Downey City Council
September 27, 2022

Rem 1,10.

APPROVED BY
C-L&YMI'la"14
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
BY: DELFINO R. CONSUNJI, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY EER U;J ztelyj
rz• , , � �Ik I I
F-11;J U :1161kyj M I 4A I C&-J W1014f-11 011111:07-11 II&Y-110 ;Iva N RI-0 The process of preparing the LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety issues and recommend safety improvements and facilitates the development of Local Public Agency (LPA) partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. As such, the LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

The City has applied for funding grants through the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 for consideration of providing funding for the following four safety projects identified in the LRSP: 1) Firestone Boulevard (west City Limit to east City Limit) Corridor Traffic Signal Upgrades and Safety Enhancements, 2) School Pedestrian Crossing Safety Enhancements (Our Lady of Perpetual Help School and St. Pius/St. Mathias Academy), 3) Systematic Traffic Signal Improvements at 11 locations and 4) Florence Avenue Median Island Project (Vultee Avenue - Woodruff Avenue). In order to apply for funding under HSIP, a public agency must have completed an LRSP or equivalent document. lip 111gulaps ELS I giffilm;1 01011 w:14161mmis0111 lWaN CAM-1 11410111r,"as =0311y 1-ams MK0JW-v11wJ16=p1M111

APPRO
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
PAGE 2
consideration. The City's Community Development, Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments and the Downey Unified School District collaborated as stakeholders in the development of the LRSP in order to encompass the four "E"s (Education, Engineering, Enforcement and Emergency Services) in the process. The adoption of the attached resolution will serve as the City's self -certification of the LRSP as required by Caltrans.

Quality of Life, Infrastructure & Parks
No fiscal impact associated with this action. The cost for developing the LRSP was approximately $63,000 and the source was a state Caltrans grant and matched (10%) with Measure R local return funded by account number 26-16836.

F-11 6 r-IT61 0 1 i4 121 ki 11 &1
Attachment A - Resolution
Exhibit "A" — Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF DOWNEY

APPROVING THE CITY'S LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is a means for providing is and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and WHEREAS, the process of preparing the LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements and facilitates the development of Local Public Agency (LPA) partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges; and WHEREAS, in orderto apply forfunding underthe Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a public agency must have completed an LRSP or equivalent document; and WHEREAS, the City of Downey has completed an LRSP in order to assess the City's traffic safety needs and has developed a prioritized list of projects intended to enhance traffit safety within the City; and
WHEREAS, when an agency submits an HSIP funding application, the agency must self - certify that an LRSP or its equivalent has been completed.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey hereby approves the City's LRSP, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution-

MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CMC
City Clerk

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City • • at a Regular meeting held • the 13 th day of September 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CIVIC
City Clerk C

.-IESOLUTION NO.
.,

0 1`
Locali
I RPI'
April1

Page LWWILLDAN

li•w°�
The City of Downey's Local
Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) has
been developed with a vision and
goal that mirrors the vision and
goal of the California Strategic
Highway Safety Plan as follows:

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the collision data between 2015 and 2020 led to the development of the following projects which will reduce identified collision trends throughout the roadways and non -State Highways of the City. 1 This project is meant to be funded in phases over 3 HSIP cycles with $250,000 of funding requested in each cycle.

Page ii *'WILLDAN

By signing and stamping this Local Roadway Safety Plan, the engineer is attesting to this report's technical information and engineering data upon which local agency's recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are made.

SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION — Notwithstanding any other provision of law reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

WILLDAN
13191 Crossroads Pkwy North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
562-908-6200
Page III W"WILLIDAN

Downey Heat Map ..................... ***** .... am ...... 0 ... M, ... *us .... i Forward ...................................................................................................... !I Table of Contents ............................................................................... #**".. iv I- Introduction ...... 0*0090, .... #.*** .... 4 .... ... ....... a .................. #.6 Overview of the Process .............................................................................................. 7 Task Force Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... 8 DataAnalysis Methodology ......................................................................................... 9 11- Citywide Collision Trends & Potential Solutions ............................... 11 Citywide Transportation Plans ................................................................................... 21 State Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 22 III- Project Scopes ................................................................................... 24 100- Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements ....

Overview.................................................................................................................... 26 ExistingConditions .................................................................................................... 29 Project Area Collision Trends .................................................................................... 31 200- Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside .................................................... 33 Overview.................................................................................................................... 33 ExistingConditions .................................................................................................... 37 300- Systemic Bike Lane Corridor ....» ............................a......- ....... a ..... *40
Overview.................................................................................................................... 40 ExistingConditions .................................................................................................... 42 Project Area Collision Trends .................................................................................... 46 400- Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project .............. .........47
Overview.................................................................................................................... 47 ExistingConditions .................................................................................................... 49 Project Area Collision Trends .................................................................................... 52 500- Florence Median Project ................................................................. 54 Page iv W"WILLDAN

54 Overview. . ...... ..... ....a.....,....,.,_t...,...,, ...,.p.... .....,,....................

Existingi i ................. .......:...a.,....,....., F...,..r...,..a..:...,,a.......

Project 56
r Collision Trends......,_---.. ...... ......... .........,,,,................... . ® Next Steps ......................................................................................

Appendices

The Downey LRSp2 provides a conceptual framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads. Particularly, it provides the opportunity to proactively correct high collision or problem locations and prevent local road fatalities and injuries. It establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. Furthermore, it helps identify appropriate funding sources to reach the City's safety -related visions and goals.

Beginning in 2021, CaltranS3 requires agencies to have adopted an LRSP. The LRSP is necessary to apply for HSI p4 funding which is a common source of safety project support to implement this very LRSP. It has been prepared in accordance with all Caltrans and FHWA5 requirements. Additionally, the City has outlined some of its own goals and visions for the LRSP:
eLoca|RoadweySafetyP|an(LRGP)isadebs-ihventrafficeoh*typ|anepeoifioeUybaikoredbne]uhodiction` » The California Department ofTransportation (Caltrano) ^ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HG|P)
5 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Overview of the Process
The City of Downey has implemented this LRSP as part of the City's commitment and priority to improving traffic safety for all users throughout the City. The LRSP is a framework for identifying collision trends and recognizing projects and funding sources that can be used to reduce collisions on the local road network. LRSP's aim is to reduce fatalities on local roads in states and counties that implement them. The City's LRSP includes the following elements depicted below:

Task Force Acknowledgments
The City of Downey's LEb-FT—ask F orceo team members include representatives Trorn Me 4 E'S7 as a collaborative team to leverage expertise and input into developing the LRSP.

All information shared through virtual collaborative meetings, phone calls, and email was immensely valuable and helped create a deeper understanding of the story behind the data. Detailed meeting agenda and meeting minutes can be found in Appendix VI.

Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Emergency
Apply effective
Enforce actions
Educate all road
Services
and/or innovative
that reduce high-
users on safe
Improve emergency
countermeasures
risk behaviors
behaviors
response times and
actions
City of Downey
Downey Police
Downey Unified
Downey Fire
Public Works
Department
School District
Department
Community
Parks & Recreation
Downey Police
Development
Department
Department
Department
City's roadways. They also have a vision in mind for how the community will develop in the future. They consider both the short term and long-term future.
7 Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services (4 E's)

MFr2Rr6TS7r=* I
In addition to in person field checks and observations, the qualitative analysis considers ;t�xisting conditions on the roadways as well as insight and input from the Task Force for identifying other factors that might not be understood from the data. Projects are then refined to emphasize safety and accessibility for all.

Both the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis are used to develop data -driver safety projects that the Task Force support.

31073��� PC 1 1Z !� !,I I i I�EJJJM=
maintained and operated by the City. The data was studied to identify locations that had a significant number of collisions, injury collisions, and instances of specific types of collisions. Data was collected using SWITIRS and TIMS. Locations with many collons, locations with high severity collisions, or both can be difficult to spot when simply studying data. To better locate them, a heat map was developed and can be found on the inside cover of this report. Also, collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians were isolated to determine if any prevailing patterns could be identified.

When considering all the data, it is important to identify overall trends. Figure 11-1 illustrates the proportion of collisions based on the different severity categories. Severity is considered significantly when applying for project funding, in particular collisions involving injuries. There were nearly 5,557 collisions reported in Downey between 2015 and 2020. The combined fatal and severe injury collisions made up less than 2% of the total collisions reported, while the collisions without injury made up for 39% of the collisions reported.

Fatal 0---

Collisions were also studied based on the different collision types. Figure 11-2 demonstrates that broadside, rear end, sideswipe, and hit object collisions were the most common and accounted for 88% of the reported collisions. The collision type breakdown allows for a further understanding of emerging trends in the overall data. Table 11-1 ,tescribes appropriate mitigations for the top 3 most common types of collisions as well as pedestrian and bicycle collisions.

Vehicle/Pedestrian
4%
Sideswipe
17%
v rned
Figure 11-2: Citywide Collisions by Type
Not Listed / Other
3%

The data was also organized to consider the primary collision factor, Figure 11-3. The manner of the collision and primary collision factor describes what led to the collision.

Table 11-2 describes appropriate mitigations for the top three primary collision factors which account for over half of the collisions.

Unsafe Lane Change
M, 2%
Improper Passing
I <1%
Following Too Closely
M 1%
Wrong Side of Road
01%
Unknown
KIRIMMMUM 9%
Traffic Signals and Signs
&xM M M, 6 %
Automobile Right of Way
25%
Driving Under the Influence
MINIMMME403100,01M 13%
Pedestrian Violation/ Pedestrian Right of Way
LMM 2%
Improper Turning
19%
Unsafe Starting or Backing
*9 WIM 4 %
Other/ Not Stated*
ME 2%
Unsafe Speed
MINIMMIMMMIUMMEWIM 16%
'"A ZR#TMM' MEM M'

r1row-VUSIMI RI IWOM•
Table 11-2: Mitigations Based on Primary Collision •
I

The overall collision data was organized based on what the motor vehicle was involved with in the colon, shown in Figure 11-4. The top categories are other motor vehicles, parked motor vehicle, and fixed object. The non -collision category is often ambiguous but can refer to an overturned vehicle, a motorist cited for driving under the influence, or a vehicle that went off the road but did not specifically collide with another object. The other object category can refer to an object that is obstructing the roadway due to inclement weather such as a tree, or an object that fell from another motor vehicle such as furniture being moved.

Animal
<1%
Other Object
1 %
Fixed Object
11% a
Parked Motor
Vehicle
14%
11, WASINTATEXI n =4 I
Unknown
elol
-
Non-Collision
<1%
Other Motor
- Vehicle
66%
Figure 11-4: Citywide Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involved With

Is'
Members of the Task Force were interested in collision trends involving crashes that occurred at night. Figure 11-5 shows the map of night-time collisions where no streel, lighting was present. There were 26 collisions that occurred •' in the study period where no streetlights were at the crash site. Based on the data in this analysis, collisions that occurred at night where no street lights were present is not a widespread issue in the City at this time.

M
Figure 11®p Citywide night-time collisions ►t no street lights present or street lights not functioning
Building on the overall collision analysis for 2015-2020, specific locations were studied.

Table 11-3 lists the intersections with the highest number of collisions. Intersection collisions that were considered include those occurring either at or within 250 feet of the intersection. Then, the intersections were sorted by the sum of the weighted collision

severity'O. A high weighted collision severity coupled with the low number of collisions indicates that the injury is more likely to be severe or fatal.

Table 11-3: Intersections with the Highest Weighted Collision Severity f. Stewart and Gray
Road
Telegraph Road &
izifre- IMIA-MaIlIff,
so , 2- 1
I III I ilk:17141610 me] LTILS �
112 707
57%® Broadside,
31 %® Rear End
IN A, O'EM•
Right • Way,
24% Unsafe
Speed
0434"W-g"'jAsl I `I;`
39 594 62% Broadside
45%® Automobile
Right of Way
55 575 62% Broadside
29%® Automobile
Right of Way,
24% Traffic
Signals/ Signs
73 533 41 % Broadside,
33% Automobile
33%® Rear -End
Right of Way,
22% Unsafe
Speed
Bellflower Boulevard 49
424 33%® Broadside,
22% Improper
& Imperial Highway
31 %Rear -End
Turning,
Unknown, 20%®
Unsafe Speed
Brookshire Avenue & 38
363 58%® Broadside
41 % Automobile
Imperial Highway
Right of Way
Firestone Boulevard & 25
350 44% Broadside,
33% Automobile
Dolan Avenue
28% Rear -End
Right of Way,
29% Unsafe
Speed
10 Weighted crash severity is a value assigned based on the crash severity. Values assigned for each type of crash severity. These crash severity weighted values were used in the HSIP analyzer to identify the project benefit.
1 6
I FRIMORM Me

Table 11-3: Intersections with the Highest Weighted Collision Severity Bellflower Boulevard
38 333
50% Broadside
37% Automobile
& Stewart and Gray
Right of Way
Road
Paramount Boulevard
46 331
43% Broadside,
28% Automobile
& Stewart and Gray
28% Rear End
Right of Way,
Road
% Unsafe
Speed
Florence Avenue &
26 271
42% Broadside
28% Automobile
Old River School
Right of Way,
Road
28% Improper
Turning
Imperial Highway &
56 256
43% Rear End
31 % Unsafe
Lakewood Boulevard
Speed
Imperial Highway & 39 234 54% Broadside,
Columbia Way 28% Rear End
Imperial Highway & 47 217 45% Rear End
Paramount Boulevard
49% Automobile
Right of Way,
21% Unsafe
Speed
23% Unsafe
Speed
Florence Avenue & 31 166 42% Broadside, 35% Unknown
Little Lake Road 23% Sideswipe
Common collision types that occur at these intersections are rear end and broadside.

CitxL? r%ections have recently had improvements
that could mitigate these collisions. The intersections that do not have improvement projects scheduled or recently completed are focused within the projects identified later in this report.

Table 11-4 lists the collisions with the highest weighted severity occurring along corridors within the City. Corridors are defined as single stretches of roadways between major intersections. The collisions considered occurred outside of any intersection. These corridors were 'sorted by the surn of the weighted collision severity. The high weighted ciffis4-n-st-4 rtra
likely to be severe or fatal.

0 0
0 LO
(D
CL
,
"
-0
"
a)
CL
ca
a)
m
a)
CL (1)
0 OL
12 2
m
M
CL
2 a)
OL
c-L
0 0
U)
W
cn
L U)
U)
Cn
anCL

a)
(D
Eto
E
>

5 4--
>1
:t-_
E
0 (D I
c
2 0
4= -2
Z
LL
0 >

0 ry®y
4—
0 2
0 (16
a)LL
0 0
>
>
a)
(D
=3
T
=3
w a)
c
>, 0
m
0 (D
:3
>
U)
>
0 0
o
co
a)
0 LL
m
>
.21)
m
>
U)
0 a)
(D
E
0 o E
u
E
0 LL
V 0
X
CL
-:t
0 a-)
>
Co
cu
CL
0 ?: iD
:zi
E
75 a)
0 co
a)
co
CL
-j
E
:t
U
m
a
—0
(0 :3
g
0 Co
(D
0 0
0 U)
M
(D
0 :f

Common collision types that occur along these corridors are rear end, broadside, and sideswipe. Common primary collision factors that occurred at these corridors ar; automobile right • way, improper turning, and unsafe speed.

Citywide Transportation P12ns
This •, aims to • safe transportation projects and programs. It can be used alongside these Citywide guidelines and plans, which were considered and referenced while developing this LRSP.
• 11-5: Citywide Transportation • & Plans

F III III I 1i1111
_91111
State Funding Sources
....... . ...........

The State provides several transportation funding opportunities. Often, the Federal government provides funding opportunities which are then managed by the State. The funding is intended for roadway maintenance, safety improvements, environmental improvements, and enhancements which make the roadway accessible to all. These elements can be the emphasis of some of the funding sources. All the sources identified in Table 11-6 favor safety projects with a systemic approach, where similar enhancements are made at multiple locations.
i i�illillilli 11111111 1111111111
11,13 1
I I I, IN.

11- Citywide Collision Trends & Potential Solutions
The California Office of Traffic Safety offers state funding opportunities geared towards programs which emphasize safety, active
OTS transportation, safety monitoring by the police department, and safety education. It provides funding for agencies and municipalities through an annual application process. OTS funding does not fund infrastructure projects but can provide funding for safety education programs.

The Califon
SB1 agencies z
improvernei
measures. �
The State
OPR provides fut
safety, like j
60�
to Senate Bill 1 is a state funding program that allows inicipalities to allocate tax revenue for roadway
ects which> is approved by voters through ballot

HIM PrQlect Scope;
A list of potential project locations was developed considering the intersections and These locations were then compared and grouped based on a systemic approach. '�WOIZ
these projects were developed for HSIP funding.

A variety of methods to determine viable project scopes were used. Consideration was the countermeasures identified to address the City's safety issues. The LRSIVI was used to identify countermeasures to address qualitative and quantitative safety measures and select viable projects for the LRSP.

The project's BCR must be calculated using the HSIP Analyzer15 by inputting the crashes and their severity, and the project's cost estimate. Projects are weighed and selectively chosen by their BCR to compete for limited grant funding.

The BCR threshold of projects that were funded through previous HSIP funding cycles has been increasing recently. Projects in last cycle's HSIP cycle 10 required a BCR of on the likely funding source. BCR is an important figure for determining the effectiveness of a proposed project. The benefit is based on many factors including collision history, collision severity, systemic approach, the crash reduction factor associated with the applied countermeasures, and whether the types of collisions can be mitigated with countermeasures being applied for the project. A higher BCR is considered a more favorable project.
14 Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) is a document published by Caltrans identifying HSIP eligible gation measures, their collision reduction factors, and what type of collisions are most impacted by the mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are referred as countermeasures. The latest LRSM version and version 1.5 used in the LRSP is from April 2020.
the total crashes within the project area and their crash severity. The HSIP Analyzer is a tool used to calculate the project BCR.

III- Project Scopes

12.0 and above to be awarded funding. Due to the increasing BCR threshold, projects with a BCR of 17.0 and above were considered competitive in this analysis.

A total of 5 project scopes were proposed with a BCR over 17.0 and met the minimum requested project cost. Each proposed project has a BCR that is historically competitive in HSIP funding. Table III-1 provides the Project Index. The chapters that follow will explore the project backgrounds, scope, cost summary, and potential funding sources.

Table III-1: LRSP Project Index
16 This project is meant to be funded in phases over 3 HSIP cycles with $250,000 of funding requested in each cycle,

100- Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements
Overview
The Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements project was developed based on guidelines and funding eligibility of HSIP Cycle 10. The Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements project scope consists of the following LRSM Countermeasures:

The upgrade signal hardware countermeasure will provide better visibility of intersection signals and will aid drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. This countermeasure involves upgrading signal back plates, larger signal heads, relocating signal heads or adding additional signal heads to an intersection.

An advanced dilemma zone detection system has several benefits relative to traditional multiple detector systems, which have upstream detection for vehicles in the dilemma zone but do not take the speed or size of individual vehicles into account. These benefits include reducing the frequency of red-light violations, reducing the frequency of crashes associated with the traffic signal phase change, and reducing delay and stop frequency on the major •.• and a reduction in • intersection •`
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing"DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. These signals have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton.
17 Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication.

An LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter the intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left or right through the crosswalk. LPIs provide increased visibility of crossing pedestrians, reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, increase the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians, and enhance safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

Based on the LRSP analysis, the Firestone Boulevard corridor is the highest weighted Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard/ Dolan Avenue) are in the top 15 highest weighted

collision intersections in the City. These trends highlighted Firestone Boulevard as a corridor to investigate for LRSP project selection. In meetings with the Task Force, staff was interested in prioritizing signal upgrades to all the signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard. Figure 100-1 identifies the 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard within Downey City Limits.
*A/'WILLDAN

'Vrq� III jipl II:1111 I III Ir MUM
1111111111110W.TT—WilelMost Estimate
This countermeasure is eligible for 100% funding through HSIP. An expanded cost estimate is included in Appendix 1.

Exisfing Coindtfions
Currently, the condition of signal hardware on Firestone Boulevard is outdated with small signal heads and weathered backplates, outdated pedestrian push buttons, and pedestrian indicators without pedestrian countdowns.

�Project Area Collision Trends
The Firestone Boulevard corridor is the highest ranked roadway segment in the City ani includes two of the top collision intersections from this LRSP analysis.

The LRSM identifies that signalized intersections with a high frequency of broadside and rear -end crashes that occur because drivers are unable to see traffic signal sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached can be mitigated with improving the signal hardware. There is a 15% collision reduction factor when upgrading traffic signal hardware.

The LRSM identifies areas that have high frequency of broadside and rear end crashes can be mitigated with providing advanced dilemma zone detection. This may reduce rear �nnd crashes associated with unsafe stopping and angle crashes due to illegally continuing into the intersection during the red phase. There is a 40% collision reduction when advanced dilemma zone detection is provided.

The LRSM identifies that pedestrian countdown signal heads should be installed at signalized intersections where pedestrian vs. vehicle collisions have been reported. There is a 25% collision reduction factor in pedestrian and bicycle crashes with the installation MZE- W

1111�1 � � 1 �• iq� 1111
The LRSM identifies that LPIs should be installed in intersections with signalized pedestrian crossings that have high turning vehicular volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. There is a 60% collision reduction factor in pedestrian and bicycle crashes with the installation of LPls.

At the 15 intersections identified in the scope of work, SWITIRS data indicated that there were 541 collisions between 2015 and 2019. The HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate the project benefit including these 541 total collisions broken �down by collision severity, shown in Table 100-2.

Most collision types (shown in Figure 100-5) were the result of broadside and rear -end collisions, which can be mitigated with the countermeasures proposed.

Vehicle/Pedestrian
3%
Sideswipe
13%
07-MIXro
1111111111M. 11111111
-_R4q11LJ1WW_ Head -On
Hit Object 5%
11%
Figure 100-5: Collision Types at the Firestone Boulevard Signalized Intersections

Overview
The Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside project was developed based on guidelines and historic funding eligibility of HSIP Cycle 10. The set -aside funding category is only available for certain types of safety projects, including pedestrian crossing enhancements. The maximum funding available for pedestrian crossing enhancements is $250,000. This funding can be awarded to a City one time per HSIP cycle and is typically awarded to any agency that requests it. This type of funding does not require a is calculation or detailed collision data. The Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside project scope consists of upgrading existing uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks with RRFB18' high visibility signage, and high visibility striping. The project scope consists of the following countermeasure:

Upgrading pedestrian crossings will improve safety for pedestrians and biyclists. The enhanced pedestrian crossings make motorists more aware of pedestrians in the roadway at uncontrolled crosswalk locations. The proposed scope of work is to:

Bulb -outs and curb extensions narrow the roadway to create a shorter distance for pedestrians to cross. Also, the narrowed roadway leads motorists to driving slower. The RRFBs, over -head flashing beacons, and high visibility striping make it easier for drivers to see crossings and pedestrians in the roadway. An example of signing and striping enhancements can be found at the crosswalk on Brookshire Avenue at Everest Street in the City of Downey. The improvements include RRFBs, advance overhead flashing beacons, signs and pavement markings include a yield bar and "Slow School Crossing" and "Wait Here" pavement markings and signs, shown in Figure 200-1.

Figure 200-1: Example of pedestrian crosswalk enhancements on Brookshire Avenue at Everest Street
crosswalk locations which could benefit most from these enhancements and ensure that all recommendations are consistent with the City's Road and Street Standards. These discussions helped determine the crosswalks prioritized for this project. The following list of uncontrolled crosswalks were identified for pedestrian crossing enhancements from the Task Force meeting:

Table 200-1: Priority List for Crosswalk Enhancements

11 111
�='IIIIIIIIWNR IMINFIRTRI VTIE'11?511� �i�* 0112111! Ii ! I M�� The construction costs are broken •• by location for ease of use when the City chooses intersections to apply for future HSIP Calls for Projects, shown in Table 200-2. The unii •'f and construction •, line items are detailed in the Appendix 11.

Table 200-2: Construction Cost Estimate
Table 200-3 shows the total cost breakdown for future HSIP Calls for Projects.

Preliminary engineering and construction engineering are limited to 25% and 15% of the construction costs, respectively. These are the maximum cost percentages for preliminary engineering and construction engineering costs based on HSIP guidelines and were used for this project's total cost estimate. This project is eligible to be 100% federally funded, up to $250,000 per HSIP cycle based on guidelines from HSIP Cycle 10. 19 Construction cost of each location includes a 15% contingency,

■
It should be noted that historically, HSIP has $250,000 of set aside funding available that each City can apply for in each funding cycle. This set aside funding is typically awarded to any jurisdiction that applies for it. The City may be awarded the maximum set aside funding each HSIP Cycle for consecutive HSIP Cycles, if the City wishes to apply for pedestrian crossing enhancement funding in phases.

Existing Conditions

Figure 200-4: This
crossing on
Gardendale Street at
St. Mathias Academy is
on a wide roadway.

Figure 200-6: This
crossing on Rives
Avenue at Adwen
Street is faded.

Figure 200-7: This
crossing on Conrad
Street at Montgomery
Street does not have a
curb ramp at the St.

Raymond School side
of the crosswalk.

300- Systemic Bilke Lane Corridor
Overview
The Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project was developed based on the City of Downey Bicycle Master Plan and collision history. The Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project scope consists of the following LRSM Countermeasure:

This countermeasure is used on roadway segments with crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/ shoulder. Most studies suggest that bike lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when it is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. The scope of work for this project is listed below:

These three proposed segments are good candidates for Class 11 bike lanes based on their collision history and are identified as planned bicycle projects in the Downey Bicycle Master Plan. Based on input from the Task Force, it is imperative to keep on -street parking in place on these segments. The proposed bike lanes will be installed by implementing a lane reduction on these segments by reducing the through lanes to one lane in each direction and installing a two-way left turn lane in the middle of the roadway to make available space for the bike lanes and on -street parking. The intersection lane configuration should remain in place to avoid congestion on these three segments.

39=
Figure 300-1 Highlights the locations of the 3 proposed bike lane segments in the City of Downey overlaid on the City of Downey's Bicycle Master Plan map. The Bicycle Master Plan Map identifies where existing bicycle facilities are and shows how these proposed bike lanes will close gaps in the bicycle system.

Ahk
si
Conridor
Location
is
!cts

1;iliillr�qil: lilill1r;:
r!!Ill II!!!Il;W, wo mz���
I •i •I',, -Tzy •M
i nis coufff6TrITTff9TFTTTMTU Ming I e7 e 1-11FIVITIt
have to provide a • match • $ 34,180 to receive funding • this project. An expanded cost estimate is included in Appendix Ill.

Existing Conditions
. . ........ . .......

The existing roadway conditions on the three segments are shown in the figures below:

Figure 300-3: The existing roadway configuration on Brookshire Avenue between Imperial Highway and Iowa Street. There are currently two through lanes in each direction with parking on both sides of the street and cyclists share the road with motor vehicles. The proposed project will reduce the roadway to one through lane in each direction with parking and bike lanes on both sides of the street, and a two-way left turn lane. This proposed bike lane segment is consistent with the planned bike lane with road diet identified in the Downey Bicycle Master Plan. This proposed bike lane will be a gap closure, connecting with the existing bike lane on Brookshire Avenue, south of Imperial Highway.

3MM
South of the proposed Brookshire Avenue segment on Brookshire Avenue between Gardendale Street and Imperial Highway, there are existing bike lanes with a road diet, • in Figure 300-5. The proposed • lanes with a road diet • the 3 proposed -• will look very similar to this existing stretch.

Project Area Collision Trends
The countermeasures for the Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project provide improvements • r-•- and • However, this means • • involving •'r
• • can • considered. The LRSM identifies that installing bike lanes would Bike lanes will -• the width • travel lanes and likely have a traffic calming effect. Thd HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate the project benefit including the 5 total bicycle and pedestrian -involved collisions broken down by severity below.

Table 300-2: Collision Severity

WIT*Tn#T--SITM-V9=
signals and will aid drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. This countermeasure involves upgrading signal back plates, larger signal heads, relocating signal heads or providing additional signal heads to an intersection, Figure 400-1 identifies the location of the 11 intersections that will receive traffic signal improvements.

400- Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project
This Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project can be submitted for future HSIP funding. The BCR is based • the 2020 HSIP Analyzer. When applying for funding, this value may be different based on the factors of future HSI P Analyzer forms. The costs and competitive BCR for this project are shown in Table 400-1.

I I • IM, 1111MMUOTMI =RU=-
An expanded cost estimate is included in Appendix IV.

Existing Conditions
Currently, many of the traffic signals at the 11 locations for this project have faded or missing backplates and traffic signal heads that are smaller than the standard size. The following figures show the conditions of the existing traffic signal hardware at these project ree M

Figure 400-3: The
signals on Columbia/
Foster have missing or
faded backplates and
have small 8-inch
signal heads. This
intersection is shared
with the City of
Bellflower. The HSIP
application should be
prepared in
coordination with the
City of Bellflower. It is
important to verify that
all the enhancements
can be accommodated
by their City's existing
traffic system.

Figure 400-5: The
signals on Downey
Avenue at Alameda
Street have 8-inch
signal heads that
all 12-inch signal
heads.

Figure 400-7: The
Avenue at Alameda
Street have 8-inch
signal heads that
should be upgraded.

RITIMIT0472IMM. I am
Project Area Collision Trends
Table 400-2: Collision Severity
Downey Avenue at
0 0
0 1
1 2
5th Street
Downey Avenue at
0 1
2 5
3 11
Alameda Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0 0
1 9
0 10
5th Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0 0
0 0
0 0
3rd Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0 0
0 1
0 1
Iowa Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0 2
3 2
1 8
Alameda Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0 0
1 4
0 5
Gardendale Street

I I 11!11 1 lig I I N11111!1111
E'�M'Mffn' MI&M 11 .11.8
Gardendale Street at 0 0 4 4 0 8
Barlin Avenue
Columbia Way at 0 0 0 0 0 0
Adoree Street
Columbia Way at 1 0 2 3 1 7
Foster Road
Over half of the collision types (shown in Figure 400-8) were broadside collisions. The second • common type was a rear -end collision. Upgrading the signal hardware countermeasure is best used on signalized intersections with a high frequency of broadside and rear -end crashes because drivers are unable to see traffic signal g.ufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached.

Vehicle/Pedestrian, 7%
Sideswipe, 13%
Rear End, 16%
Hit Object, 4%
Head -On, 3%
Figure 400-8: Collision Types at the 11 Project ►ntersections

•
500- Florence Median Project
Overview
Florence Avenue corridor has the V highest collision weighted value in the City. The F-lorence Median project was developed based on recommendations from the Task 7orce. The project scope consists of the following LRSM Countermeasures:

Installing raised medians is an effective strategy in reducing head on, sideswipe and broadside collisions outside of intersections as it reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised medians may also be used to limit unsafe turing movements along a Based on comments from the Task Force, the emergency services departments should be invited to comment throughout the design process of this project to ensure emergency vehicles will have space to move through this segment. The concept map of the proposed raised median is below in Figure 500-1.

Legend
Existing Raised Median
Proposed Raised Median

500- Florence Median Project
MOS r-mrTMATUITHWAZIM6,111-1-TITIM
i S PI Millis FKq*Tq
This countermeasure is eligible for 90% funding through HSIP. Therefore, the City would have to provide a local match of $ 41,630 to receive funding for this project. An expanded cost estimate is included in Appendix V.

Existing Conditions
Florence Avenue currently has three through lanes in each direction with a painted median separating directions of travel. The third travel lane acts as a parking lane during off-peak hours. Florence Avenue fronts some apartment complexes and a church within the project segment. The painted median does not allow left -turning movements mid - block.

Figure 500-2: There is
currently a painted
median on Florence
Avenue from Vultee
Avenue to Woodruff
Avenue.

Imil
I Ig-L •m 3 U�1;12
be a proposed median
opening at Florence
Avenue at Haledon
Avenue. The proposed
raised median will deter
driver stunts in the future
such as the tire marks
shown hinting that a
driver was doing donuts
ISAIMM HAWts W-laofm ItZiftel., too
Project Area Collision Trends
The countermeasure for the Florence Median Project reduces the possibility of midblock collisions. The countermeasure to install raised medians is best used in areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. The LRSM identifies that the installing raised medians would likely provide a 25% collision reduction factor for block collisions. The HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate the project benefit including _J=
The two severe injury collisions were a head-on collision and a broadside collision. These two severe collisions could be mitigated with installing a raised median.

The objective of this chapter is to account for safety ideas that were not able to b�,! developed into projects. Some of these ideas came from the goals and visions outlinel� by the City, discussions with the Task Force, and data analysis. These ideas can evolve when reviewing future data and how the emphasis of state funding progresses. Also, This report should be re-evaluated and updated every few years. New collision trends can develop with time and should be evaluated, and projects and programs relating tA new trends should be proactively developed to reach the City's safety visions and goals.

. O. •
Appendices
Appendix c Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) FISIP Analyzer r1SJY ANALYZER
Cost Estimate,Data and Benefit i i i•Calculation
Important: Review and oHow tfFe —step-by-step instructions in `Manw�i ��� "IP Ana ; �­r% Completing the for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Analyzerwitfiout disqualifiedreferencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i.e. later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using y+ iID as on ■
page of the Y Application Form.

1. Application ID, Project Locationand Project Description (cor r • Application i s Application ID: I Firesto E il
n-e-Corriclor
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard in the City of Downey:

Project Description: Upgrade signal hardware, provide advanced dilemma zone detection, and implement a leading pedestrian (limited to 250 characters) interval to the corridor timing at the following 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard within the Downey City Limits,
• •r • `.• • .- :- is
requiredA safety benefit cost analysis is for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety Ratiobenefit evaluation and Benefit Cost r
) calculation.
•` is i i i '.;■
i i ■
IN
Number of countermeasures for the project: I I 1
CM No,1: 17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Page I of 9
Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System (CS) maps to check the FC, click here.

Urban / Rural Area:

What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible? Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road)
Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph)*
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily? (For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.) E
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project (enter if not in the list)? Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
UUMM2=1
The local agency is expected to deliver the project perlbe HS P Procaram,l tliygr "re jJrernents. Assuming the HSIP Cycle 10 projects selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use H51P funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? L= PE Authorization Date: =:==
Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

Final PS&E Date: F777=�
CON Authorization Date: 17==
Construction Contract Award Date:

Construction Completion Date:

Project Close -Out Date: E==

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Section 1. Construction t Estimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) Nvill be included in Section II.
o Determine the projects maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR).

I.1 Countermeasures (C s) applied to all location(s) (from Page No.1) ber ofcounterme^S17P

1.1tall pedestrian countdown signal heads; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 000°l0 F
I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

CA)stl l�cl tt a ` ti, For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components, c g, enter 10 for M944 The cost % for "Non Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do nod e11ter data for grab Gelds (Calculated Or MA UIsecl).

Unit % %for % for
No. Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total for CM# 1 (Not Used) (Not Used) I OS* NS** (SI7PB)
+ 1 Upgrade Cabinets and Controllers EA 15 $12000.00 180,000 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 %
+ 2 Replace vehicle heads EA 232 $1230.00 285,360 0 % % % 100 % 0 %
+ Provide LPI Phasing to signal _ a o o o
3 EA 15 $5000.00 75,000 /a !0 0 /0 100 l0 0
0 Io
timing
+ Update video detection system for EA 60 $5000.00 300,000 % 0 % % 100 % 0 %
,advance dilemma zone detection
+ 5 Install pedestrian countdown heads EA 118, $1000.00 118,000 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
+ Install APS pedestrian push o a o 0
6 EA 118 $750.00 /o to l° 88,500 100 0 l0 0
0 !o
buttons
Weighted Average M) 20°l0 80°!°
Total ($) $1,046,860 ,
* % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety -Related components; ** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.

Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items 15 % $17,029 (c. g. c ntca- 10 fos- lil°ln)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies):
(Roundcd Uf1 en t 11C nearest hundi-eels)
I.3 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
1�1"td:tat � a�+i'��:11"k111kkM, �t111C.�id3+�"31C��7t�t`ti¢*i11t't1t l,„IC1i7 3 lf}O.n�'o The project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the lion -safety related costs in excess of I0°/a This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIPlTotal(°lo) ° column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate),

Section 11. Project Cost Estimato-o
i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total-(To )`: The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii, "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form, I*roject's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
0 (from Section 1, rounded up to integer)
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click 'Set":
0 Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0) Interactive Warning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP annlication form.

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different Cklswitt reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements, Depending on the selected CMs for the applicatiort, you will be rcquired to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): "All" , "Night" Ped & llike", "Emergency Vehicle', and "Animal" (Fach of the later four datasets is a sub-clatascu of the "All' davaset.) Note: If Roundabout CM (S.16 orNS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration and AD7) is required, For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.

1. please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.

SWITIZS
- - - --------
2, Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower ii-apact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high.What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

r.: � ..:. • • r r
111.1 List of Project Locati
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in. 1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+"!"-" to add a new line/delete an existing line; 2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in III.2.

If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g.10 stop controlled intersections horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into 1:1 groups.

Location Location Description
No (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description) Location type for this project: S (Signalized Intersections) GROUP No. i
+ 1 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer III®a Countermeasures and Crash Data
Countermeasures and CrashData-Location Group No. I of I Ii le 1 r�iii a lit>c its Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).

Countermeasure (C) CM Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding No. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility S17PB:Install pedestrian
FX1 countdown signal heads S 0.25 20 Ped & Bike 100%
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway, 2: Provide crash data.

2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (/DD ): Ol/� To (/DD ) 12/3112019 � Crash Data Period (years) = 5

2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure (s) in Step 1.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: lie till°cldst lrFal[ t d�11 a.l„ Location Fatal
No
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain PDO
Total
(From Table IIL1) (i' Ia)
(1 C Z)
Injury (P lI)
(I? k-, B) (p &P)
1 15 signalized intersections 0
1 6
9 2
18 on Firestone Boulevard
Total 0
1 6
9 2
18

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Click the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script Lvill first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections Rnd crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no ,rrors are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding nossible errors.

Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( S17PB)
Crash Data Information:

Crash data period (years): 5
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:

Ped & Bike: 0,1,6,9,2
r - ---------- 1
1 Calculate I
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit #1 1 #2 1 #3 1
$3,198,500 1 $0
$0 1 $3,198,500
Sum 1 $3,198,500 $0 1 $0 1 $3,198,500
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively. er the 'Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.

Number of countermeasures: I
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
= $1,685,500 = $1,685,500 166%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$3,198,500
1 1.90

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer I

HSIP ANALYZER I
Cost Estimate, Crash Data and Benefit Cost at (BCR) Calculation for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application �mportant: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in 1Ja11L qAl_Cg J�s 1 __Completing the HSIP Analyzer without .L -L
-eferencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process. kU yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynarnic form (i.e, later steps vary lepending on the data entered in earlier steps). if any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" +Application ID as the file name (e,g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.prif'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last -)age of the HSIP Application Form,
---- -------------- --
Application ID, Project Location and Project Description (copy from the HSIP Application Form):
� 1 i 1 - i jiftir 11#1% ON w i
•Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of 2)
Project Location:
(limited to 250 characters)
Project Description:
ted to 250 characters)
- -- - -----------------------
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulev-ard in the City of Downey:

Upgrade signal hardware, provide advanced dilemma zone detection, and implement a leading pedestrian intenA to the corridor timing at the following 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard within the Downey City Limits.

2. Application Category (BCR or Set -asides): Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.

Number of countermeasures for the project:
ve CM No. 1: Esignal hard-%vare: lenscs, back -plates with retrore[lective borders, mounting, size, and number spredapproaches
Pedestrian Interval (M)
Page I of 9 ApplicabonIII: Dire .stone (-IorridorliafficSigTi�k](Iol?)

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System K]RS maps tocheck the RC,click here.

Urban / Rural Area:

What isthe approximate total cost percentage that bHR9eligible? Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instrucdons):

AADT (Major Road) E== AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT =��J Posted Speed Limit (mph):

Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan(SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily? (For more information onthe SHSPand its Challenge Areas, click here.) How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? 1-1 |sthe project focused primarily on"spot |ocaton(s)^or^syotemic^improvements? If itissystemic, the primary type of the "systemic^improvements is:

What isthe primary mode oftravel intended tubebenefited bythis project (enter ifnot inthe |im)7 Approximate percentage ofproject cost going toimprovements related tomotorized travel E:71

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)

4. Project schedule
'M ITT# Ud Mve, I
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected for funding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

Final PS &E Date: �_ p
CON Authorization Date:

Construction Contract Award Date:

Construction Completion Date:

Project Close -Out Date:

Page -1 of 9 ApplicaGonID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of2)

r i, •,r i i •r rri
HSIP Analyzer
The purpose of this section is to:
a Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included' in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).

1.1 Countermeasures applied i all location(s)(fromPage
Number of

1. S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100% 1 SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100% 3, S21 PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100% I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cost breakdown tltrs sr by
CMs. For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related' (OS) components. ( e.g. e«tc l 10 for 101K)), The cost Oo for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated,. Do noL enter data for gray fields (calculated or not rased),. ** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.

Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items: lS °fo $I57 Q24 (C,g. enter 10 for 10°h)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items &r Contingencies): $1,203 900 (Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
r rr
Prca•eis Maximum um Func&ig Reirnbur n100.0LO
Theprojcct's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus theperccntage of the non -safety related costs in excess of I00/b, This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIP/Totai(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate):

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Section . Project Cost Estimate
All project costs for all ph and, � -aI fun ing,�t�urcuss must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii., "HSIP/Total (%l": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii., "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.

Project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
°lo
(from Section I, rounded up to integer)=0!
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table 'Set
to the above maximum FRR, click ' Set":

Description
Total Cost
HIS( }otal
HSIP Funds
Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (P) Phase
Environmental $0 100 %
$
0 PS&E $301,000 100 % "
$301,000
$0 "
Subtotal - PE $301,000 100 °/a"
3 1 0
$
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 %
Appraisals, Acquisitions 6C $0 100 0/0
$0 ,
$0•
Utilities
"
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 %a
10 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$180,600 100 0/0$180,600
`
$0
Construction Items
$1,203,900
" " 100 o/a
$1,203,900
$0
(Read only - from Section I),
Subtotal - Construction
$1,384,500 100 %
$1,384,500
$0

PROJECT TOTAL
$1,685,500 100 %
$1,685,500
$®
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is SO.

InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative
question No 3 in the HSIP
,a 'lication form.

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures 1 (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets):'AU" , "Night" Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All" dataset.) Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety -Manual.

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTRFC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources. 1 Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or RIS is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites "within the last ten years?

List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in. 1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+ "/"-' to add a new line/delete an existing line; 2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.

If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5 horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into ED groups.

Location Location Description
No. (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description) FLocation type for this project:—[S (Signalized Intersections) nT TP N� I
GROUP No. I
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer I11.2: Countermeasures and Crash
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location Group No.1 of Ifide lrroLi Detls Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).

Countermeasure (C) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding N°. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type' Eligibility S02: Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back -plates with
1 retroreflective borders, mounting, S 0.15 10 All 100 /o size, and number
SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma
2 Zone Detection for high speed S 0.4 10 All 1000/0
approaches
SAM Modify signal phasing to
3 implement a Leading Pedestrian S 0.6 10 Ped & Bike 100%® Interval (LPI)
.CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway.

Step 2: Provide crash data.

2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (M/DD Y): Ol/Ol/2015 To (M/DD/YYYY): 12/31l2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 5

2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure (s) in Step 1.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All (2) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash TvDe: ALL
Location
No.

Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain''
PDO
Total
(from Table III.1)
(ALL.)
(AIJ)
Injury (ALL)
(ALL)
1 15 signalized intersections
2 7
75 252
205
541
on Firestone Boulevard
Total
2 7
75 252
205
541
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ede-mans and Bicyclists lnvo1%ed (I"& Location
No.

Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Total
(from Table III.I)
(1'C� R)
(P 13)
Injury (Pc� B)
(P&R)
(P&P,)
1 15 signalized,intersections
0 1
6 9
2 18
on Firestone Boulevard
Total
0 1
6 9
2 18

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Section IV. Calculation and Results
he "Calculate" button to calculate, The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections ash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding le errors,
--------- --
Information/Data*
Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): 3 ( S02 SO4
S21PB)
Crash Data Information:

Crash data period (years): 5
Number of crashes(F/SI/0VI/1-CP/PD0)*:

All: 2,7,75,252,205
Ped & Bike: 0,1,6,9,2__
Sum
Benefit from CM Benefit from 0\4 Benefit from CM Total Benefit #1 #2 #3
_L__ ­­__,", ......... . .. ...
$12,854,696 $34,279,189 $1,957,482 $49,091,367
$12,854,696 $34,279,189 $1,957,482 $49,091,367
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.

Transfer the "Total Project Cost', "HSIP Funds Requested" and the 13CR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.

Safety Countermeasure Information
Number of countermeasures: 3
S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:

Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
IE:
$1,685,500 == � � - - M=_-_
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BC R)
67 ............ �=,091,3n [L 29.13

Appendix It: Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside

-M
H's
El

Appendix III: Systemic Bike Lane Corridor

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Cost Estimate, Crash Data and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Important: Revie-xT and follow the step-by-step instructions in"Ma Li Ltil (L)k IJS i [v&lijly". Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i.e, later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" -.Application ID as the file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form.

Project Description -
(limited to 250 characters)
_Wffl%�Mi -
Sys ternic Bike Lane Corridor Project
* Old River School Road between Firestone Place and Florence Avenue * Brookshire Avenue between Imperial Highway and Iowa Street * Foster Road between Lakewood Boulevard to the East End Install class 11 bike lanes with a lane reduction, keeping parking at 3 roadway seginents Application Category (13CR or Set -asides): Benefit �Cost R A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.

WJM�. =
M
E
Chi NoJ 111132M histall bike -1 1 1 me I s
Applicadon in: Systcrnc Bike Line Corridor Prqeci

Version Date: AprU2O2O 9/02020)
Functional Classification (F[: For California Road System K]R5 maps tocheck the FC,click here.

Urban / Rural Area:

What isthe approximate total costpenentagethat isHR9eligible? � Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph): E=
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the projectaddress primarily? (For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.) How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (S5NRP)in2Ol6and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? |sthe project focused primarily on"spot |ocation(s)^or^gotemic^improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project (enter if not in the fist)? Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel Page zofn Application ID: sptemicmke Lane Corridor Project

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
HSIP Analyzer

4. Project schedule
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? Afteir both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project ff selected for funding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date: F_
Final PS&E Date:

CON Authorization Date:

Construction Contract Award Date: F
Construction Completion Date:

Project Close -Out Date:

F

Section 1. ConstructionEstimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) vvill be included in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FR).

I.1 Countermeasures C s applied to all location(s) (from Page No.1) Number of countermeasures: 1

1. R32PB:Install bike lanes; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90%

1.2 DetailedEngineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cta t .r"akdtivvtr l Cptri _For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components. ( e,a, enter 10 for 10 o), The cost % for "Non= Safety- Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do not enter data for gray fields (calculated or not used). * % for OS: Cost%o for other Safety -Related components; ** % for NS: Cost %® for Non Safety -Related components.

Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items31,83 i (c-g- exit or 10 for 1001b)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): 10CJ (ROUMIed up to the nearest hundreds)
I.3 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
The project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus theperceniage of the non -safety related costs in excess of I®°Ia. This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in "HSIPITotal(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate),

All project costs fear Ili l?I iIl�ll i�pertg'��Ft ; must be accounted for on this form, i, "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars, ii. "HSIP/Total (%)`: The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be justified in narrative question No, 3 in the HSIP Application Form. s maxmumursement• *, • r.
(frome r up to integer) ON
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click "Set":

Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE -HSIP funds is $0), InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP ar)nlicadon form.

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)

R-MMUHIM
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMS for the application, you twill be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): 'All" , "Night" Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the All" dataset.) Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 orNS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.

Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TINTS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources. 1 Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. WhL safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

MEMO=
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in. 1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+ "/"-' to add a new line/delete an existing line; 2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.

If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5 horizontal curves, etc. Please it the number of rows to no more than 25.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into IT] groups.

Location Location Description
Lo
cation„
0 . (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description) _ �NNNNNwW
Location type for this project: R (Roadways)
GROUP No. I
1 Old River School Road between Firestone Place and Florence Avenue 177 2 Brookshire Avenue between Imperial Highway and Iowa Street 3 Foster Road between Lakewood Boulevard to the East End

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Countermeasuresand Crasht
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location o o. I of l Hide Grorrt�Det�ails Stela 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).

Countermeasure (C) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding No. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility 1 R32PB: Install bike lanes R 0.35 20 Ped & Bike 90%
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway.

Step 2: Provide crash data.

2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (/DD ): Ol/04/2015 To (/DD ): 08l26/2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 4.64

2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step 1.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: Pedestrians an 13icyrlists Involved (i� 11 No Location Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO (from Table 1I1.1) (P&B) (P&B) Injury (P&B) (P&B) (P&B) Dl l l'rvtx 6061 Road
I b wrt i Freston P Acc rand": 0 0 1 0 0
2 1roptrial Hfgh ay,ap 1o:% i 0 I 0 1
Sti ce i,
E+ t,6'rRaad bctweeta
3 1. l<6V& d l flev�id to the 0 1 1 o
%ast tad
Total 0 2 2 1
I
Total
1 2
0 2
0 5

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) I-ISIP Analyzer Section alculati Results
'lick the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections nd crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no r ror's are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding oo si[Ae errors.

LCalculate
Info ation/Bata* Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit �f 3 m CM 1' Total Benefit Location type: R (Roadways)
Number of locatidn(s): 3
Number of selected counte easure(s): I ( R32PB)
Crash Data Information $7,153,247 $0
Crash data period (years): 4.65
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:

P A Dn2210
$0 $7,153,247
e re.
an,s `er the "Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form, Safety Countermeasure Information
R32PB: Install bike lanes
Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:

Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FR
$341,800 $307,620 � mm�90%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$7,153,247 20.93

0=6
Appendix IV: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project

7.61F2r.Ar1r.u=-

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer . ... . ................. ......

HSIP ANALYZER
Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in "Manual for HSIP AtiLlyzl, r ". Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i, a. later steps very depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" + Application ID as the file name (e-g."HA03-Sacramento--Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form,
. . .. ................................. . . ...... ............... I -nic Traffic Signal Improvement
lisignallized intersections in the City of Downey
signal hardware at 11 signalized intersections.

2. Application Category (BCR or Set -asides): �enefit Cost Ratio (13CR) ...

F
A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation. (Signalized Intersections)
CM No1: t302: Improve signal hard -,ware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflcctive borders, mounting, size, and number p1ge I 010 ApplicabonlR

Version Date: Aoril2O2O 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ:I maps to check the FC, click here.

For California Road System kCRS
Urban / Rural Area:
�
What bthe approximate total cost percentage that bHR3eligible? ' Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instmcbons):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph)-,
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the projectaddress primarily? (For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.) How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? CaUfomiaestablished Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (S5NRP)in2O16and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)Program inJ019. Was this project identified through the SSARPmrLRSP? Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements? Kit is systemic, the primary type ofthe "systemnk"improvements is:

What isthe primary mode oftravel intended tobebenefited by this project (enter ifnot inthe |ist)7 Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel Page zofm ArplicatiouID: Systen�cTraffic Signal Improvement

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)

4. Project schedule
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your beestimated dates for the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? F-I After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected for funding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

E
A I VFMITI M a, M I M
M
I
CON Authorization Date:
a

Sectionr t t Estimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included' in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).

Numberof i

1. S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number; HSIP Fu6& I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cdqstbrttt11�c1tlwn ':\ . For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components (e g. enter 10 for 101u)-The cost % for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do not enter data for gran fields (calculated or rmtused). * % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety -Related components; ** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.

Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items (e.g. enter M for Yt fib)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): $190 �� (Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
roiect`s Maximum Funding riatxl-)uiJ. K ncnt Ratio - 100.01 Theproject's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the non -safety related costs in excess of IO%, This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIP/Totaholo)" column in Section 1I (Project Cost Estimate).

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
All project costs, IurF ply a? 111 al 1i jig saattLA-4 must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total (%)": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form. rounded(from Section 1, •
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table wSet
to the above maximum FRR, click ' Set":
❑ Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0) , InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP aril lication form.

Version bate: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an I-ISIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): ' " "Night , Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the All" dataset.) Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NSO4 or NS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration and AD-1) is required.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources. 5 ITRS

2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, r17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure r15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), r17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

Mfflg��
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in. 1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click `+"P-'to add a new line/delete an existing line; 2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.

If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5 horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into groups.

Location
Location
Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description) Location type for this project: S (Signalized Intersections) GROUP No. I
I
Suva Street at Bluff Road
T
2 Downey Avenue at 5th Street
3 Downey Avenue at Alameda Street
4 Brookshire Avenue at 5th Street
5 Brookshire Avenue at 3rd Street
6 Brookshire Avenue at Iowa Street
7 Brookshire Avenue at Alamdea Street
8 Brookshire Avenue at Gardendale Street
9 Gardendale Street at Barlin Avenue
10 Columbia Way at Adoree Street
4,
11 Columbia Way at Foster Road

1 111.2: Countermeasures and Crash Data
Countermeasure (CM) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding No. Name Type" ' Factor (CF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility S02: Improve signal -hardware:
lenses, back -plates with
1 retroreflective borders, mounting, S 0.15 10 All 100% size, and number
ACM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; -Roadway:
i i- it r •- ` .
from (/DD ) 11/21/2016 To (/DD/ ): 12/10/2019 ` Crash Data Period (years) = 3.05 Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Axialyzer Pag?e S Of 10 Application C0 Syster do Traffic Signal improvement

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer k the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no ns are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section, Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding Bible errors,
Information/Data*
Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): 11
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( S02)
Crash Data Information:

Crash data period (years): 3.06
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:

AD: 1,3,13,29,8
Calculate
from CM Benefit from CM I Benefit from CM
2 ��#3� 1 Total Benefit
$5,240,273 1 $0
$5,240,273 1 $0
$0 $5,240,273
'�.=KXNUW
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.

Number of countermeasures: I
502: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Total Project Cost
HSIP Funds Requested Max. ERR
$266,000�
$266,000
100%
Total Expected Benefit
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

19.70 $5,240,273

1 4 =
MedianAppendix V-. Florence Project

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
*6 - i lb I I I
Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in '14jinutgI for IJSII'Anal!ggf. Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only, This is a dynamic for (i.e. later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using"HA" +Application ID as the file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form.

Project Location:
.. ........
i 1f.13111 - 1 4 IZMGMIEWIZ���
Florence Median Project_
Florence Avenue between Vultee Avenue and Woodruff Avenue Install a raised median on Florence Avenue
?nefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
I � is reNjilre rrf=T1MMMPLT"?1M C C Sal LY
benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.

Number of Intersections/Miles:

Number of countermeasures for the project:

I

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System (CS) maps to check the FC, click here.

Urban / Rural Area:

What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible? Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) F-AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT - = E-- 1-,�] Posted Speed Limit (mph):
(For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.) How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel =

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
HSIP Analyzer

UUMUMMEM
The local agency is expected to deliver the project peQhe H . Assuming the HSIP Cycle 10 projects selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? PE Authorization Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

I MI,
CON Authorization Date:

I
20MMUZ33ZM=

The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).

I.1 Countermeasures ( s) applied to alllocation(s) (from Page No.) tuber of countermeasuresi 1

1. R08: Install raised median; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90°!0 .2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

C r 1)r aflt g 11y t t y For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the C s and "Other Safety -Related' (OS) components ( t g, cntc: 10 for The cost % for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. 11) not enter d araa. for r t°.ay ;?ela; (calculated or rwt a tcd):
* % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety-Kelated components; ** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.

Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items IQ °! $2 ---- (e,g, enter 10 for 1011,o)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): 3(i (Rourzc�l d U11 LO Lhc ncaarest ht� ndreds)
• *.

Et°Wgg s Maxin-twu Fundilt, R itt�s��til,il� xiyint I tlig—, 90.000 Theproject's Metxinnun Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the non -safety related costs in excess of iQ%. This is the 'naxiinum value allowed to be entered in °HSIPfhotal(o(o)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate).

All project costs, fig all phase , std b � all fundin stet rces, must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total (o ": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table_ The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.

ReimbursementProject's maximum Funding
zn
(from Section I, rounded 1
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click ''Set":

Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $ 0), InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP al)glication form.

Version Date: April 2020 (updated WS12020) HSIP Analyzer Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP ,safety project is achieved by reducing potential fixture crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements.. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): ° " , "Might ,.

Ped & Bike" "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All' dataset.) Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NSO4 or NS05) is selected, additional information (stack as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual,

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.

S ITRS

2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or RIS is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed louver cost and losver impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. Whad safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in. 1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+"/"-" to add a new line/delete an existing line; 2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in III.2.

If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g.10 stop controlled intersections, 5 horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into 1 groups.

Location Location Description
No. (Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description) Location type for this project: R (Roadways)
GROUP No.1
I Florence Avenue

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer 1112 Countertricawres and Crash Data
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location Group No. I of I Eji1:e:GE_r_0_U12_D =—etai I Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).

No. Countermeasure (CM) M Crash R(ction Expected Life Crash Type Federal Funding C�V'�] 9Name Type FactorF(Years) Eligibility
F1I R08: Install raised median R 0.25 20 All 90010
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-RoadNvay, Step 2: Provide crash data.

2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (MM/DD/YYYY): L7TT(?=�/2016 To (MM/DD/YYYY): 10- Crash Data Period (years) = 3,68

2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step L Based on the countermeasures selected in Step I, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
Location Fatal i Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO No, i Total
(from Table 111.1) (ALL) (ALL) Injury (,UL) (ALL) (ALL) I florek'e Mcnlle,' 0 2 4 4 6 16
Total 0 2 4 4 6 16

Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer Click the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections and crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again, If no errors are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding possible errors.

Information/Data*
Location type: R (Roadways)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( ROS)
Crash Data Information:

Crash data period (years): 3.68
Number of crashes (F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:

All: 0,2,4,4,6
Calculate
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit #1 #2 #3
$7,273,638 $0 $0 $7,273,638
Sum $7,273,638 $0 $0 $7,273,638
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVD, Injury - Complaint )f Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively. 'fabskr the "Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the • to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.

1.1 1 1 JW4JAJ
Number of countermeasures: I
ROS: Install raised median
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
$416 $374,670 90 1/0
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$7,273,638 L 17.47

FOAM - 1=6
Appendix VI: Task Force Meeting Minutes and Agenda
... .... ... 111--l"I'll ........ ...

EM33EM
333M=
Top Intersections Review
Countermeasure Selection Review
Next Steps
o Core Team meetings. Incorporate stakeholders from the following, • Police Department
• Fire Department
• School Districts
• Parks and Recreation Department
• Bike Coalition
• Community Development Department
• PI H Hospital or Keiser Permanente
o Draft Report

ry
m 00 C)M;
to CL
bo
a A
-C < o
2 w 0
e
w 0
E e,
cn E
E h M
F-
cc N
E
Zo c
co� O� m
W
w w
0 m
9 9
I
�f.

EmMR
I
lgl
I
00 %-a
E
WN
a
I
I
0 0 <

G
P•
I
O
P.,

0 0
.9 - ,
0 U) L)
ca
ca
0 (D
E
E .2: acu
0 0
E
= W E
o -W 8
E
CO -0 Mo
- a)
— a)
(a t=
-
0 0 .5; r
3:

IZ co CN (D 0 0) 0
co 0 -
(D
cn
0 cu
= o
0 a) 0 g-- 0 - J_
cn
cm
(D 0 (D
(D " CO .0
A?
DC
8 (D (D (D a)
> cu
Q) E
(D
CL (a
0 cn
0 0 CL 0
0 -0
w
t5 -6
0 m
w E S cD
>
n
ZZ 0
-1 (D F- m , Q) -
-
-J 'D — CN
>, c 2E -
m
a) — (D
Q) L)
a) --r-
I
C) LO 'in-
co N a) r- 0
CD tm
-6
cm
0 0.

CD , L)
Up in
:r- E
0 ID
>
(D
3: " -
0 CL 0
.5
t! Z 7E CO
Q) Cj 0
a)
0 CL
a) U)
-2:1
cm - LU
(D S 8 -J
'a Q) CD
-- r- CD W
E U) as
a)
0 'r- ca
r- CL
c M 2
L
CL a) " cm'-
(D
m a) W (D
E E Z
a)
0 CL
0 t5 (D -
cn co cc ip
0)
0 0
0 0
w
.
0 cm 'a cm a a)
Z E :9
ca
U) ca
8 co
r-
a) .0
Com
C-L
0"".0Q)=
-�5
Q
F- o CL 0
(D
E o o 0 cn
E
0 CL E
0 0
=3
0 F- L)
0 I

a)
t5 0
(D —
0 ff.c
CD
CD
2 C: (D
ZZ
F m

0. (D
0-
co
I'd
0 L)
r- a)
E 75
2 cn
0 M c
0 U) 0
cu CL cc 0
>
w
c
E
0 0
0 a)
Xz-
0 a)
m
2 0 0
o
U)
U (D o
c
cn
0 (D
co
0 o t5 0 :2 m
I cu
w
0 (D a) 0
ca
cu CL a) t5 E
a) (D
0 M
r- W 75
CL
m
cn
CN
_r
0 a
c
(D CL aj
zz
UJ o
CL
0 0 c c 0
c -C
(D
m
0—
,e
o
0 E CD 0
m E 2:2
ca Z
c
w w
(cDo E
0-
L)
m a_
LL LL
U)
a)
z
E
(D
E
(D
E
(D CL
E -W
CL U)
CD
(D 4) v
>
E
a) 0
"
tm
-E
CL't
car) co:}
M
CLO
a)
C M C: 0
0 0 =3
0 0 E
�c
o i= 0
(D E
m 45 o
cL u- 05
cL m o o
a 0 *
a o 0 a