest concentration of all profiles
3 70 collisions (24%) at night — signal compliance is
critical across all hours
98%at intersections 24%at night

TOP COLLISION TYPES
Broadside — 204 (70%)
Rear-End — 44 (15%)

TOP VIOLATION CATEGORIES
Auto Right of Way — 292 (100%)
Signal Violations — 58 (20%)
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 28

Profile 1 — Improve Safety at Intersections | 1,518 Injury Collisions | 142 KSI | KSI Rate: 9%

RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES
28Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 Provide Protected Left-Turn Phase
Crash Type: All (Angle, Broadside) CRF: 30% Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ Add protected left-turn phasing where left pockets exist. Removes driver judgment gaps vs. oncoming traffic. High priority at Concord's 87%-intersection KSI cluster.

Improve Signal Timing & Coordination
Crash Type: All CRF: 15% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ
Re-time signals, extend clearance intervals, add all-red extensions. Addresses signal violations (14% of KSI) and reduces angle conflicts at approach speeds.

Near-Miss Video Analytics (AI Platform)
Crash Type: All (Diagnostic Tool) CRF: N/A Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ Deploy AI-based conflict detection at priority intersections using Concord's existing AXIS cameras. Identifies near-miss hotspots pre-crash, supports grant applications with quantitative data.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 60% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Give pedestrians a 3-7 second head start before vehicles receive green. Low-cost timing change with highest CRF of any ped countermeasure. Deployable citywide via software.

High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST)
Crash Type: All (Wet-Road, Failure to Stop) CRF: 55% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ Apply HFST epoxy or polyurethane on stop bars and approach lanes. Reduces skid- related broadside and rear-end events. Strong CRF, 10-year life, federally eligible. 28

Profile 2 — Reduce Broadside Collisions | 687 Injury Collisions | 47 KSI | KSI Rate: 7%

RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES
29Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 Protected Left-Turn Phase (Existing Pocket)
Crash Type: All (Broadside, Angle) CRF: 30% Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ 88% of this profile occurs at intersections. Signal violations and auto ROW are the top violations. Protected phasing directly eliminates the gap-acceptance conflict driving broadside events.

Improve Signal Hardware (Backplates, LEDs)
Crash Type: All CRF: 15% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ
Retroreflective backplates and upgraded LED heads improve signal conspicuity. Very High systemic opportunity. Low cost relative to impact — $800-$2,700 per head for backplate + LED retrofit.

High Visibility Enforcement (HVE)
Crash Type: All CRF: N/A Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ
Deploy targeted enforcement at top broadside intersections. Signal violations = 14% of KSI in this profile. Engineering + enforcement pairing maximizes impact at priority locations.

Install Left-Turn Lane + Protected Phase
Crash Type: All CRF: 55% Cost: $$$$ꞏ
Where no left-turn pocket exists, add channelization plus signal phase. Costs vary $100K-$250K+ with mast arm. Highest CRF of geometric countermeasures for left- turn conflicts.

All-Red Clearance Interval Extension
Crash Type: All (Angle, Red-Light Running) CRF: 15% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Extend all-red phase via controller reprogramming only — no hardware needed.

Especially effective at wide intersections. Controller programming only: $2,000-$5,000 per intersection.
29

Profile 3 — Address Collisions Near Schools | 667 Injury Collisions | 57 KSI | KSI Rate: 9%

RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES
30Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 35% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ Pedestrian-activated irregular flash pattern at unsignalized crossings near schools. 70 ped + 52 bike collisions in this profile. Solar-powered pairs: $25K-$40K. Proven VRU safety impact.

Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 45% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Audible/vibrotactile signals at school crossings improve compliance for all users, not just visually impaired. Retrofit $4,500-$8,500 per location. Very High systemic opportunity.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program
Crash Type: All CRF: N/A Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ
Expand curriculum, walking audits, and Vision Zero training for students, parents, and staff. Addresses unsafe speed (23%) and pedestrian violations near schools. $50K- $120K per school.

Enhanced School Zone Package
Crash Type: All CRF: 30% Cost: $$$ꞏꞏ
Reduced speed zone + flashing beacons + speed feedback signs + high-visibility markings. Full package $120K-$300K per school. 88% of this profile at intersections near school zones.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 60% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Head-start walk phase is the single highest-CRF pedestrian countermeasure available.

Timing-only implementation near school zones: $4K-$18K. Concord has existing hardware to support.
30

Profile 8 — Improve Pedestrian Safety | 190 Injury Collisions | 46 KSI | KSI Rate: 24%

RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES
32Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | CSAP 2026 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 55% Cost: $$$$ꞏ 24% KSI rate — nearly 3x citywide. 95% are vehicle/pedestrian events. HAWK provides active stop compliance for mid-block and uncontrolled crossings. $300K- $500K per location.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 60% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Highest-CRF ped countermeasure. Ped ROW violations = 39% of Profile 8 violations.

LPI directly addresses driver yielding failure by giving pedestrians a visible head start before vehicle green.

Advance Pedestrian Warning System (Activated)
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 30% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ Radar/IR-activated W11-2 warning signs alert far-lane drivers that a pedestrian is actively crossing. Addresses multiple-threat scenarios at multilane crossings. $12K- $55K per approach.

High-Visibility Ladder Crosswalk Markings
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 25% Cost: $ꞏꞏꞏꞏ Continental/ladder striping dramatically increases driver recognition distance at crossings. 86% at intersections. $2,500-$6,000 per crossing. SS4A project standard at all 23 priority locations.

Bulb-Outs / Curb Extensions
Crash Type: Pedestrian & Bicycle CRF: 20% Cost: $$ꞏꞏꞏ Narrow crossing distance, slow turning vehicles, improve ped-driver sightlines.

Concord project cost estimate: $8K-$10K per location (per recent project data). Very High systemic opportunity.
32

Collision Trends Over Time
2021 – 2025 | KSI and Total Collisions by Mode
Concord CSAP | Steering Committee Meeting #2 | April 14, 2026 13 19
37 28
8 7
71 11
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Bicycle Motorcycle Car/Pickup Pedestrian
Collisions by Mode (%)
KSI Injury
Key Observations
Peak year: 2022
383 total collisions and 39 KSI
2025 shows decline
341 total collisions (∑11% from peak)
KSI remains elevated
34 KSI in 2025—same as 2021 despite overall
decline
84% at intersections
1,518 of 1,804 collisions occurred at
intersections
7

S.No. ID Complaint Latitude Longitude Mode Major Street Minor Street Location Type Issue Category 17 7
There are bike lanes on Farm Bureau Road and sharrows and a 25 mph speed limit on the northern portion of E. Olivera Road, but there is no bike provision, and little pedestrian provision, on this busy and fast section of E. Olivera Road.

37.98563573067052 -122.0180648 Bicycle Olivera Rd - Roadway Segment Bike Lane 17 7
There are bike lanes on Farm Bureau Road and sharrows and a 25 mph speed limit on the northern portion of E. Olivera Road, but there is no bike provision, and little pedestrian provision, on this busy and fast section of E. Olivera Road.

37.98563573067052 -122.0180648 Pedestrian Olivera Rd - Roadway Segment Sidewalk 27 6
The two sections of Olive Drive are meant to be connected over the stream for cyclists and pedestrians, but this involves scrambling up and down the stream banks.

37.96368728510119 -121.9701009 Olive Drive - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 3 75 Not safe to cycle on this stretch of the freeway. 38.01158516589001 -122.009426 Bicycle California Delta Hwy - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 4 74 Not safe to cycle over this bridge 38.00307693751492 -121.9997398 Bicycle Willow Pass Rd - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 5 73 Not safe to cycle along Willow Pass Road beneath freeway. 37.966125944317724 -122.0563323 Bicycle Willow Pass Rd - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 6 72 Not safe to cycle along Willow Pass Road beneath freeway 37.97115987 -122.0474274 Bicycle Willow Pass Rd - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 7 71 Not safe to cycle along Clayton Road beneath freeway. 37.978876071055566 -122.0433163 Bicycle Clayton Rd - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 8 70 Not safe to cycle along Grant Street beneath the freeway. 37.988632977568656 -122.0402823 Bicycle Grant Street - Roadway Segment Bicycle Safety 96 9 Lots of cars coming off the freeway and speeding down this road, but there are no sidewalks. 37.98871416056805 -122.0383328 Vehicle Birch Ave - Roadway Segment Speeding 96 9 Lots of cars coming off the freeway and speeding down this road, but there are no sidewalks. 37.98871416056805 -122.0383328 Pedestrian Birch Ave - Roadway Segment Sidewalk 10 68
North bound bike lane just dies on the wrong side of the road, leading cyclists to ride into oncoming traffic. The plans for this intersection were better, but the city did not build what was on the plans.

37.98506744 -122.0382417 Grant St Frederick St - Intersection Bicycle Safety 11 67
Concord will not fix broken street lights unless they are provided with grant money specifically for this purpose. Currently they may not replace broken streetlights until next year. This has been city policy since before last year.

37.98162376710759 -122.0242699 All Grant Street Frederick St Roadway Segment Broken Streetlights 12 65 Speeding cars past Concord High school. 37.97646994558026 -121.9894923 All Concord Blvd - Roadway Segment Speeding 13 64
Treat boulevard from San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary is terrible for pedestrians and bicycles. It could be reduced to 2 lanes of traffic to provide more space for sidewalks and bike lanes, just like the stretch from San Miguel east to Clayton road.

37.944802493085376 -122.0157812 Pedestrian Treat Blvd San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary Roadway Segment Sidewalk 13 64
Treat boulevard from San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary is terrible for pedestrians and bicycles. It could be reduced to 2 lanes of traffic to provide more space for sidewalks and bike lanes, just like the stretch from San Miguel east to Clayton road.

37.944802493085376 -122.0157812 Bicycle Treat Blvd San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary Roadway Segment Bike lane 13 64
Treat boulevard from San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary is terrible for pedestrians and bicycles. It could be reduced to 2 lanes of traffic to provide more space for sidewalks and bike lanes, just like the stretch from San Miguel east to Clayton road.

37.944802493085376 -122.0157812 All Treat Blvd San Miguel to the Walnut Creek boundary Roadway Segment Road Diet

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 1

COMMUNITY SURVEY REPORT
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan — Pub lic Safety Survey Results
March 2026 | 651 Respondents | City Streets | All Modes of Travel

Summary Finding: 74% of survey respondents reported personal experience with a traffic incident on Concord streets — including near-misses, witnessed even ts, or direct collision involvement. Speeding and red light running were the most frequently cited concerns across all respondent groups. 92% of respondents reported modifying their travel behavior in response to their perceptions of street conditions.

1. Survey Overview
This report summarizes 651 responses to the City of Concord's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) community safety survey, collected between March 11 and April 20, 2026. The survey asked residents about their travel habits, safety concerns, collision experiences, school-zone issues, and priority improvements. Responses span all major Concord zip codes and all primary modes of travel.

Table 1.1 — Survey snapshot
Responses Collection Period Top ZIP Code Primary Language 651 Mar 11–Apr 20, 2026 94521 (37%) English (91%)

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 2

Respondent Demographics
The survey skewed toward older residents, with 51% of respondents aged 55 or older. Residents aged 35–54 comprised 36%, and 8% were under 35. This age distribution reflects typical civic engagement patterns and should be noted when interpreting results. Nearly all respondents (94%) travel primarily by personal vehicle, with walking (3%), bicycle (3%), and transit (1%) as secondary modes — consistent with Concord's auto-dependent street network. Respondents reported using their vehicles for local trips (56%), a mix of local and through travel (36%), and through-traffic or commuting (5%).

Table 1.2 — Age distribution of respondents
Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
65 and older 161 31% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30%
55–64 106 20% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%
45–54 94 18% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%
35–44 93 18% ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 16%
25–34 42 8% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 8%
18–24 2 0% ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 0%

2. Safety Concerns
Respondents were asked to identify their primary safety concerns across all modes. Speeding and red light running dominate every concern category — for drivers, for pedestrians, and for cyclists. These two behaviors appear consistently across the survey and represent the clearest consensus among respondents.

Table 2.1 — Overall safety concerns (multi-select, n=523) Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Speeding 346 66% ██████████████░░░░░░ 68%
Red light running 316 60% ████████████░░░░░░░░ 59%
Distracted driving 204 39% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 32%
Illegal e-bike operation 123 24% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 23% Left turn conflicts 60 11% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 11%
Tailgating 72 14% ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 14%
Visibility/lighting 59 11% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 11%

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 3 Driver Concerns
Among driver-specific concerns, speeding (59%) and red light running (52%) were most frequently cited, followed by distracted driving (23%) and road condition concerns (20%). Respondents consistently cited arterial streets as the most challenging environments. Unprotected left turns on Concord Boulevard, Treat Boulevard, Clayton Road, and Ygnacio Valley Road were mentioned repeatedly in open-ended responses, with many calling for protected left-turn phases at major intersections.

Table 2.2 — Driver-specific concerns
Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Speeding 371 60% ████████████░░░░░░░░ 59%
Red light running 324 53% ███████████░░░░░░░░░ 53%
Distracted driving 144 23% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 23%
Road condition 115 19% ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 18%
Visibility 48 8% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 8%
Unprotected left turns 30 5% █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 5%

Pedestrian Concerns
Among pedestrian concerns, failure to yield at crosswalks (37%) and turning vehicle conflicts (32%) rank highest.

Missing sidewalks (19%) and missing crossings (13%) indicate clear infrastructure gaps. Respondents with disabilities more frequently cited missing sidewalks and inadequate crossings, reflecting a higher rate of sidewalk gap citations among this group. Poor lighting was noted by 10% of all respondents, particularly on Monument Boulevard and Meadow Lane.

Table 2.3 — Pedestrian concerns
Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Failure to yield at crosswalk 230 37% ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 37% Turning vehicle conflicts 201 32% ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 35% Missing sidewalks 112 18% ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 18%
Missing crossings 80 13% ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 13%
Poor lighting 62 10% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 10%
Faded crosswalk markings 42 7% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 11%

Bicycle Concerns

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 4 Bicycle concerns center on behavior and infrastructure in roughly equal measure. Cyclists not following traffic rules ranked first (26%), followed by no bike lanes (18%), poor road conditions (15%), and no safe routes (12%). A notable theme in open-ended responses was the prevalence of e-bikes operated at high speed on sidewalks — particularly near schools — with many respondents noting the need for cons istent enforcement of electric bike regulations. Several respondents also noted that existing bike lanes abruptly end without connecting to destinations, reducing their functional utility.

Table 2.4 — Bicycle concerns
Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Cyclists not following rules 161 26% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26% No bike lanes 105 15% ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 18%
Poor road conditions 93 18% ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 19%
No safe routes 72 12% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 12%
Riding too close to traffic 61 10% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 10% Right-of-way conflicts 59 10% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 10%

3. Personal Collision Experience
74% of respondents reported personal experience with a traffic incident on Concord streets, including near-misses, witnessed events, or direct collision involvement.

Table 3.1 — Collision experience (single-select, n=523) Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Near-miss personally experienced 187 30% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30% Witnessed a collision 184 30% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30% Directly involved in a collision 68 11% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 11% No collision experience 160 26% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%

The combined 74% who reported any traffic incident experience represents the majority of survey respondents.

Near-misses were the most commonly reported experience (30%), cited by 193 respondents. Direct collision involvement was reported by 11% of respondents (72 respondents). Witnessed collisions were reported by 30% (196 respondents).

4. Locations Identified by Residents

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 5 Open-ended responses identified specific locations cited with elevated frequency across all mode categories. The following corridors and intersections were most often mentioned. These align with High Injury Network corridors identified in the CSAP collision data analysis.

Table 4.1 — Most frequently cited locations (open-text responses) Location Mentions Primary Concern Cited
Clayton Road (all segments) 20+ Speeding, red light running, school zones Treat Blvd / Oak Grove intersection 12+ Speeding, signal timing, cut-through traffic Willow Pass Road (full length) 10+ Speeding, lane confusion, pedestrian crossings Ygnacio Valley Road 10+ Speeding, red light running, cut-through traffic Concord Boulevard 9+ Lane design, unprotected left turns, bike lanes Monument Boulevard 6+ Speeding, pedestrian safety, sight lines Cowell Road / Treat intersection 5+ Unprotected left turns, red light running Clayton Rd & Treat Blvd intersection 5+ Starbucks traffic backup, lane weaving Galindo St & Clayton Road 4+ Speeding, visibility, pedestrian conflicts Port Chicago Hwy / Willow Pass 3+ Speed, signal sequencing, freight traffic

5. Time-of-Day Safety Patterns
Respondents most frequently identified the afternoon (63%) and morning (58%) as elevated-concern periods for drivers — consistent with the AM and PM commute peaks identified in the CSAP collision data. School hours were identified as an elevated-concern period by 34% of respondents, consistent with the school-zone findings in Section 6. Evening hours were cited by 21% of pedestrian respondents.

Table 5.1 — Worst time of day by mode (multi-select)
Time Period Drivers Pedestrians Cyclists
Morning (6–9 AM) 378 (58%) 191 (29%) 129 (20%)
Afternoon (3–6 PM) 405 (62%) 218 (33%) 169 (26%)
School hours 226 (35%) 182 (28%) 109 (17%)
Midday (10 AM–2 PM) 152 (23%) 133 (20%) 87 (13%)
Evening (6–10 PM) 176 (27%) 119 (18%) 89 (14%)

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 6 Weekends 141 (22%) 101 (16%) 86 (13%)
Late Night (10 PM+) 93 (14%) 59 (9%) 46 (7%)

6. School Zone Safety
School-zone safety was one of the most frequently cited themes in the survey. 71% of respondents expressed some level of concern, with 35% describing themselves as very concerned. Traffic backup (38%), speeding near schools (40%), and double-parking (30%) were the most frequently cited driver-related issues. Among pedestrian concerns, drivers failing to yield (33% of respondents) and child pedestrian habits (21%) were most commonly cited. No dedicated bike route to school was noted by 19% of respondents.

Table 6.1 — School safety concern level (n=179 respondents with school-age context) Level Count % Distribution
Very concerned 212 35% ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 35%
Somewhat concerned 227 37% ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 37%
Not concerned 91 16% ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 19%

Table 6.2 — School zone issues by mode (multi-select)
Issue Count % of Respondents

DRIVER ISSUES
Traffic backup at drop-off/pick-up 237 36%
Speeding near schools 254 41%
Double-parking blocking sight lines 185 29%
Poor sight lines 72 12%

PEDESTRIAN ISSUES
Drivers failing to yield to children 200 30%
Unsafe child pedestrian habits 117 26%
Missing or inadequate sidewalks 190 12%

BICYCLE ISSUES
Speeding near school bike routes 131 18%
No bike route to school 112 19%

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 7 Conflict between bikes and cars 94 15%

7. Priority Focus Areas and Requested Improvements
Respondents were asked to identify geographic focus areas and specific improvement types. Crash-prone intersections (54%) and commercial corridors (36%) were the most frequently selected geographic focus areas. Residential streets (34%) and schools/parks (31%) followed closely. Police enforcement, pedestrian signals, and high-visibility crosswalks were the most commonly requested improvement types.

Table 7.1 — Geographic focus areas (multi-select, n=523) Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Crash-prone intersections 334 54% ███████████░░░░░░░░░ 54% Commercial corridors 221 36% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30%
Residential streets 209 32% ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░ 39%
Schools and parks 195 34% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30%
Poor lighting areas 58 9% ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 9%
Transit corridors 29 5% █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 5%

Table 7.2 — Improvements requested (multi-select, n=523) Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Increased police enforcement 323 52% ██████████░░░░░░░░░░ 52% Pedestrian signal improvements 236 38% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 32% High-visibility crosswalks 210 34% ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 35% Speed feedback signs 162 26% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%
Bike lane additions 132 22% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%
Street lighting improvements 127 21% █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 26%

8. Travel Behavior Changes Due to Safety Concerns
92% of respondents reported modifying their travel behavior due to traffic safety concerns. Reported changes include avoiding certain streets (32%), increasing personal caution while traveling (30%), or avoiding certain travel times (26%).

Table 8.1 — Travel behavior changes due to safety (multi-select, n=523)

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 8 Response Count % Distribution (n=651)
Avoid certain streets 195 32% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30% Avoid certain times 162 30% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30%
Drive/walk more cautiously 185 30% ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 30% No change in behavior 24 4% █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 4%
Changed travel mode 27 4% █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 4%

Open-text explanations provided context for the structured responses; however, travel behavior change is a self-reported measure and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Frequently cited streets include Ygnacio Valley Road, Clayton Road, and Treat Boulevard.

9. Key Takeaways and Recommended Actions
Summary of findings from 523 community survey responses

01 Enforcement Is the Top Requested Intervention
Increased police enforcement was the most frequently requested improvement type, cited by 52% of respondents — the highest of any single improvement option. Community responses indicate support for increased enforcement activity on frequently cited corridors, including Clayton Road, Treat Boulevard, and Ygnacio Valley Road.

02 Speeding and Red Light Running Require a Dual-Track Response Speeding (68%) and red light running (59%) were the two most frequently cited safety concerns across all respondent groups, appearing consistently across mode categories and open-text responses. Signal coordination along Ygnacio Valley Road and Clayton Road was referenced in multiple open-text responses.

03 School Zone Safety Requires Targeted Infrastructure Investment 71% of respondents expressed some level of concern about school-zone safety. Traffic backup, double- parking, and absence of designated bike routes near schools were the most frequently identified issues.

Schools named most frequently in open responses include Ayers Elementary (Ygnacio Valley / Clayton corridor), Monte Gardens, Glenbrook, and CVCHS. Drop-off zone redesigns, parking enforcement during school hours, and protected pedestrian crossings at school approaches are near-term investments supported by the data.

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 9 04 Infrastructure Gaps Disproportionately Affect Vulnerable Residents Missing sidewalks (19% of respondents) and missing crossings (13%) were cited across residential areas and locations near schools. Respondents who identified a disability or mobility limitation cited missing sidewalks at a higher rate than those who did not. Survey data reflects support for completing sidewalk and crosswalk connections on residential streets, including corridors such as Monument Boulevard, Meadow Lane, and Sunshine Drive.

05 E-Bike Concerns Identified by Respondents
23% of respondents cited illegal or unsafe e-bike operation as a safety concern. Open-text responses referenced e-bikes operating on sidewalks, near schools, and on park trails. Respondents noted the need for enforcement of e-bike regulations and physical separation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

06 Route Avoidance and Time-Shifting Reported by Respondents 92% of respondents reported modifying their travel behavior due to traffic safety concerns. 32% reported avoiding specific streets, 30% reported traveling more cautiously, and 26% reported avoiding certain travel times.

Data Sources & Methodology
Survey data collected via the City of Concord CSAP public engagement platform, March 11–April 20, 2026. Total valid responses: 651. Survey used multi-select, single-select, and open-text question formats. Percentages for multi-select questions exceed 100% as respondents could select multiple options. Open-text responses were reviewed thematically; locations cited fewer than three times were noted but not individually tabulated. Analysis and report prepared by the Transportation Division, Public Works Department, City of Concord.

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 10 SECTION 2
Cross-Question Analysis & Deep Survey Insights
Question-by-Question Cross-References | Response Patterns | Actionable Findings

The following analysis cross-references responses across survey questions to identify patterns that individual question results alone cannot reveal. Each finding connects two or more questions — for example, who reports the most danger, what they want done about it, and how they have already changed their behavior. These cross-references help distinguish perceptions from lived experience and surface the strongest signals for investment prioritization.

XR-1 Collision Experience (Q7) × Safety Concerns (Q6)
Q7 asked whether respondents had been directly involved in a collision, witnessed one, experienced a near-miss, or had no experience. Q6 asked about their top safety concerns. Comparing these reveals whether lived experience intensifies specific concern types.

Table XR-1.1 — Top safety concerns by collision experience level Collision Experience (Q7) n #1 Concern #2 Concern #3 Concern % Citing Speeding Directly involved 68 Speeding (68%) Red lights (59%) Distracted (54%) ██████████████░░░░░░ 69%
Near-miss (personal) 187 Speeding (68%) Red lights (73%) Distracted (42%) ██████████████░░░░░░ 68%
Witnessed collision 184 Speeding (67%) Red lights (72%) Distracted (34%) ██████████████░░░░░░ 71%
No experience 160 Speeding (62%) Red lights (47%) Distracted (39%) ████████████░░░░░░░░ 62%

Survey Insight: Collision exposure amplifies distracted driving concern most sharply.

Respondents directly involved in a collision cited distracted driving at 54% vs 39% among those with no experience — a 15-point gap. Speeding and red light running are unive rsally high across all groups, suggesting these are not just concerns among those harmed — they are objective, observable conditions. The elevated distracted driving citation among those involved in actual collisions is a strong signal that phone enforcement should be a component of any enforcement strategy.

XR-2 Trip Purpose (Q5) × Safety Concerns (Q6) & School Issues (Q12) Q5 asked how respondents describe most of their Concord trips: local, through, mixed, commute, school, or leisure.

Comparing trip purpose against safety concerns and school-zone issues shows whether different traveler types identify different problems.

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 11 Table XR-2.1 — Safety concerns by primary trip purpose Trip Purpose (Q5) n Top Concern 2nd Concern Notable Difference Local trips 292 Speeding (68%) Red lights (62%) Distracted driving 38% — highest rate among local-trip respondents
Mixed trips 189 Speeding (65%) Red lights (58%) E-bike illegal operation cited by 25% among mixed-trip respondents
Through traffic 21 Red lights (62%) Speeding (73%) Equal top concerns — consistent with arterial use
School trips 4 Red lights (86%) E-bike illegal (43%) No speeding in top 3 — unique school- zone profile

Survey Insight: School-trip respondents flag e-bikes and signal violations — not speed — as their primary concern.

The four respondents making primarily school-related trips cited red lights at 100% and illegal e-bike operation at 75%. This diverges sharply from all other trip-purpose groups where speeding dominates. The finding suggests that the experience of navigating school zones on foot or by bike reorients concern away from vehicle speed (which is lower in school zones) toward signal compliance and e-bike conflicts at crossing points. School-zone signal engineering and e-bike enforcement should be treated as distinct from general speed management.

XR-3 Age Group (Q17) × Safety Concerns (Q6) & Travel Changes (Q15) Q17 captured respondent age. Cross-referencing with Q6 (safety concerns) and Q15 (travel behavior changes) reveals whether different generations experience or respond to Concord's safety conditions differently.

Table XR-3.1 — Safety concerns and behavior change by age group Age
Group
(Q17)
n
Top
Concern
(Q6)
2nd
Concern
Primary
Behavior
Change (Q15)
Avoids Streets Avoids Times
25–34 50 Speeding
(62%)
Red lights
(50%)
Avoid streets
(29%) or times
(24%)
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
32%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
19%
35–44 110 Red lights
(58%)
Speeding
(63%)
Avoid streets
(38%)
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
32%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
18%
45–54 113 Speeding
(67%)
Red lights
(66%)
Avoid streets
(46%)
█████████░░░░░░░░░░░
46%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
19%
55–64 129 Speeding
(68%)
Red lights
(63%)
Avoid streets
(29%) or times
(30%)
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
30%
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
30%

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 12 65+ 184 Speeding
(72%)
Red lights
(62%)
Avoid times
(37%)
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
23%
███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░
37%

Survey Insight: Older adults adapt by changing when they travel; working-age adults adapt by changing where.

Respondents aged 65+ showed the highest rate of avoiding travel at certain times (37%), while those aged 35–54 showed the highest rate of avoiding specific streets (38–46%). This split reflects different trip flexibility: working- age residents with fixed school and work schedules cannot easily avoid peak hours, so they reroute. Older residents with more schedule flexibility avoid peak times instead. Both represent significant quality-of-life costs.

Interventions addressing arterial safety conditions during peak hours are consistent with the travel patterns of both groups.

XR-4 Safety Concerns (Q6) → Requested Improvements (Q13): Do They Align? Q6 asked what safety concerns residents hold. Q13 asked which improvements they believe would help most. Cross- referencing tests whether the improvements respondents select are logically matched to the concerns they identified — or whether there are disconnects that warrant attention.

Table XR-4.1 — Improvement preferences among respondents citing each concern Safety Concern (Q6) n Top Improvement Chosen 2nd Improvement Alignment Assessment Speeding 346 Enforcement (60%) Ped signals (40%) Strong alignment — enforcement cited first,
physical measures second
Red lights 316 Enforcement (62%) Ped signals (43%) Strong alignment — enforcement prioritized
Distracted driving 204 Enforcement (54%) Ped signals (41%) Aligned — no engineering fix for phones, enforcement
primary
Illegal e-bikes 123 Enforcement (53%) Ped signals (45%) Partial — bike lanes may not deter illegal e-bike use
Left turns 60 Enforcement (45%) Ped signals (42%) Strong — protected signal phases directly address left
turns
Visibility 59 Ped signals (44%) Enforcement (44%) Strong — physical visibility improvements chosen

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 13 Survey Insight: Enforcement dominates improvement requests across all concern types — but engineering solutions rank second everywhere.

Respondents who flag speeding cite enforcement first (60%) and pedestrian signals second (40%), indicating they understand that engineering and enforcement work together. The notable exception is the left-turn concern group, which chose enforcement first (45%) and pedestrian signals second (42%) — correctly identifying protected-phase signals as the primary countermeasure. The e-bike concern group's second choice (pedestrian signals, 45%) may reflect a desire for physical separation from e-bike traffic rather than a belief that lanes alone reduce illegal riding.

Survey responses consistently indicate support for both enforcement and infrastructure improvements together.

XR-5 School Concern Level (Q11) × School Issues (Q12) × Travel Change (Q15) Q11 asked how concerned respondents are about school-area safety. Q12 asked what specific school-zone issues they observe. Q15 asked if concerns have changed their travel behavior. This three-way cross-reference identifies the most activated respondents — those who are very concerned, identify specific issues, and have already changed their behavior.

Table XR-5.1 — School concern level vs . top driver and pedestrian issues cited School Concern
(Q11) n Top Driver Issue
(Q12)
Top Ped Issue
(Q12)
% Who Avoid Streets
(Q15) % Avoid Times (Q15)
Very concerned 553 Speeding (66%) Yield failure
(53%)
█████████░░░░░░░░░░░
43%
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
23%
Somewhat
concerned
227 Traffic backup
(52%)
Yield failure
(33%)
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
29%
███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░
41%
Not concerned 91 — — █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
23%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
20%

Survey Insight: Very concerned school-zone respondents identify speeding as the primary driver issue — somewhat concerned respondents name traffic backup.

This is a meaningful split. "Very concerned" respondents focus on speeding (68%) as the core school-zone driver problem, while "somewhat concerned" respondents focus on traffic backup (53%). These reflect two different experience profiles: families who identify vehicle speed as the primary concern, and families who experience school-zone congestion as the primary problem. The former calls for speed calming; the latter calls for drop-off zone redesign. Both are valid, and both patterns are reflected in the data. Survey findings suggest that school-zone interventions addressing both speed and traffic management may serve the range of concerns identified.

XR-6 Disability Status (Q4) × Pedestrian Concerns (Q9) & Improvements (Q13) Q4 asked whether respondents have a disability or mobility limitation affecting travel. Q9 asked about pedestrian safety concerns. Q13 asked about improvements. This cross-reference identifies whether residents with disabilities identify distinct needs that general infrastructure planning may not address.

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 14 Table XR-6.1 — Pedestrian concerns and improvement requests by disability status Disability Status (Q4) n Top Ped Concern
(Q9) 2nd Ped Concern Top Improvement
(Q13)
2nd
Improvement
Has disability/mobility
limitation
64 Yield failure (27%) Turning conflicts
(27%)
Enforcement (53%) Hi-vis
crosswalks
(40%)
No disability 524 Yield failure (38%) Turning conflicts (34%)
Enforcement (52%) Ped signals
(40%)

Survey Insight: Respondents with disabilities prioritize pedestrian signal upgrades at nearly 1.5× the rate of those without.

Among respondents with disabilities, 40% cited high-visibility crosswalks as a top improvement request vs 40% among those without. Enforcement was cited by 53% of disability respondents vs 52% of non-disability respondents. Missing sidewalks ranked as the 2nd concern (19%) for disability respondents — significantly higher proportionally than for the general population. Accessible pedestrian signals (APS), curb ramp upgrades, and sidewalk gap closures in high-demand areas directly serve this group and are also consistent with ADA compliance requirements. These investments address both ADA compliance requirements and the specific needs identified by this respondent group.

XR-7 Time-of-Day Alignment Across Modes (Q10)
Q10 asked respondents to identify the worst time of day for traffic safety issues separately for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Comparing the three modes reveals when all three user groups perceive danger simultaneously — these are the highest-priority intervention windows.

Table XR-7.1 — Worst time of day by mode: aligned danger windows Time
Period Driver Citations Ped Citations Cyclist Citations All-Mode Alignment
Afternoon
(3–6 PM)
█████████████░░░░░░░
63%
███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░
35%
██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
30%
HIGHEST — all
three modes peak
simultaneously
Morning
(6–9 AM)
████████████░░░░░░░░
58%
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
26%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
19%
HIGH — drivers
and peds aligned;
cyclists moderate
School
hours
███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░
37%
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
23%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
19%
MODERATE —
driver/ped
concern, cyclist
lower
Evening (7–
10 PM)
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
23%
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
26%
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
12%
MODERATE —
ped concern
elevated relative to
cyclists

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 15 Weekends █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
26%
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
11%
████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
18%
LOW —
consistent across
modes; not a peak
window
Late night
(10 PM+)
███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
14%
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
9%
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
8%
LOW — lower
volume but high
KSI rate in data

Survey Insight: Afternoon and morning commute windows are the periods when all three mode groups simultaneously report elevated safety concerns.

The afternoon window (3–6 PM) is the period when the highest proportion of respondents across all three modes cited elevated safety concerns: 63% of drivers, 33% of pedestrians, and 26% of cyclists. This is consistent with the CSAP collision data, which identifies the PM peak as the period with the highest recorded KSI count. Enforcement, signal optimization, and school-zone management concentrated in the 7–9 AM and 3–6 PM windows address the concerns of the maximum number of users simultaneously. Late-night hours received lower citation rates in this survey; the CSAP collision data show a higher proportional KSI rate during these hours.

XR-8 Travel Behavior Change (Q15) × Focus Area (Q14) × Safety Concerns (Q6) Q15 asked whether safety concerns changed how or when respondents travel. Q14 asked where the City should focus improvements. Q6 captured top safety concerns. This three-way cross-reference reveals what specific concerns are driving behavior change, and whether respondents who have changed behavior select different geographic priorities than those who have not.

Table XR-8.1 — Focus area priorities by travel behavior change type Behavior Change
(Q15) n #1 Focus Area (Q14) #2 Focus Area Top Safety Concern (Q6) Avoid specific streets 166 Crash intersections
(54%)
Commercial corridors
(43%)
Speeding (72%)
Avoid certain times 139 Crash intersections
(48%)
Residential (39%) Speeding (67%)
More cautious / alert 157 Crash intersections
(58%)
Commercial corridors
(49%)
Speeding (69%)
Changed travel mode 17 Schools/parks (47%) Commercial (47%) Speeding (59%) No impact on travel 22 Commercial (67%) Crash intersections (50%)
Speeding cited by 50% even among
those without behavior change

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 16 Survey Insight: Respondents who avoid specific streets most frequently selected crash intersections as the priority focus area and cited speeding as their top concern (72%). "Avoid streets" respondents cite speeding at 73% — 10 point s higher than the overall average of 67%. Their focus on crash intersections (54%) suggests they are routing around specific known locations, not avoiding entire corridors. This precision matters for intervention targeting: these respondents are telling the City exactly where the problems are. Their top focus-area choice (crash intersections) combined with their top improvement request (enforcement) reflects a consistent pattern across this respondent group.

XR-9 Focus Area Priority (Q14) → Improvement Requests (Q13): Geographic Specificity Q14 asked where the City should focus safety investment geographically. Q13 asked which improvement types would help most. This cross-reference tests whether different geographic priorities produce different improvement requests — or whether the same improvements are wanted everywhere.

Table XR-9.1 — Top improvement requests by geographic focus area preference Priority Focus Area
(Q14) n Top Improvement
(Q13) 2nd Improvement 3rd Improvement Unique
Finding
Crash intersections 280 Enforcement (57%) Ped signals (46%) Hi-vis cross (33%) — Commercial corridors 190 Enforcement (62%) Hi-vis cross (40%) Ped signals (43%) — Residential streets 179 Enforcement (54%) Hi-vis cross (41%) Speed signs (37%) ★ Schools & parks 164 Enforcement (54%) Ped signals (42%) Hi-vis cross (41%) — Poor lighting areas 52 Lighting (73%) Enforcement (53%) Hi-vis cross (46%) ★★

★ Residential: "Other" improvements at 36% reflect unique residential issues — speed humps, cut-through traffic barriers, and stop sign enforcement — not captured in the standard options. ★★ Poor lighting: This is the only geographic category where a non-enforcement improvement (lighting, 74%) outranks enforcement as the primary request. Lighting improvements in this group are not just a preference — they are the primary safety need.

Survey Insight: Enforcement is the #1 request in every geographic focus area except poor lighting zones — where it ranks second to lighting.

This consistency strengthens the enforcement signal across the survey: regardless of where residents want the City to focus, they want enforcement first. The single exception — poor lighting areas — is also the most actionable geographic signal in the entire survey. The 74% who identified poor lighting as a concern and lighting improvements as their top request represent a self-selected, geographically specific group. Street lighting upgrades in the identified corridors (Monument Blvd, Meadow Lane, Oak Grove Road, Sunshine Drive) directly address both the safety concern and the improvement preference of this cohort.

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 17 XR-10 Synthesis: The Highest-Signal Cross-Reference Findings The following table distills the nine cross-reference analyses into a prioritized action matrix. Each row links a cross- reference finding to its survey evidence base, recommended action type, and relative priority.

Table XR-10.1 — Cross-reference synthesis and priority action matrix # Finding Evidence (Cross-ref) Recommended Action Mode
Impact Priority
1 Distracted driving concern spikes
among those directly involved in
collisions (+15 pts vs no-
experience group)
XR-1: Q7 × Q6 Phone enforcement +
automated detection at
high-crash intersections
All modes High
2 School-trip respondents cite e-
bikes + signal violations, not
speed — unique school-zone
profile
XR-2: Q5 × Q6/Q12 Dedicated e-bike
enforcement at school
approaches; protected
pedestrian phases at
school crossings
Ped/Bike High
3 Older adults time-shift travel;
working-age adults route-shift —
both are safety-driven adaptations
XR-3: Q17 × Q15 Peak-hour enforcement +
arterial safety
improvements benefit
both groups
simultaneously
All modes High
4 Enforcement leads improvement
requests for ALL concern types
— but physical measures rank 2nd
everywhere
XR-4: Q6 × Q13 Dual-track: enforcement
at violation hot spots +
engineering
countermeasures at crash
intersections
All modes High
5 Very concerned school-zone
respondents flag speeding;
somewhat concerned flag traffic
backup — different problems
XR-5: Q11 × Q12 Two-stream school
response: speed calming
for high-concern
corridors + drop-off
redesign for congestion
Driver/Ped High
6 Disability respondents request
pedestrian signals at 1.5× the rate
of non-disability respondents
XR-6: Q4 × Q9/Q13 APS signals + sidewalk
gap closures on primary
pedestrian routes = high
equity + safety return
Pedestrian High
7 Afternoon window is the only
time all three mode groups
simultaneously identify elevated
danger
XR-7: Q10 cross-mode Concentrate enforcement
+ signal optimization in
7–9 AM and 3–6 PM
windows
All modes High
8 Route-avoiders cite speeding at
73% and target crash intersections
— most precise geographic signal
in survey
XR-8: Q15 × Q14 × Q6 Deploy enforcement at
specific intersections
identified in Q8 open text
+ address by residents
All modes Medium

CITY OF CONCORD
Transportation Division | Public Works Department
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
City of Concord · Transportation Division · Public Works Community Survey Report · Page 18 9 Lighting areas: only category
where lighting (74%) outranks
enforcement as top improvement
request
XR-9: Q14 × Q13 Prioritize LED street
lighting upgrades on
Monument Blvd,
Meadow Lane, Oak
Grove, Sunshine Drive
Ped/Bike Medium

Cross-Reference Analysis Notes
All cross-reference analyses use the 651 survey responses collected March 11–April 20, 2026. Sub-group sample sizes are noted for each table.

Percentage calculations in cross-reference tables use the sub-group n as denominator (e.g., "67% of speeding-concerned respondents chose enforcement" means 67% of the 142 respondents who cited speeding). Multi-select questions allow percentages to sum beyond 100%. Cross- references with sub-groups smaller than n=10 are noted but treated as directional only. Analysis performed by the Transportation Division, Public Works Department, City of Concord.

MAKING OUR

ROADS SAFER
28 Proven Safety Countermeasures that offer significant and measurable impacts to improving safety
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
One
Countermeasure
at a Time

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. REPORT NO.

FHWA-SA-21-071

2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION
NO.

3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Making Our Roads Safer | One Countermeasure at a Time

5. REPORT DATE
October 2021

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE

7. AUTHOR (S)
Matt Albee, Phillip Bobitz

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

DTFH6116D00040-
693JJ320F000262
VHB
940 Main Campus Dr Ste 500
Raleigh, NC 27606

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
Final Report, July 2020 – August
2021

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
HSST

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The Contract Manager for this report was Phillip Bobitz (FHWA Office of Safety). Matt Albee (VHB) was thePrincipal Investigator.

An FHWA Technical Oversight Working Group included: Dick Albin, Usman Ali, Roya Amjadi, RosemarieAnderson, Eduardo Arispe, Tori Brinkly, Joe Cheung, Becky Crowe, Mike Griffith, Ken Kochevar, MichaelMatzke, Tara McLoughlin, Laura Mero, Anyesha Mookherjee, Elliott Moore, Norah Ocel, Tamara Redmon,Jerry Roche, Cate Satterfield, Jeff Shaw, Keith Sinclair, Karen Timpone, Guan Xu, and Abdul Zineddin.

16. ABSTRACT
The Proven Safety Countermeasure Initiative (PSCi) is a collection of 28 countermeasures and strategieseffective in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s highways. Transportationagencies are strongly encouraged to consider widespread implementation of PSCs to accelerate theachievement of local, State, and National safety goals. This booklet provides 1-page handouts for all 28PSCs, broken into the focus areas of speed management, roadway departure, intersections,pedestrians/bicyclists, and crosscutting for countermeasures that apply across categories.

17. KEY WORDS
safety, countermeasures, speed management, roadwaydeparture, intersections, pedestrian, bicyclist

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No restrictions.

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF
THIS REPORT ) Unclassified

20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF
THIS PAGE ) Unclassified

21. NO. OF
PAGES 33

22. PRICE
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized.

SPEED MANAGEMENT
Speed Safety
Cameras
Variable Speed Limits
Appropriate Speed
Limits for All Road Users

ROADWAY DEPARTURE
Wider Edge Lines
Enhanced Delineation
for Horizontal Curves
Longitudinal Rumble
Strips and Stripes on
Two-Lane Roads
SafetyEdgeSM
Roadside Design
Improvements at
Curves
Median Barriers

INTERSECTIONS
Backplates with
Retroreflective
Borders
Corridor Access
Management
Dedicated Left- and
Right-Turn Lanes at
Intersections
Reduced Left-Turn
Conflict Intersections
Roundabouts
Systemic Application
of Multiple Low-Cost
Countermeasures at
Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Yellow Change
Intervals

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES
Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
Bicycle Lanes
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
(RRFB)
Leading Pedestrian
Interval
Medians and Pedestrian
Refuge Islands in Urban
and Suburban Areas
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons
Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)
Walkways
Crosscutting
Pavement Friction
Management
Lighting
Local Road Safety Plans
Road Safety Audit

NEW NEW
NEW

NEW NEW NEW

NEW NEW
NEW

Introduction
Widespread use of the 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures (PSCs) identified in this booklet can offer significant, measurable impacts as part of any agency’s approach to improving safety.

These strategies are designed for all road users and all kinds of roads—from rural to urban, from high-volume freeways to less traveled two-lane State and county roads, from signalized crossings to horizontal curves, and everything in between. Each countermeasure addresses at least one safety focus area – speed management, intersections, roadway departures, or pedestrians/bicyclists – while others are crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety focus areas.

Between 2016 and 2019, 85 percent1 of all public highway fatalities occurred on Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent2 of the entire public highway network. FHWA’s partner agencies have invested in highway safety through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which provides targeted safety funding that is eligible for use on all public roads.

However, this dedicated funding source represents only about 6 percent of the total Federal- aid program.3 Every transportation project, whether or not the specific project purpose is safety related, is a new opportunity to save lives on our roadways. The FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures are eligible under most Federal-aid highway funding programs, and can support state, local, and tribal agency efforts to effectively accomplish goals to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. These countermeasures should serve as the basis for what agencies consider and implement when designing any highway project to improve safety.

To assist practitioners with determining the most appropriate PSC for their location of interest, the PSC webpage includes a filter tool that allows users to obtain a tailored listing of potential PSCs. Users answer questions regarding area types, functional classification, traffic volumes, issue identified, targeted crash types, and other information to receive a list of PSCs meeting thecriteria. This search function is intended to better serve practitioners, including those with limited safety background, when identifying and considering treatments and strategies that can improve safety as part of their program or project.

Transportation agencies are strongly encouraged to consider widespread implementation of PSCs to accelerate the achievement of local, State, and National safety goals. Reaching our goal of zero deaths and serious injuries requires all of us to take ownership in safety. Together, we can consider the safety needs at every stage of the project development process, the safety impact of every investment decision, and the appropriate safety countermeasures for every Federal-aid project.
1 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2016-2018 Final and 2019 Annual Report File (ARF) 2 FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/hm16.cfm) 3 Federal-aid apportioned programs under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/funding.cfm)

Speed
Safety Cameras
Safe Speeds is a core principle of the Safe System Approach since humans are less likely to survive high-speed crashes. Enforcing safe speeds has been challenging; however, with more information and tools communities can make progress in reducing speeds. Agencies can use speed safety cameras (SSCs) as an effective and reliable technology to supplement more traditional methods of enforcement, engineering measures, and education to alter the social norms of speeding. SSCs use speed measurement devices to detect speeding and capture photographic or video evidence of vehicles that are violating a set speed threshold.

Applications
Agencies should conduct a network
analysis of speeding-related crashes
to identify locations to implement
SSCs. The analysis can include scope
(e.g., widespread, localized), location
types (e.g., urban/suburban/rural,
work zones, residential, school zones),
roadway types (e.g., expressways,
arterials, local streets), times of day, and
road users most affected by speed-
related crashes (e.g., pedestrians,
bicyclists).

SSCs can be deployed as:
• Fixed units
—a single, stationary
camera targeting one location.
• Point-to-Point (P2P) units—multiple
cameras to capture average speed
over a certain distance.
• Mobile units—a portable camera,
generally in a vehicle or trailer.

The table below describes suitable
circumstances for SSC deployment.1
Considerations
• SSCs can produce a crash reduction
upstream and downstream, thus
generating a spillover effect.2
• Public trust is essential for any type of
enforcement. With proper controls in
place, SSCs can offer fair and
equitable enforcement of speeding,
regardless of driver age, race, gender,
or socio-economic status. SSCs should
be planned with community input and
equity impacts in mind.
• Using both overt (i.e., highly visible)
and covert (i.e., hidden) enforcement
may encourage drivers to comply with
limits everywhere, not only at sites they
are aware are enforced.
• Agencies should conduct
evaluations regularly to determine if
SSCs are accomplishing safety goals
and whether changes in strategy,
scheduling, communications, or public
engagement are necessary.
• Agencies should conduct a legal
and policy review to determine if SSCs
are authorized within a jurisdiction and
how the authorization and other traffic
laws will affect a SSC program.
• Agencies should develop an SSC
program plan with consideration of
the USDOT SSC guidelines for planning,
public involvement, stakeholder
coordination, implementation,
maintenance, evaluation, etc.3
FHWA-SA-21-070
Fixed units can reduce
crashes on urban
principal arterials up to:
for all
crashes.454%
for injury
crashes.448%
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven
Safety Countermeasures,
please reference the:

Speed Safety Camera Program
Planning and Operations Guide.

Safety Benefits:

Considerations for Selection Fixed P2P Mobile
Problems are long-term and site-specific. X X —
Problems are network-wide, and shift based on enforcement efforts. — — X Speeds at enforcement site vary largely from downstream sites. — X X Overt enforcement is legally required. X X X
Sight distance for the enforcement unit is limited. X X — Enforcement sites are multilane facilities. X X —
1 Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide. FHWA, (2023). 2 (CMF ID: 7718) Montella et al. “Effects on speed and safety of point-to-point speed enforcement systems”.

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 75, (2015). Note that this is an international study. 3 Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines. NHTSA, (2008). 4 (CMF ID: 2915,2921) Shin et al. “Evaluation of the Scottsdale Loop 101 automated speed enforcement demonstration program.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, (2009). 5 (CMF ID:
7582
) Li et al. “A Before-and-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Automated Mobile Speed Enforcement on Urban Arterial Roads.” Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 15-1563, Washington, D.C., (2015).

Note that this is an international study.
6 Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report 2014-2017. New York City DOT, (2018).

In New York City, fixed units
reduced speeding in school
zones up to 63% during
school hours.6
P2P units can reduce crashes on
urban expressways, freeways,
and principal arterials up to:
for fatal and injury crashes.2
37%
Mobile units can reduce
crashes on urban principal
arterials up to:
for fatal and injury crashes.5
20%
The contents of this Fact Sheet do not have the
force and effect of law and are not meant to
bind the public in any way. This Fact Sheet is
intended only to provide clarity regarding existing
requirements under the law or agency policies.

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures

Variable Speed
Limits
Selecting appropriate speed limits on roadways is important in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network. Speed limits are established with an engineering study based on inputs like traffic volumes, operating speeds, roadway characteristics, and crash history. However, conditions on the roadway are susceptible to change in a short amount of time (e.g., congestion, crashes, weather). Drivers typically determine their operating speeds under normal weather conditions on a straight roadway section with good pavement quality and adequate sight distances. If ideal conditions do not exist and the roadway does not meet the driver’s expectations, there is a greater chance that a driver error could result in a crash. Providing variable speeds limits (VSLs) capable of adapting to changing circumstances could reduce crash frequency and severity.

Speed management strategies, including VSLs, are integral to the Safe Speeds element of the Safe System Approach. Because humans are unlikely to survive high-speed crashes, VSLs reduce speeds so that human injury tolerances are accommodated in three ways: improving visibility, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and reducing impact forces.

Applications
VSLs use prevailing information on the
roadway, like traffic speed, volumes,
weather, and road surface conditions,
to determine appropriate speeds
and display them to drivers. This
strategy improves safety performance
and traffic flow by reducing speed
variance (i.e., improving speed
harmonization). VSLs may also improve
driver expectation by providing
information in advance of slowdowns
and potential lane closures, which
could reduce the probability for
secondary crashes. VSLs can mitigate
adverse weather conditions or to slow
faster-moving traffic as it approaches
a queue or bottleneck.

Agencies can implement VSLs for
the following applications:

CONGESTION INCIDENTS

WORK ZONES INCLEMENT WEATHER
Considerations
• Particularly effective on urban and
rural freeways and high-speed arterials
with posted speed limits greater than
40 mph.
• Often implemented as part of Active
Traffic Management (A TM) plans
or incorporated into existing Road
Weather Information Systems.
• When used with ATM, VSLs can
mitigate rear-end, sideswipe,
and other crashes on high-speed
roadways.
• May be implemented as a regulatory
and/or an advisory system.
• Can be applied to an entire
roadway segment or individual lanes.

Source: WSDOT
1 (CMF ID: 11002,11005,11003 ) Avelar et al. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Variable Speed Limit. FHWA, (2020).FHWA-SA-21-054

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
Safety Benefits:

VSLs can reduce crashes
on freeways up to:
34%
for total crashes.1
65%
for rear-end crashes.1
51%
for fatal and injury crashes.1
Benefit/Cost Ratios
range between1
9:1- 40:1
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://
highways.dot.gov/safety/
speed-management/refer-
ence-materials.

Appropriate Speed
Limits for All Road Users
There is broad consensus among global roadway safety experts that speed control is one of the most important methods for reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

Speed is an especially important factor on non-limited access roadways where vehicles and vulnerable road users mix.

A driver may not see or be aware of the conditions within a corridor, and may drive at a speed that feels reasonable for themselves but may not be for all users of the system, especially vulnerable road users, including children and seniors. A driver traveling at 30 miles per hour who hits a pedestrian has a 45 percent chance of killing or seriously injuring them.1 At 20 miles per hour, that percentage drops to 5 percent.1 A number of cities across the United States, including New York, Washington, Seattle and Minneapolis, have reduced their local speed limits in recent years in an effort to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, with most having to secure State legislative authorization to do so.

States and local jurisdictions should set appropriate speed limits to reduce the significant risks drivers impose on others—especially vulnerable road users—and on themselves. Addressing speed is fundamental to the Safe System Approach to making streets safer, and a growing body of research shows that speed limit changes alone can lead to measurable declines in speeds and crashes.2 Applications
Posted speed limits are often the same
as the legislative statutory speed limit.

Agencies with designated authorities to
set speed limits, which include States,
and sometimes local jurisdictions, can
establish non-statutory speed limits or
designate reduced speed zones, and
a growing number are doing so. While
non-statutory speed limits must be based
on an engineering study, conducted in
accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) involving
multiple factors and engineering
judgment, FHWA is also encouraging
agencies to use the following:3
• Expert Systems tools.
o USLIMITS2.
o NCHRP 966: Posted Speed Limit
Setting Procedure and Tool.
• Safe System approach.

Based on international experience
and implementation in the United
States, the use of 20 mph speed zones
or speed limits in urban core areas
where vulnerable users share the road
environment with motorists may result in
further safety benefits.4
Considerations
When setting a speed limit, agencies
should consider a range of factors such
as pedestrian and bicyclist activity, crash
history, land use context, intersection
spacing, driveway density, roadway
geometry, roadside conditions, roadway
functional classification, traffic volume,
and observed speeds.

To achieve desired speeds, agencies
often implement other speed
management strategies concurrently
with setting speed limits, such as self-
enforcing roadways, traffic calming,
and speed safety cameras. Additional
information is in the following FHWA
resources:
• FHWA Speed Management website
.
• Self-Enforcing Roadways:

A Guidance Report.
• Noteworthy Speed
Management Practices.
• Jurisdiction Speed Management
Action Plan Development Package.
• Traffic Calming ePrimer.

FHWA-SA-21-034
1 Reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in urban areas: Child deaths and injuries would be decreased. 2 Lowering the speed limit from 30 to 25 mph in Boston: effects on vehicle speeds. 3 FHWA’s Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report, (2012). 4 Recommendations of the Academic Expert Group for the 3rd Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety.
5 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa20047/sec8.cfm#foot813 6 Safety and Operational Impacts of Setting Speed Limits below Engineering Recommendations.

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
Safety Benefits:

Traffic fatalities in the City
of Seattle decreased
26 percent after the
city implemented
comprehensive, city-wide
speed management
strategies and
countermeasures inspired
by Vision Zero. This included
setting speed limits on
all non-arterial streets at
20 mph and 200 miles of
arterial streets at 25 mph.5
One study found that
on rural roads, when
considering other relevant
factors in the engineering
study along with the speed
distribution, setting a speed
limit no more than 5 mph
below the 85th-percentile
speed may result in fewer
total and fatal plus injury
crashes, and lead to drivers
complying closely with the
posted speed limit.6
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://
highways.dot.gov/safety/
speed-management/
reference-materials. Page 274 of 363
FHWA-SA-21-055
Wider Edge Lines
Roadway departures account for over half of all traffic fatalities in the United States. If drivers cannot clearly identify the edge of the travel lanes and see the road alignment ahead, the risk of roadway departure may be greater.

Wider edge lines enhance the visibility of travel lane boundaries compared to traditional edge lines. Edge lines are considered “wider” when the marking width is increased from the minimum normal line width of 4 inches to the maximum normal line width of 6 inches.1
Applications
Wider edge lines increase drivers’
perception of the edge of the
travel lane and can provide a
safety benefit to all facility types
(e.g., freeways, multilane divided
and undivided highways, two-lane
highways) in both urban and rural
areas.2 Wider edge lines are most
effective in reducing crashes on
rural two-lane highways, especially
for single-vehicle crashes.3 Agencies
should also consider implementing
a systemic approach to wider edge
line installation based roadway
departure crash risk factors. Potential
risk factors for two-lane rural roads
include:
• Pavement and shoulder widths.
• Presence of curves.
• Traffic volumes.
• History of nighttime crashes.

Considerations
• Wider edge lines are relatively
low cost.
• Wider edge lines can be
implemented using existing
equipment during maintenance
procedures like re-striping and
resurfacing, with the only cost
increase being the additional
material.
• Paint may have a lower initial cost,
but more durable materials (e.g.,
thermoplastic) may result in a
lower life cycle cost based on their
longer service life.
• As the number of automated
vehicles increases on roadways,
wider edge lines may provide
better guidance for these
vehicles’ sensors.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute
1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 3A.06. FHWA, (2009). 2 (CMF ID:
4737
) Park et al. “Safety effects of wider edge lines on rural, two-lane highways. ” Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 48, pp.317-325, (2012). 3 Potts et al. Benefit/Cost Evaluation of MoDOT’s Total Striping and Delineation Program: Phase II. Missouri Department of Transportation, (2011). 4 Abdel-Rahim et al. Safety Impacts of Using Wider Pavement Markings on Two-Lane Rural Highways in Idaho. Idaho Transportation Department, (2018).

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
Safety Benefits:

Wider edge lines can
reduce crashes up to:
37%
for non-intersection, fatal
and injury crashes on rural,
two-lane roads.2
22%
for fatal and injury crashes
on rural freeways.3
Benefit Cost Ratio
25:1
for fatal and serious injury
crashes on two-lane rural
roads.4
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://high
ways.dot.gov/safety/other/
visibility/pavement-markings.

Enhanced Delineation
for Horizontal Curves
Enhanced delineation at horizontal curves includes a variety of potential strategies that can be implemented in advance of or within curves, in combination, or individually.

Potential Strategies In Advance of Curve Within Curve
Pavement markings (standard width
or wider)
In-lane curve warning pavement markings
Retroreflective strips on sign posts
Delineators
Chevron signs
Enhanced Conspicuity (larger, fluorescent,
and/or retroreflective signs)
Dynamic curve warning signs
(including speed radar feedback signs)
Sequential dynamic chevrons
Enhanced delineation treatments
can alert drivers to upcoming curves,
the direction and sharpness of the
curve, and appropriate operating
speed.

Agencies can take the following
steps to implement enhanced
delineation strategies:

1. Review signing practices and
policies to ensure they comply
with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
principles of traffic control devices.

Consistent practice for similar
curves sets the appropriate driver
expectancy.

2. Use the
systemic approach
to
identify and treat problem curves.

For example, Minnesota uses risk
factors that include curve radii
between 500 and 1,200 ft, traffic
volumes between 500 and 1,000
vehicles per day, intersection in
the curve, and presence of a
visual trap.1

3. Match the appropriate strategy
to the identified problem(s),
considering the full range of
enhanced delineation treatments.

Once the MUTCD requirements and
recommendations have been met,
an incremental approach is often
beneficial to avoid excessive cost.

FHWA-SA-21-035
Chevron signs with retroreflective strips on sign
posts installed along a curve. Source: FHWA
Safety Benefits:

Chevron Signs
25% reduction in nighttime
crashes.1
16% reduction in
non-intersection fatal and
injury crashes.2
Oversized Chevron Signs
15% reduction in fatal and
injury crashes.3
Sequential Dynamic Chevrons
60% reduction in fatal and
injury crashes.4
In-Lane Curve Warning
Pavement Markings
35 - 38% reduction in
all crashes.5
New Fluorescent Curve Signs
or Upgrade Existing Curve
Signs to Fluorescent Sheeting
18% reduction in non-
intersection, head-on,
run-off-road, and sideswipe
in rural areas.1
1 (CMF ID: 2439,2431,2432) Albin et al. Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety 2016. FHWA-SA-15-084, (2016). 2 (CMF ID: 2438
) Srinivasan et al. Safety Evaluation of Improved Curve Delineation. FHWA-HRT-09-045, (2009). 3 (CMF ID:
8978
) Lyon et al. Safety Evaluation of Two Curve Warning Treatments: In-Lane Curve Warning Pavement Markings and Oversized Chevron Signs. Presented at the 96th TRB Annual Meeting, Paper No. 17-00432, (2017).
4 (CMF ID:
10362
) Hallmark, S. Evaluation of Sequential Dynamic Chevrons on Rural Two-lane Highways. FHWA, (2017).
5 (CMF ID:
10312,9167
) Donnell et al. Reducing Roadway Departure Crashes at Horizontal Curve Sections on Two-lane Rural Highways. FHWA-SA-19-005, (2019).

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://high
ways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/
keep-vehicles-road/horizon
tal-curve-safety. Page 276 of 363
FHWA-SA-21-036
Longitudinal Rumble
Strips and Stripes
Longitudinal rumble strips are milled or raised elements on the pavement intended to alert drivers through vibration and sound that their vehicle has left the travel lane. They can be installed on the shoulder, edge line, or at or near the center line of an undivided roadway.

Rumble stripes are edge line or center line rumble strips where the pavement marking is placed over the rumble strip. This can increase the visibility and durability of the pavement marking during wet, nighttime conditions, and can improve the durability of the marking on roads with snowplowing operations.
1 Himes, S., and McGee, H. Decision Support Guide for the Installation of Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non-Freeways. Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-SA-16-115. (August 2016). 2 Bedsole et al. Did You Hear That? Public Roads Magazine, Volume 80, No. 4. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT-17-002, (2017).
3 NCHRP Synthesis 339: Centerline Rumble Strips – A Synthesis of Highway Practices, (2005 4 (CMF ID: 3358, 3356, 3425, 3648) NCHRP Report 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips, (2009).

With roadway departure crashes
accounting for more than half of
the fatal roadway crashes annually
in the United States, rumble strips
and stripes are designed to address
these crashes by alerting distracted,
drowsy, or otherwise inattentive
drivers who drift from their lane. They
are most effective when deployed
systemically.

Transportation agencies should
consider milled center line rumble
strips (including in passing zone
areas) and milled edge line
or shoulder rumble strips with
bicycle gaps for systemic safety
projects, location-specific corridor
safety improvements, as well as
reconstruction or resurfacing
projects.

Considerations
• Rumble strips are relatively low-
cost, and economic analyses have
indicated benefit/cost ratios that
exceed 100.1
• Where rumble strips cannot be
placed due to noise concerns,
agencies may consider a design
using an oscillating sine wave
pattern (also known as “mumble
strips”) that reduces noise outside
of the vehicle. However, the safety
benefits of this design need more
study.2
• Maintenance concerns:
• Where rumble strips are placed
along a pavement joint, there
are typically no issues with
joint stability if the pavement
structure and joint was already
in good condition.
• Studies have shown no
evidence of issues related to
snow, ice, or rain build-up in the
rumble strip.3
Shoulder rumble strips and center line rumble
stripes are installed on this roadway.

Source: FHWA
Safety Benefits:

Center Line Rumble Strips
reduction in head-on fatal
and injury crashes on
two-lane rural roads.4
44-64%
Shoulder Rumble Strips
reduction in single vehicle,
run-off-road fatal and
injury crashes on two-lane
rural roads.4
13-51%
Example of an edge line rumble stripe.

Source: Missouri DOT

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://
highways.dot.gov/safety/
rwd/keep-vehicles-road/
rumble-strips. Page 277 of 363
SafetyEdgeSM
The SafetyEdgeSM technology shapes the edge of the pavement at approximately 30 degrees from the pavement cross slope during the paving process. This safety practice eliminates the potential for vertical drop-off at the pavement edge, has minimal effect on project cost, and can improve pavement durability by reducing edge raveling of asphalt.

Rural road crashes involving edge
drop-offs are 2-4 times more likely to
include a fatality than other crashes
on similar roads.1 Vehicles may leave
the roadway for various reasons
ranging from distracted driver errors
to low visibility, or to the presence
of an animal on the road. Exposed
vertical pavement edges can cause
vehicles to become unstable and
prevent their safe return to the
roadway. The SafetyEdgeSM gives
drivers the opportunity to return to
their travel lane while maintaining
control of their vehicle.

The SafetyEdgeSM technology only
requires adding one of several
commercially available devices to
the screed or endgate when placing
hot-mix asphalt. Forms for shaping
the edge of concrete pavement are
simpler and can be made on site
by the contractor. Some agencies
allow the SafetyEdgeSM to remain
exposed while a segment is under
construction, unlike conventional
pavement edges. However, before
construction ends, agencies should
bring the adjacent roadside flush
with the top of the pavement
for both the SafetyEdgeSM and
traditional pavement edge. Over
time, regardless of the edge type,
the edge may become exposed
due to settling, erosion, and tire
wear. When this occurs, the gentle
slope provided by the SafetyEdgeSM
is preferred versus the traditional
vertical pavement edge.

Transportation agencies should
develop standards for implementing
the SafetyEdgeSM systemwide on all
new asphalt paving and resurfacing
projects where curbs and/or
guardrail are not present, while also
encouraging standard application
for concrete pavements.

FHWA-SA-21-038
Example of the SafetyEdgeSM after backfill
material settles or erodes. Source: FHWA
Cross-section view of an overlay with the SafetyEdgeSM. Source: FHWA-SA-17-044 11%
reduction in fatal and
injury crashes.2
21%
reduction in
run-off-road crashes.2
Safety Benefits:
19%
reduction in head-on
crashes.2
Benefit-Cost Ratio Range3
700:1 to 1,500:1
$
1 Hallmark et al. Safety Impacts of Pavement Edge Drop-offs, (Washington, DC:

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: 2006), p 93.
2 (CMF ID:
9205, 9211, 9217
) Donnell et al. Development of Crash Modification Factors for the Application of the SafetyEdgeSM on Two-Lane Rural Roads. FHWA-HRT-17-081, (2017). 3 Safety Effects of the SafetyEdgeSM, FHWA-SA-17-044, (2017).

OFFICE OF SAFETY
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
For more information on this
and other FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures, please visit
https://highways.dot.gov/
safety/proven-safety-counter
measures and https://high
ways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/
provide-safe-recovery/
safetyedge.