Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 1 Prepared for the City of Fontana
FONTANA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP):
EQUITY, POLICY AND ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS
Date: 9/13/2022
To: Jeffrey Kim, Engineering Manager – City of Fontana
From: Frank Barrera, Senior Planner – KOA Corporation
Subject: City of Fontana LRSP – Equity, Policy, and Engagement Analysis for SS4A Action Plan Compliance
With the recent onset of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, enacted by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT), up to $1 billion in roadway safety funding is available. Municipal governments, such as the City of Fontana, are eligible to apply for this SS4A funding. As part of the SS4A grant application, the City of Fontana is required to submit an SS4A Action Plan-compliant current Local Roadway Safety Plan, which the City completed in July 2022. This LRSP will become the foundation for traffic safety guidelines moving forward, and the City of Fontana is committed to routinely reviewing these safety guidelines, as outlined in the 2022 LRSP, every five years (or as funding allows). This traffic safety review will be conducted by the City’s Public Works and Engineering Departments and will include an updated assessment of collision data and traffic safety-related police citations, to identify current traffic safety trends and issues, and monitor the safety trends and changes. The progress of the Plan will be measured through the changes in the annual traffic collisions by reviewing changes in the number of total collisions but also the total number of type of collisions (fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO). The chief goal of the City’s traffic safety commitment is to reduce traffic-related injuries, particularly to pedestrians and bicyclists. This commitment is reflected in both the LRSP, and previous plans adopted by the City (which are discussed below). The City also must demonstrate that roadway safety improvement projects are focused in disadvantaged communities.
Fontana’s eligibility for an SS4A grant through an Action Plan-compliant LRSP, including projects included in the LRSP, are provided in this report.
EQUITY
Identifying community areas that are designated as disadvantaged communities is a core element of the SS4A compliant Action Plan grant application. There are several accepted methods for determining locations that can be considered disadvantaged communities.
HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY (HDC)
The USDOT developed its own metric for determining which Census tracts can be considered “historically disadvantaged.” This USDOT metric combines multiple datasets from agencies such as the CDC, US Census Bureau, and EPA to arrive at an aggregate score for individual Census tracts. This score is an aggregate of the following categories:
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 2 Prepared for the City of Fontana
1) transportation access
2) health
3) environmental (pollution)
4) economic
5) resilience (vulnerability to climate change)
6) equity (high concentration of individuals who speak English “less than well”)
According to the USDOT, disadvantaged Census tracts have scores exceeding the 50th percentile (75th percentile for resilience) in at least four of these individual categories.
Using this USDOT metric, a vast majority of Fontana can be considered a historically disadvantaged community. Only three Census tracts in Fontana (of 39 Census tracts) do not meet the threshold for “historically disadvantaged community.” These three Census tracts consist of single-family residential areas concentrated in the northern part of the city (West End/Village of Heritage, Hunter’s Ridge, and parts of Summit Ridge housing developments).
Fontana rates particularly high in the equity and transportation categories. In equity, all 39 Fontana Census tracts rate above the 50
th percentile nationwide, and 31 (of 39) Fontana Census tracts are scored higher than the 75th percentile in resilience. The 75th percentile is the disadvantaged threshold for the resilience category.
Over 87% of Fontana’s total area is considered a “historically disadvantaged community”, using the USDOT definition. In addition, over 91% of Fontana’s total population resides in a “historically disadvantaged community” Census tract, according to these USDOT metrics and 2019 ACS 5-Year estimate data.
Comparing these USDOT “historically disadvantaged community” Census tracts with Fontana LRSP projects, all ten Fontana LRSP intersection and three roadway corridor improvement project recommendations are located in a disadvantaged community.
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 3 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 1 – USDOT Disadvantaged Communities, Fontana
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 4 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 2 – LRSP Project Locations Map
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 5 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 1 – Study Locations and Disadvantaged Communities
AREA OF PERSISTENT POVERTY (APP)
The USDOT offers an additional definition for disadvantaged communities: Areas of Persistent Poverty.
This metric focuses solely on poverty rate, according to 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year estimate data, where any Census tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent is considered an “area of persistent poverty,” and therefore, a disadvantaged community.
The Area of Persistent Poverty is a more stringent measure for disadvantaged communities. In California,
51.7% of all Census tracts meet criteria for Historically Disadvantaged Community, whereas only 25% of Census tracts can be deemed an Area of Persistent Poverty, according to USDOT.
In Fontana, 16 Census tracts have poverty rates that meet the threshold for Area of Persistent Poverty, which is about 41% of all Census tracts in the city. The locations are generally around the downtown of Fontana – between I-10 and SR-210.
Concerning LRSP projects, six (6) of the ten (10) intersections chosen for improvements are located in an Area of Persistent Poverty. Also, each of the three corridors selected as an LRSP project intersect Census tracts deemed as an Area of Persistent Poverty.
ID Name Control Historically Disadvantaged
Community? (USDOT)
1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard Signalized Y
2A r r o w Boulevard and Locust Avenue Signalized Y
3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue Signalized Y
4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue Signalized Y
5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way Signalized Y
6A r r o w Boulevard and Oleander Avenue Signalized Y
7B e e c h Avenue and Valley Boulevard Unsignalized Y
8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive Unsignalized Y
9H e m l o c k Avenue and Slover Avenue Unsignalized Y 10 Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue Unsignalized Y
Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Ave
Valley Boulevard from West City Limits to East City
Limits
INTERSECTIONS
CORRIDORS
Name Historically Disadvantaged Community?
(USDOT)
Y
Y
Y
Foothill Boulevard from West City Limits to Citrus
Avenue
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 6 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Figure 3 – USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, Fontana
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 7 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 1 – Study Locations and Areas of Persistent Poverty
An area of persistent poverty can also be defined at the county level, for counties that have “consistently had greater than or equal to 20 percent of the population living in poverty during the last 30-year period,” according to decennial census data and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (USDOT: https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/RAISE-Persistent-Poverty-Tool/tsyd-k6ij/).
San Bernardino County, which the City of Fontana is located, does not meet the criteria for APP.
In summation, all proposed project locations meet the criteria for USDOT’s “Historically Disadvantaged Community” definition. Also, six Fontana LRSP project intersections and each of the three Fontana LRSP project corridors are located in an “Area of Persistent Poverty,” which is a more stringent measure of a disadvantaged community.
POLICY
Reviewing current safety plans, guidelines, and standards, as well as potential revisions to those guidelines, is a critical part of the SS4A application. A detailed discussion of Fontana’s major safety-related plans (and their relation to the newly adopted traffic safety guidelines in the LRSP) is provided below.
General Plan Update (2018)
The City of Fontana adopted its General Plan in 2003, followed by an update to the General Plan which was approved in 2018. In this General Plan update, Fontana residents were provided a list of ten potential ID Name Control Area of Persistent Poverty
(USDOT)
1 Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard Signalized Y
2A r r o w Boulevard and Locust Avenue Signalized Y
3 Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue Signalized Y
4 Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue Signalized
5 Sierra Avenue and Orange Way Signalized Y
6A r r o w Boulevard and Oleander Avenue Signalized Y
7B e e c h Avenue and Valley Boulevard Unsignalized Y
8 Cherry Avenue and Village Drive Unsignalized
9H e m l o c k Avenue and Slover Avenue Unsignalized
10 Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue Unsignalized
Citrus Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Ave Y
Valley Boulevard from West City Limits to East City
Limits Y
INTERSECTIONS
CORRIDORS
Name Area of Persistent Poverty (USDOT)
Foothill Boulevard from West City Limits to Citrus
Avenue Y
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 8 Prepared for the City of Fontana
citywide priorities and were then surveyed on which priorities they consider a “high priority” or “medium priority.” Residents identified “attract businesses with jobs for Fontana residents” as the top priority,” followed by “improve the maintenance of city streets and infrastructure”, “make it easier and safer to walk to local destinations”, and “redevelop and revitalize Valley Blvd and Foothill Blvd.” Over 60% of surveyed Fontana residents selected pedestrian safety and accessibility as a “high priority.”
Fontana’s recently adopted traffic safety guidelines (from 2022 LRSP) are committed to improving pedestrian safety citywide. Also, the LRSP selected both Foothill Boulevard and Valley Boulevard as corridor improvement projects, featuring new sidewalks, separated bike lanes, and wider shoulders. These projects align directly with the Fontana’s 2015 General Plan update, as both plans focus on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, especially on the Foothill Boulevard and Valley Boulevard corridors.
In addition, through more public participation, Fontana residents and stakeholders identified several transportation issues as major public health and mobility concerns in their community. These concerns included improving the sidewalk and bicycle lane networks as well as creating walkable districts. To address its community’s desire for improved pedestrian and bicyclist access, the City of Fontana adopted the following action items as part of the General Plan:
Make multimodal transportation a high priority by promoting pedestrian access, bicycle use, and transit options within Fontana and to the surrounding communities Maintain bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure at high levels to encourage use Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, automobile safety and transit accessibility over vehicle level of service at intersections
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 9 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Strongly encourage efforts to improve the safety of all roadway users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists
Design intersections to minimize conflicts between motorized vehicles and the more vulnerable roadway users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists
Consider pedestrians and bicyclists when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping, signals, and sight lines.
The City of Fontana set these policy action items as both achievable in the short term and as ongoing objectives – core parts of the City’s vision for its future. As mentioned in the General Plan, the City of Fontana’s engineering department, planning division, and public works department are responsible for managing these policy action items.
Active Transportation Plan (2017)
In 2017, the City of Fontana adopted an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which recommended 69.44 miles of new bikeway facilities. This included over eight miles of Class I (shared-use path) bikeways and over 37 miles of Class II (bike lane/buffered bike lane) bikeways. A complete breakdown of recommended bikeways (from the 2017 ATP) is provided below:
Fontana’s ATP proposed new bikeways along Valley Boulevard, from Banana Avenue to Alder Avenue, as well as along Foothill Boulevard, from Almeria Avenue to Citrus Avenue and Hemlock Avenue to Sultana Avenue. As these projects were not completed at time of 2022 LRSP adoption, the LRSP recommended new bikeways along both of these corridors: Valley Boulevard, from Banana Avenue to Alder Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard, between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue. In addition, both the ATP and LRSP proposed Class II bikeways along Citrus Avenue, a north-south corridor that provides access to several schools and features on-street parking across a majority of the corridor.
Both the ATP and LRSP identified the need for improving bicyclist safety and access along Valley Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard (east of Hemlock Avenue), and Citrus Avenue, which did not have bicycle lanes in 2017 nor were bicycle lanes installed at time of 2022 LRSP adoption.
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 10 Prepared for the City of Fontana
As shown in figure below, nearly all of the bikeway projects recommended in the LRSP were also recommended in the 2017 ATP (only a small bikeway proposed in LRSP for Locust Ave, near the Pacific Electric Trail, was not part of the ATP).
Figure 4 – Existing and Proposed Bikeways
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 11 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Note that the LRSP indicated that there is a right-of-way issue on Foothill Boulevard, east of Sultana Avenue, where Foothill Boulevard lacks shoulders due to the Pacific Electric Trail overpass. The Foothill Boulevard bikeway project received a “high priority” score, according to the ATP. The prioritization score aggregated seven individual criteria, including community support, safety (number of pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions), and proximity to schools, retail, and recreation.
Figure 5 – 2017 Fontana Active Transportation Plan, Existing and Proposed Bikeways
The 2017 ATP also included pedestrian improvements at intersections, as shown in figure below (Figure
5.2 in the ATP). The intersections outlined in Figure 5.2 were recommended for a variety of pedestrian
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 12 Prepared for the City of Fontana
safety improvements, such as high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, conflict pavement markings, and median refuge islands. Several of these pedestrian safety improvements were also included in the LRSP, particularly high-visibility crosswalks and curb extensions. The following intersections were recommended for pedestrian safety improvements in both the ATP and LRSP:
Valley Boulevard and Sierra Avenue
Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
Figure 6 – 2017 Fontana Active Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Priority Areas
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 13 Prepared for the City of Fontana
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
To ensure that the recently adopted traffic safety guidelines (developed in th e 2022 LRSP) involved the Fontana community, a survey was created to engage local stakeholders on their opinion of traffic safety in Fontana. The survey was po sted online, via Typeform. A total of 13 survey responses were recorded from individuals representing local orga nizations such as SBCTA, San Bernardino County Fire Department, Fontana Chamber of Commerce, and Omnitrans. Several non-governmental organizations, with ties to the Fontana community, such as major businesses which ar e major employment centers within the City, were also included in the surv ey. Of the 13 survey respondents, 12 indica ted that they work in Fontana. Two respondents indicated that they both work and live in Fontana.
The survey included nine questions, asking respondents to provide thei r name, organization information, and connection to Fontana, as well as their opinion of roadway safety on local Fontana streets, both as a driver and a pedestrian or bicyclist. Overall, over 50% of all survey responde nts viewed walking and/or biking in Fontana as “less safe” or “not safe at all.” Survey respondents viewed driving more favorably (in terms of safety), with 10 respondents viewing driving in Fontana as “moderately safe” and three respondents selecting “very safe.”
Survey respondents were also asked which Fontana intersections and/or roadway corridors they considered to be the least safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Respondents could se lect any intersection or corridor.
Seven (7) different corridors and five (5) different intersections were selected, with Sierra Avenue receiving the largest number of selections three (3) for “most dangerous” citywide corridor. It should be noted that the Foothill Boulevard and Citrus Avenue corridors, which were identified by survey respondents as unsafe corridors, were recommended for pedestrians and bicyclist safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP. See table below for full list of corridor and intersection selections:
02468 1 0 1 2
No response
Not safe at all
Less safe
Moderately safe
Very safe
Perceived Safety (Driving vs Walking or Biking)
How safe do you find it to *walk or bike* on local streets in Fontana? How safe do you find it to *drive* on local streets in Fontana?
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 14 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 2 – Survey Results on Study Locations
Corridor # of
responses Intersection # of
responses
Sierra Avenue 3 Highland Avenue & Juniper Avenue 1
Foothill Boulevard 2 Cherry Avenue & Slover Avenue 1
Slover Avenue 2 Valley Boulevard & Almond Avenue 1
Citrus Avenue 1 Foothill Boulevard & Sultana Avenue 1
Cherry Avenue 1 Beech Avenue & Arrow Boulevard* 1
Arrow Boulevard 1
Ivy Avenue 1
*Beech Avenue & Arrow Boulevard intersection is outside of City of Fontana jurisdiction LRSP Intersections
To supplement the outreach undertaken during the LRSP, survey respondents were polled as to which LRSP project intersections and corridors they viewed as “most da ngerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists, and therefore locations most in need of active transportation safety improvements. Respondents were asked to select up to three intersections (of 10 total).
From those selections, respondents we re then asked to select (from a lis t of five categories) up to two reasons for the unsafe pedestrian/bicyclist conditions on their selected inters ection(s) and corridor(s).
Category choices included: high traffic volumes, poor or missing sidewalks, lack of crosswalks, high vehicle speeds, and lack of shade/trees.
Survey respondents identified Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue as the most dangerous intersections (of the 10 intersections recommended for improvements in LRSP) for pedestrians and bicyclists. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to three intersections. Full survey results are included below:
Table 3 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Intersections (in LRSP) # of
responses
Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard 6
Arrow Boulevard & Oleander Avenue 6
Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue 4
Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue 4
Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard 3
Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue 2
Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue 1
Sierra Avenue and Orange Way 1
Cherry Avenue and Village Drive 1
Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue 0
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 15 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Of the 10 intersections proposed for road safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP, survey respondents chose high vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes as the top safety issue impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at LRSP project intersections. Again, note that survey respondents could select up to two safety issues. See full results below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:
Table 4 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians/Bicyclists, Intersections Top Safety Issue for Pedestrians/Bicyclists
(at intersections) # of responses
High vehicle speeds 11
High traffic volumes 8
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 1
Lack of shade/trees 0
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 16 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 5 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Intersections (in LRSP)
# of
responses
*
Sierra Avenue & Valley Boulevard 6
Beech Avenue & Valley
Boulevard 3 Cherry Avenue & Village Drive 1
High vehicle speeds 5 High vehicle speeds 2 High vehicle speeds 1 High traffic volumes 5 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Oleander
Avenue 6 Highland Avenue & Knox Avenue 2 Baseline Avenue & Mango Avenue 0 High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 0 High vehicle speeds 0 High traffic volumes 4 High traffic volumes 1 High traffic volumes 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 2 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of sh ade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0 Arrow Boulevard & Locust Avenue 4 Jurupa Avenue & Sierra Avenue 1 * Note that each respondent can select up to 2
categories for each selected intersection. Total
number of categories (italicized in table) can be
different than total number of responses at
intersection.
High vehicle speeds 4 High vehicle speeds 1
High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0
Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1
Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0
Hemlock Avenue & Slover Avenue 4 Sierra Avenue & Orange Way 1 High vehicle speeds 3 High vehicle speeds 1
High traffic volumes 2 High traffic volumes 0
Poor or missing sidewalks 1 Poor or missing sidewalks 0 Lack of crosswalks 1 Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0 Lack of shade/trees 0
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 17 Prepared for the City of Fontana
High vehicle speeds and high traffic volumes were selected as the top safety concerns for almost all LRSP project intersections. This stakeholder concern for vehicle speeding directly aligns with the City of Fontana’s commitment to mitigating unsafe speeding on local streets, adopted as a major safety focus area in the City’s 2022 LRSP.
LRSP Corridors
Survey respondents were also ask ed to identify which LRSP project corridor(s) they viewed as “most dangerous” for pedestrians and bicyclists. Of the three corridors proposed for improvements in the LRSP, seven survey respondents identified the Valley Boulevard as most dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, which was the highest vote total of any LRSP corridor project. Survey responde nts could select all three corridors if they viewed each corridor as dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 6 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP
Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
Similar to the LRSP intersection survey, survey respondents were then asked to select the top safety issue(s) impacting pedestrians and bicyclists at their chosen corridor(s). Respondents could select up to two safety issues. The selection results were similar to that of the LRSP intersections. Of the five safety issues, respondents selected high vehicle speeds as the top safety issue (for pedestrians and bicyclists) on Fontana LRSP project corridors. High traffic volumes and poor or missing sidewalks tied for the second- highest selection total.
See full results below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:
Table 7 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, Corridors Top Safety Issue for Pedestrians/Bicyclists (corridors) # of responses
High vehicle speeds 10
High traffic volumes 7
Poor or missing sidewalks 7
Lack of shade/trees 1
Lack of crosswalks 0
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 18 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 8 – Survey Respondents on Corridors in the LRSP Regarding Safety Concerns Corridors (in LRSP) # of
responses*
Valley Boulevard (citywide) 7
High vehicle speeds 5
High traffic volumes 5
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 1
Foothill Boulevard (west city limits to Citrus Avenue) 5 High vehicle speeds 4
High traffic volumes 2
Poor or missing sidewalks 4
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
Citrus Avenue (Arrow Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue) 4
High vehicle speeds 2
High traffic volumes 4
Poor or missing sidewalks 2
Lack of crosswalks 0
Lack of shade/trees 0
High vehicle speeds was tied for the top safety issue for the Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard LRSP project corridors. In response to this stakeholder concern for unsafe speeding, the LRSP recommended several traffic calming countermeasures on Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, such as constructing a raised median and widening the shoulders on Foothill Boulevard, as well as introducing a separated bike lane on both Valley Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The LRSP also proposed constructing sidewalks on Foothill Boulevard (where sidewalks were missing between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue). Four (4) of the five (5) survey respondents who selected Foothill Boulevard as a dangerous corridor then identified “poor or missing sidewalks” as a top safety issue impacting pedestrians on that corridor.
EXAMPLE SURVEY
1. The City of Fontana is currently submitting a grant application to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) as part of their nationwide Safe Streets for All (SSA4A) initiative. SS4A aims to provide funding for roadway safety projects that would benefit populations with high socioeconomic, environmental, and/or health need. We appreciate your input on this potential project through answering a few questions on this short survey.
2. First, what is your connection to Fontana?
a. I live here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 19 Prepared for the City of Fontana
b. I work here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
c. I visit here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
d. Other
i. Please state your relationship with the Fontana community.
3. How safe do you find it to drive on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?) a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all
4. How safe do you find it to walk or bicycle on local streets in Fontana (not the I-10 or SR-210 freeways?)
a. Very safe
b. Moderately safe
c. Less safe
d. Not safe at all
5. What intersections and/or street corridors have you encountered that are less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists?
a. ….. Free response from survey taker
6. Of the following intersections, which do you believe are most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to 3)? Show map
a. Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard
b. Arrow Boulevard and Locust Avenue
c. Baseline Avenue and Mango Avenue
d. Jurupa Avenue and Sierra Avenue
e. Sierra Avenue and Orange Way
f. Arrow Boulevard and Oleander Avenue
g. Beech Avenue and Valley Boulevard
h. Cherry Avenue and Village Drive
i. Hemlock Avenue and Slover Avenue
j. Highland Avenue and Knox Avenue
7. For the intersections you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees
8. Of the following corridors, which do you believe is most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to three)?
a. Foothill Blvd
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Equity, Policy and Engagement Analysis Page 20 Prepared for the City of Fontana
b. Citrus Avenue (Arrow Blvd to Jurupa Ave)
c. Valley Blvd
9. For the corridor you selected as most dangerous, what are the top two concerns for pedestrians? (select two)
a. High traffic volumes
b. Poor or missing sidewalks
c. Lack of crosswalks
d. High vehicle speeds
e. Lack of shade/trees
10. Any other safety concerns you would like to mention a. …. Free response from survey taker
USDOT discussion on criteria for Historically Disadvantaged Community (HDC) classification:
Consistent with OMB’s Interim Guidance, DOT has developed a definition for highly disadvantaged communities using existing, publicly available data sets and where source data did not exist (Tribal lands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) OMB’s Common Conditions definition. Population data is from the 2019 American Community Survey: 5-Year Data. The disadvantaged Census Tracts, as identified in this tool, exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the Census Tract level using data from the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index, EPA EJ Screen, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool and FEMA National Risk Index. Transportation Access disadvantage identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index) Health disadvantage identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) Environmental disadvantage identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality. (EPA EJ Screen) Economic disadvantage identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality. (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool) Resilience disadvantage identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change. (FEMA National Risk Index) Equity disadvantage identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well." (CDC Social Vulnerability Index) For more information on DOT's Justice40 activities, or to download the DOT Disadvantage layer as a shapefile please visit https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40. The DOT Disadvantage layer is available as a feature layer here
https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de9979007ae24a25845e84e21d5a32d4