Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 1 Prepared for the City of Fontana
FONTANA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP):
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Date: 9/7/2022
To: Jeffrey Kim, Engineering Manager – City of Fontana
From: Frank Barrera, Senior Planner – KOA Corporation
Subject: City of Fontana LRSP – Stak eholder Outreach and Engagement Summary
Various stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts were conducted during the development of the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This memorandum summarizes the stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts.
Stakeholder Outreach and engagement
In addition to using analytical methods to identify locations for treatments and make recommendations, the LRSP also focuses on partnerships with the community to give input into this process and provide feedback on areas that the LRSP should focus on. Stakeholders were contacted after completing the collision analysis but before selecting emphasis areas to identify specific infrastructure improvements and programs. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback about traffic safety issues they have observed through their work and possible approaches to resolving these issues. For the Fontana LRSP, feedback was provided by the Fontana Police Department, Omnitrans, and the Fontana Unified School District.
Fontana Police Department
A meeting with the Fontana Police Department was held on February 15, 2021. Items discussed include the following:
● Roadway segments with a history of speeding
● Intersections of concern and reasons for concern
● Street racing activity on local roadways
● Experience with newer traffic control devices such as a Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
● Enforcement strategies such as pedestrian crosswalk sting operations, speed trailers, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) checkpoints
● Collision report policy
● Ideas for improving traffic safety
● Traffic safety awareness and educational campaigns
The police department noted that pedestrian issues were most prominent on Foothill Boulevard. The police department also noted the following specific enforcement activities and campaigns currently being conducted by the City:
● Primary Collision Factor (PCF) related enforcement
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 2 Prepared for the City of Fontana
● Click It or Ticket
● Bicycle Safety Awareness
● Motorcycle Safety Awareness
● DUI Saturation
● Distracted Driving
● Social media educational campaign
Omnitrans
A meeting with Omnitrans was held on February 16, 2021. During the meeting, issues discussed included safety concerns with bus accessibility at particular stations, recent transit route upgrades, and areas needing safety enhancements.
Fontana Unified School District
A meeting with the Fontana Unified School District was held on February 16, 2021. Items discussed included the following:
● How students travel to school
● Crossing guard information
● Driving patterns related to school drop-off or pickup ● Areas with safety concerns and the need for safety enhancements
Though the school district noted it did not have current programs to improve traffic safety, they expressed openness to adding an online program for parents or students.
Stakeholder Survey
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, were also included in the survey. Of the 13 survey respondents, 12 indicated 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.”
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 3 Prepared for the City of Fontana
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 pedestrian and bicyc list safety improvements in the 2022 LRSP. See the table below for a full list of corridor and intersection selections.
Table 1 – Survey Results on Study Locations
Corridor # of
responses Intersection # of
responses
Sierra Avenue 3 Highland Avenue and Juniper Avenue 1
Foothill Boulevard 2 Cherry Avenue and Slover Avenue 1
Slover Avenue 2 Valley Boulevard and Almond Avenue 1
Citrus Avenue 1 Foothill Bo ulevard and Sultana Avenue 1 Cherry Avenue 1 Beech Avenue and 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).
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) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 4 Prepared for the City of Fontana
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 2 – Survey Respondents on Intersections in the LRSP Intersections (in LRSP) # of
responses
Sierra Avenue and Valley Boulevard 6
Arrow Boulevard and 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
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 are shown below, including a breakdown of respondents’ top safety issues by selected intersection:
Table 3 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians/Bicyclists at 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) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engageme n t S u m m a r y P a g e 5 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 4 – 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) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 6 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 Boulev ard corridor as most dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, which was the highest vote total of any LRSP corridor project. Survey respondents could select all three corridors if they viewed each corridor as dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 5 – 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 6 – Survey Respondents on Top Safety Issues for Pedestrians and Bicyclists along 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) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 7 Prepared for the City of Fontana
Table 7 – 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
* Note that each respondent can select up to 2 categories for each selected corridor. Total number of categories (italicized in table) can be different than total number of responses along a corridor.
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.
SURVEY QUESTIONS
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.
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 8 Prepared for the City of Fontana
2. First, what is your connection to Fontana?
a. I live here
i. Cross street or neighborhood?
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
Fontana Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) | Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Summary Page 9 Prepared for the City of Fontana
8. Of the following corridors, which do you believe is most dangerous for pedestrians or bicyclists (Select up to three)?
a. Foothill Blvd
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