Fresno
Vision Zero
Action Plan
May 2026 Draft
Acknowledgments
City of Fresno Staff
> Andreina Aguilar, Project
Manager, Department of Public
Works
> Scott Mozier, PE, TE, Director,
Department of Public Works
> Jill Gormley, TE, Assistant
Director, Department of Public
Works
> Scott Tyler, PE, TE, City Traffic
Engineer, Department of Public
Works
> Mark Van Wyhe, Sergeant,
Fresno Police Department
> John Belli, Officer, Fresno Police
Department
> Shelby McNab, Assistant
Director, Parks After School,
Recreation and Community
Services
> Ashley Atkinson, Assistant
Director, Planning & Development
Department
> Sophia Pagoulatos, Program
Administrator, Planning &
Development Department
> Justin H. Beal, Acting Fire
Marshal, Fresno Fire Department
> Keola Park, Acting Deputy Chief,
Fresno Fire Department
> Gregory Barfield, Director,
Fresno Area Express (FAX)
> Drew Wilson, Planning Manager,
Fresno Area Express (FAX)
Toole Design Group
> Mia Candy
> Ellie Gertler
> Lindsay Mulcahy
> Angie Byrne
> Kaitlyn Kwan
> Sam Person
DKS
> Josh Pilachowski > Brian Chandler
Urban Diversity Design
> Sheila Hakimipour
Prepared by
2 Vision Zero Task Force
The following agencies, organizations, groups, and departments constituted the Task Force:
Agencies
> Caltrans
> City of Clovis – Planning &
Development Services
> City of Fresno – FAX
> County of Fresno – Public Health
Department
> County of Fresno – Public Works
and Planning Department
> Fresno City College
> Fresno Council of Governments
> California State University of
Fresno
> Central Unified School District
> Clovis Unified School District
> Fresno Unified School District
> Sanger Unified School District
> Community Regional Medical
Center
Organizations
> Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
Groups
> Active Transportation Advisory
Committee (ATAC)
> Disability Advisory Commission
(DAC)
Departments
> City Manager’s Office
> City of Fresno – Fire Department
> City of Fresno – Planning &
Development Department
> City of Fresno – Parks After
School, Recreation & Community
Services (PARCS)
> City of Fresno – Police
Department
> City of Fresno – Public Utilities
Department
> City of Fresno – Public Works
Department
We would also like to thank the following community-based organizations for their participation in the Vision Zero Action Plan process, and their ongoing commitment to reducing fatal and severe collision across Fresno. > Every Neighborhood Partnership
> Fresno Building Healthy
Communities
> Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
> Jackson Neighborhood Community
Development Corporation (CDC)
3 Letter from the Mayor
Letter to come.
4 Contents
Introduction and Plan Purpose 7
A Strong Foundation for Safe Streets 17
A People-First Approach 23
Traffic Safety in Fresno 33
Ready to Act: Vision Zero
Recommendations 55
Achieving Zero: Implementation 109
5 1
.
6 Introduction and
Plan Purpose
Fresno is facing a preventable traffic safety crisis, with an average of more than 40 deaths and 125 severe injuries each year on city streets, irrespective of cause. Vision Zero commits the City to eliminating these tragedies by 2050 through a Safe System Approach that prioritizes human life, designs for human error, and embeds safety into every transportation decision. This Plan establishes the framework, leadership commitment, and urgency needed to shift from reactive responses to proactive, lifesaving action. 7 What is Vision Zero?
Vision Zero is a strategy focused on eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all.
The most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that in 2023, more than 40,900 people were killed in motor-vehicle crashes on American streets, and nearly 2.5 million people were injured. This translates to one person killed every 13 minutes and five people injured every minute. Every fatal or severe collision is not just a statistic — the people impacted are our friends, family, and neighbors. A Vision Zero approach recognizes that these traffic deaths are preventable.
A New Way of Thinking About
Safety: the Safe Systems
Approach
The Safe System Approach is a guiding model for addressing roadway safety that centers human needs and behaviors. The model uses a holistic method for achieving road safety, acknowledging that there is a shared responsibility between those that design, build, operate, and use the street network. The recommendations, strategies, and actions outlined in this Plan are rooted in the Safe System approach and guided by the following principles:
> Death and severe injury are unacceptable. While preventing every crash may not be possible, it is possible to attempt to design a system where no one loses their life or suffers devastating injuries just trying to get from place to place.
> Humans make mistakes: Whether it's a moment of distraction or a wrong decision, the road system should be built to absorb common human errors and prevent those mistakes from turning into tragedies, as much as possible.
> Humans are vulnerable: When crashes do happen, people are vulnerable to the forces involved. Streets, speeds, and vehicles should be designed with these physical limits in mind, reducing the risk of deadly or disabling outcomes.
> Responsibility is shared: There are many different players that make the transportation system safe or unsafe. Elected officials, planners, engineers, school officials, automotive designers, and all people moving on streets need to work together to create a safe roadway network. > Safety is proactive: A crash should not have to happen to prove that something is unsafe. Transportation agencies should use the best practices and research to proactively identify and address dangerous locations. > Redundancy is crucial: Safety works best when multiple strategies, like safe street design, appropriate speeds, protective infrastructure, and safe behavior work together to catch problems before they become deadly. 8 Introduction and Plan Purpose
In a Safe System, No Singular
Strategy is Sufficient
The Safe Systems Approach requires concurrent
commitment strategies that address all the root causes of fatal and severe collisions
THE SAFE
SYSTEM
APPROACH
REDUNDANCYIS CRUCIAL • DEATH/SERIOUS INJURYIS UNACCEPTABLE • HUMANS MAKE
MISTAKES
• SAFETY IS PROACTIVE • RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED • HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE • Safe Road Users
Active transportation public education campaign: Conduct a public education campaign, building on existing OTSfunded and community-based programs, to shift norms around traffic safety.
Safe Vehicles
Municipal Fleet Safety: Improve safety across municipal fleets through updated purchasing and management
policies and the use of telematics and other technologies to monitor, support, and reinforce safe driving practices.
Safe Speeds
City of Fresno Traffic Calming Program: Expand and
clarify the City's Residential Speed Hump Policy to
include other traffic calming treatments, using the Vision Zero Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit and Mobility Design Guidelines to guide design, implementation, and
maintenance.
Safe Roads
Daylighting: Provide public education on the purpose and safety benefits of daylighting, and implement consistent, easily recognizable treatments to improve visibility and reduce conflicts at intersections and crossings.
Post-Crash Care
Technology upgrades: Implement traffic signal technology, such as emergency vehicle preemption and coordinated
signal progression, to reduce emergency response times, improve responder safety, and support faster access to
medical care following serious crashes.
What is Vision Zero? 9
The Time is Now: A Traffic
Safety Crisis in Fresno
Nationwide, roadway design has historically prioritized vehicle efficiency and movement over human safety. As a direct result, Fresno is one of many cities in the United States experiencing an epidemic of preventable deaths and serious injuries.1
Like many peer cities, crashes involving people walking, bicycling, or riding motorcycles, account for a disproportionate share of fatal and severe injury outcomes in Fresno.
The data points to a traffic safety crisis in the City of Fresno: Between 2019 and 2023, each year on average, more than 40 people lost their lives and 125 suffered severe injuries in traffic crashes2 on Fresno’s
streets. The consequences of crashes were particularly severe for people walking - more than 280 pedestrians died or were severely injured over five years. In addition, the pedestrian fatality rate for the broader Fresno Metro area is one of the highest in the nation; Smart Growth America’s 2024 Dangerous by Design report3 ranks the Fresno metro seventh in the nation—out of more than 100 metro areas—for pedestrian fatalities, with pedestrian fatality rates trending upward over time.
Between 2019 and 2023 in Fresno, there were
217
fatal crashes
629
severe injury
crashes
1 According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (OASH), "motor vehicle crashes are the second leading cause of death from unintentional injuries in the United States. In addition, the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths in the United States is about twice the average rate of other high-income countries.
2 Traffic crashes included in this report do not account for crashes where people were struck by trains. Local media from 2019 does indicate that between 2013 and 2017, Fresno County was on the top 10 list of counties where people were struck by trains according to the Federal Railroad Administration (https://kmph.com/news/local/ trains-hitting-people-fresno-county-very-high-on-list). 3 Smart Growth America – Dangerous by Design, 2024 (Pp 10-11) https://www. smartgrowthamerica.org/signature-reports/dangerous-by-design/ (Page 10) “Just the number of fatalities
in certain intersections
around Fresno is appalling.
I've lived by a couple of them
and it's heartbreaking how
many have flowers or photos
of killed loved ones.”
– Fresno VZAP Community
Survey, April 2025
In 2024, the Fresno
Metro Area was
ranked #7
most dangerous metro
area for pedestrians out
of 101 metro areas
10 Introduction and Plan Purpose
A Vision Zero
Movement is Born in
Fresno
For two decades, City of Fresno community members have been advocating for safer streets in Fresno. Fresno City Council members built on this momentum by stating publicly that roadway safety is a top priority for them and their constituents. In response, the staff from the City of Fresno’s Public Works Department pursued ambitious and competitive funding for a Safe Streets for All grant from the Federal Department of Transportation. In 2022, the City was awarded funding to complete a Vision Zero Action Plan as part of the inaugural Safe Streets for All cohort.
A memorial erected in memory of a victim of
traffic violence. Photo taken near Woodward
Park, December 2024
A Vision Zero Movement is Born in Fresno 11
Responding to the Crisis: A
Vision Zero Plan for Fresno
Implementing the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan now is critical. Fresno has built momentum towards a culture of safety and has articulated a clear commitment to eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries while improving health, safety, and equitable mobility for all. Acting now ensures that this momentum translates into measurable, life-saving goal outcomes.
The City of Fresno acknowledges that achieving this goal will require a commitment to a fundamental shift in the day-to-day “business” of transportation in the City of Fresno, moving away from practices that tolerate severe crashes as inevitable, and toward a system that proactively designs streets for human life. This Plan provides the framework to make that shift, and the scale of harm on Fresno’s streets makes implementation not just important, but urgent.
“Si es importante eliminar los
accidentes lamentablemente
la solución viene después de
tanto accidente."
"If it’s important to eliminate
accidents, unfortunately the
solution comes only after so
many accidents.”
– Fresno VZAP Community
Survey, April 2025
12 Introduction and Plan Purpose
Rooted in the Safe System Approach, this plan emphasizes that human life and health are paramount, and transportation systems should be designed to accommodate human error and vulnerability. The Fresno Vision Zero Action Plan outlines strategies and recommendations to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all road users. This Plan:
Analyzes crash data to
understand when, where,
and why crashes are
happening in Fresno;
Documents
comprehensive
engagement with
community members,
stakeholders, and decision
makers to understand
how they are impacted by
Fresno’s road safety crisis;
Identifies strategies,
projects, priorities,
and policy changes
that aim to eliminate fatal
and serious crashes on
Fresno streets; and
Prepares the City of
Fresno to apply for future
funding opportunities to
implement transportation
safety improvements.
A Vision Zero Movement is Born in Fresno 13
Goal: Zero Fatalities and
Serious Injuries by 2050
City of Fresno Goal for Zero
The City of Fresno is committed to reaching zero deaths and eliminating severe injuries on roadways by 2050, acknowledging that loss of life is preventable and not inevitable.
Vision for Change
To achieve zero deaths and severe injuries, the City of Fresno envisions citywide transformation towards a Proactive Safety Culture characterized by:
Institutional Change
(Governance and Systems)
Community Change
(Public Norms and Behavior)
Community members – including people
walking, bicycling, driving, taking transit,
and using electric mobility devices – look
out for one another on the roads. There is
a measurable shift in community behavior,
expectations, and dialogue around
transportation safety, reinforcing that safe
travel is a shared responsibility and a core
community value.
City departments, local agencies, and
partner organizations demonstrate shared
responsibility for safety by aligning policies,
practices, and operational procedures
with the Safe System Approach. There is
a transition from reactive, collision-driven
safety planning to proactive strategies that
identify and attempt to address high-risk
behaviors and high-exposure locations and
conditions before serious injuries or
fatalities occur.
14 IntroductIon and Plan PurPose
Leadership Commitment
Achieving Vision Zero in Fresno requires strong, visible leadership and shared accountability across City government. Eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries by 2050 is not the responsibility of a single department—it is a Citywide commitment that must be reflected in policies, programs, investments, and everyday decision-making.
City leadership sets the expectation that human life and health are the highest transportation priorities by supporting policies that prioritize safety over speed and convenience, directing resources to high-risk locations and communities, and embedding the Safe System Approach across all transportation-related activities. This commitment ensures Vision Zero remains central over time, even as staff, funding sources, and priorities evolve.
Leaders from Community Based
Organizations participate in a Safety
101 Workshop, October, 2024
Vision for Change 15
2 .
16 Introduction and Plan Purpose
A Strong
Foundation for
Safe Streets
Fresno’s Vision Zero Action Plan builds on more than a decade of safety investments. This plan does not exist in isolation but builds on regionwide safety efforts. Together, initiatives led by the City, County, Council of Governments, FAX, school districts, and other key partners will advance Fresno's culture of safety.
Vision for Change 17
2014
DEC. 2014
City of Fresno adopted the
General Plan: Mobility and
Transportation Element
2018
City of Fresno adopted the
Fresno Safe Routes to School
Action Plan
2016–2023
The city has been awarded
funding through HSIP during
cycles 8, 10, 11, and 12
SEPT. 2019
City of Fresno adopted a
Complete Streets Policy
SEPT. 2020
City of Fresno completed
the Fresno Systemic Local
Roadway Safety Plan
FEB. 2020
City of Fresno completed the
City of Fresno Trail Network
Expansion Feasibility Plan
MAR. 2017
City of Fresno adopted the
Active Transportation Plan
MAY 2020
Fresno Area Express (FAX)
adopted a Public Transit
Agency Safety Plan
DEC. 2018
City of Fresno funded Highway
Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) Cycle 9 Projects
SEPT. 2015
City of Fresno completed the
Recommendations to Improve
Pedestrian Safety in the City of
Fresno report
Plans/Programs Funding/Awards Partner Agency Initiatives Over A Decade of Road Safety Investments in Fresno
The City of Fresno Vision Zero Action Plan represents the culmination of more than a decade of sustained investment and action by Fresno area agencies to improve roadway safety. The timeline below highlights key milestones, programs, and projects undertaken by the City—and its partners— that have helped advance Fresno’s evolving culture of safety on its streets. 18 A Strong Foundation for Safe Streets
2026
FEB. 2022
City of Fresno implemented
the Residential Speed Hump
Program
JUL. 2024
City of Fresno secured funding
to develop a Mobility Design
Guide
SEPT. 2025
Fresno County initiated
development of a SS4Afunded Safety Action Plan
2018–2023
City of Fresno PARCs Department,
through the Office of Traffic Safety,
has been awarded funding for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Programs every year except 2019
NOV. 2024,
ONGOING
City of Fresno began an
Active Transportation
Plan update
2020-2026
City of Fresno
participated in the
Statewide Zero Traffic
Fatalities Task Force
established by AB 2363
2023 AND 2024
City of Fresno received state and
national transportation awards:
Transportation Project of the
Year Award (APWA 2023) and IPI
Diamond Award and Project of
the Year Award (2024)
MAR. 2025, ONGOING:
Fresno County launched a Safe
Routes to School Program
JUN. 2024, ONGOING
Fresno Unified School District initiated
the Fresno Unified Safe Routes for
Students Plan
MAY 2026
City of Fresno is scheduled
to adopt the Vision Zero
Action Plan
FEB. 2023
City of Fresno was awarded a
Safe Streets and Roads for All
Action Plan Grant (FY 2022)
Over A Decade of Road Safety Investments in Fresno 19
What is Different About
this Process?
Prior transportation safety plans are fundamentally reactive - they focus on responding to the history of collisions at specific locations through once-off projects and spot treatments. While it is critical to address safety at highcollision locations, the scale of the road safety crisis in Fresno demands holistic, proactive, systemic interventions. The Vision Zero Action Plan was developed through a proactive, collaborative process that centered safety as a shared responsibility across City departments, community partners, and residents.
The planning process integrated data-driven analysis with feedback from engagement with stakeholders and community members to identify systemic risks, prioritize high-injury locations, and develop strategies grounded in the Safe System Approach to prevent severe injuries and fatalities before they occur.
Community leaders discuss priority
locations throughout the City of Fresno
during a safety workshop for Community
Based Organizations, October 2024
20 A Strong Foundation for Safe Streets
Moving From Individual
Responsibility to a
System Approach
The National Vision Zero network recognizes that many factors contribute to road safety - including roadway design, vehicle speeds, road-user behaviors, technology, and policies. Historically, road safety efforts in the United States have focused on individual responsibility, separating user behavior (such as speeding and failing to follow the rules of the road) from other factors that influence safety (like design and policy). The Vision Zero movement recognizes that while road user behavior is a key factor in ensuring system safety, it is a complex problem that must be tackled in coordination with design, policy, and planning. The figure below shows the relationship between:
> Individual road users who are
responsible for following the rules
> Planners and policymakers who are responsible
for prioritizing safety in decisionmaking, and
> Implementing agencies
who are responsible for ensuring
design and operations help
prevent collisions, and help
reduce the severity of those
collisions when they happen.
Source: Vision Zero Network
Moving From Individual Responsibility to a System Approach 21 3 .
22 AStrong Foundation for Safe Streets
A People-First
Approach
The Vision Zero Action Plan is rooted in deep, city-wide engagement.
The process centered community voices, equity, and cross-department collaboration to identify community priorities and systemic risks. The result is a people-first roadmap that aligns data, lived experience, and strategies to create safer streets for everyone.
Moving From Individual Responsibility to a System Approach 23 Comprehensive Citywide
Engagement
A people-first approach was essential to developing a Vision Zero Action Plan that prioritizes protecting the lives and wellbeing of everyone who travels in Fresno, especially those who have historically been underserved or disproportionately impacted by roadway safety conditions. To ground the Plan in community experience, the City conducted broad, inclusive, and accessible outreach, including extensive multilingual engagement and hosted events and pop-ups in each City Council district to reduce barriers to participation and reach a wide range of communities. By pairing community voices and local knowledge with technical analysis, the Plan is shaped by the people it is intended to serve.
Feedback gathered throughout the planning process directly informs the Plan’s priorities and recommended actions. Input from residents, community-based organizations, and stakeholders was used alongside crash and roadway data to identify and validate priority corridors and segments, elevate locations where people feel there are opportunities to enhance safety, and refine the types of improvements most needed. Community priorities also shaped the development of policies, programs, and education efforts that are recommended to address the user behaviors and operational characteristics contributing to severe and fatal crashes. 1 Community Open House
1 "Safety 101" Workshop
for Community Based
Organizations
12 pop-ups at
schools, parks, and
community events
A dozen social
media posts
3 community bike
rides & bike clinics
Thousands of multilingual printed
publicity materials
1 bilingual
Walk + Talk
5 Task Force
meetings
2 focus groups with
youth and seniors
1 bilingual survey, over
1,000 responses
24 A People-First Approach
“Before winter break, on Sunnyside Ave.
two young boys were killed in a collision
with an amazon truck. As an educator
its very hard when something like that
happens to young adults, because you
can see them as school one day, then
they are gone the next.”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Comprehensive Citywide Engagement 25
What did we hear?
people took the community survey
Half of all people who took the
survey know someone who has been
seriously injured or killed in
a crash in Fresno.
5% (44 people) who took the
survey have been personally
seriously injured.
1000+
50%
40+
Community members shared
that their top concerns when
navigating Fresno's roads are:
Infrastructure Gaps and
Interactions with Cars
> Intersections feel unsafe, and it can be difficult
to see oncoming drivers at intersections and
crosswalks
> There are areas with limited sidewalks, and
there aren't enough safe places to bicycle
> There are too many cars on the roads
> There is poor street lighting
Road User Behaviors
> Distracted driving (cell phones, screens)
> Reckless or aggressive driving
> Drivers running through red lights or stop signs
> Impaired driving (drugs/alcohol)
> Drivers speeding
> People crossing outside of crosswalks and
bicycling outside of bike lanes
26 A People-First Approach
What did we hear? 27
Partnerships with CommunityBased Organizations
Community-based organizations (CBOs) and community advocates played a central role in shaping and strengthening the plan’s outreach and engagement approach. In coordination with City staff, the project team convened a group of CBOs and community advocates to build project buy-in, share high-level findings, gather feedback on engagement strategies, and help disseminate information and publicize opportunities for public participation. Four CBOs were compensated through paid partnerships to conduct deeper, on-theground engagement with underserved and highly impacted communities through strategies such as community walking tours and bike rides. Highlights from the CBO and project team-led engagement are pictured on the following pages. CBOs and Community Advocates included the following groups:
Community Organizations and Agencies involved in the Vision Zero Action Plan Advocacy and Policy
Organizations
> Central Valley Community
Foundation
> Central Valley IAF – St Anthony
Mary Claret Catholic Church
> Every Neighborhood Partnership*
> Fresno Building Healthy
Communities*
> Fresno County Bicycle Coalition*
> Safe2School
> US Green Building Council
Neighborhood Specific
Organizations
> Better Blackstone
> Chinatown Fresno Foundation
> Hidalgo Community Development
Corporation (CDC)
> Highway City Community
Development Inc.
> Jackson Community Development
Corporation (CDC)*
Institutional, Service, and
Community Partners
> Fresno Cycling Club
> Fresno Housing Authorities
> Fresno Interdenominational
Refuge Ministries (FIRM)
> Fresno Metro Ministry
> Gazarian Real Estate Center
> Organizacion las Panchas
> Pequeños Empresarios
> Sierra Challenge Running Club
> The Children’s Movement Resident
Council
> The Fresno Center
> Tree Fresno
*Indicates compensated CBO
28 A People-First Approach
Vision Zero Taskforce
The Vision Zero Taskforce was established to guide development of the Action Plan, align decision-makers and partner agencies, and sustain the crosssector coordination necessary for long-term implementation. Through a series of five virtual meetings, the Taskforce helped build a shared understanding of Fresno’s safety challenges, identify general priorities for improvement, and provide input on which strategies were most appropriate for different locations and contexts across the city.
The Fresno Vision Zero Task Force met 5 times to discuss the following topics:
Meeting Dates Topic(s)
September 23, 2024
Project Overview and Introduction, Taskforce Roles and
Responsibilities, Safe System Approach overview, and Challenges and Opportunities Discussion
November 18, 2024 Community Engagement Overview and Brainstorm Discussion, Policy and Procedure Review, Collision Analysis Overview May 21, 2025
Community Engagement Highlights and Key Outcomes, High
Injury Network and Priority Locations Overview, Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit
November 4, 2025
Policy and Program Working Meeting, including Safe System Approach Case Studies, Strategy Mapping, and Prioritizing Equity and Collaboration
March 31, 2026 Review and provide feedback on the Draft Plan Figure 1 Example of multilingual public-facing project materials What did we hear? 29
Senior Center Focus Group
Ted C Wills Community Center
October 30, 2024
20 Attendees
Hosted by Project Team
CBO Workshop
Ted C Wills Community
Center
October 30, 2024
22 Attendees
Hosted by Project Team
Bilingual Walk and Talk
Blackstone Ave. | December 7, 2024
26 Attendees
CBO Partner: Every Neighborhood
Partnership (ENP)
30 A People-First Approach
Community Bike Ride and Clinic #1
Woodward Park | December 8, 2024
55 Attendees
CBO Partner: Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
Community Bike Ride and
Clinic #2
Holmes Park | February 22, 2025
50 Attendees
CBO Partner: Fresno County Bicycle
Coalition
Community Bike Ride and Bike
Rodeo
El Dorado Park | March 30, 2025
53 Attendees
CBO Partner: Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
What did we hear? 31
4 .
32 A People-First Approach
Traffic Safety
in Fresno
Crash data reveal that Fresno’s most severe crashes are not random—they are concentrated on a small share of high-speed and high-volume arterial and connector corridors and at intersections, and disproportionately impact people walking, biking, and riding motorcycles.
Nearly 90% of fatal and severe injury crashes occur on just 14% of the City’s roadway network, underscoring the power of targeted, systemic change. Safer street design, speed management, intersection improvements, and safer road-user behavior are essential to reach the goal of preventing the most devastating outcomes.
What did we hear? 33
What are the
underlying Conditions
in Fresno?
Fresno is one of California’s largest cities and the primary urban center of the San Joaquin Valley. With more than half a million residents spread across roughly 115 square miles, the city functions as a major economic and transportation hub for California’s Central Valley. Like many large American cities that experienced significant growth during the automobile era, Fresno’s road safety crisis is directly related to the underlying development patterns.
While the data show that most fatal and severe collisions are associated with factors such as high vehicle speeds and volumes, the following underlying land use and transportation patterns may create the conditions that allow these factors to occur.
Car-Dependent Land Use Patterns: Like many peer cities, Fresno’s development pattern is characterized by suburban sprawl, with long distances between key community destinations like schools, parks, grocery stores, retail, and recreation. As a result, most residents need a car to reach daily destinations, increasing the volume of vehicles on the road. Higher vehicle volumes increase the likelihood of fatal and severe crashes via increased exposure to conflicts.
Auto-Oriented Street Network: Fresno’s 20th-century,
auto-oriented street network prioritizes vehicle throughput on wide, multi-lane arterials. Many schools and bus stops are located along these corridors, requiring students and transit users to cross high-volume, high-speed streets. Gaps in sidewalks, crossings, and lighting further increase exposure for people walking, biking, or rolling.
Roads that Accommodate Higher Speeds: Data shows
that wide, straight, multi-lane roads are associated with faster driving speeds, because drivers feel more comfortable traveling faster when there is more space to maneuver.1
Higher speeds
significantly increase crash severity and reduce driver reaction time. When exposed to these speeds, people walking, bicycling, driving, or riding motorcycles are exposed to the risk for serious injury and fatal collisions.
1 Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy. (2023). Narrowing travel lanes: A safer choice for U.S. cities. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. https:// narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu/report/JHU-2023-Narrowing-Travel-Lanes-Report.pdf It is important to understand road
user behavior and underlying
transportation and land use
conditions side by side. While the
City can work to address design,
policy, and infrastructure factors,
every resident of Fresno - whether
walking, bicycling, driving, taking
transit, or riding a motorcycle - has
a role to play in following the rules
of the road. In Fresno, it is critical
to address issues like reckless and
distracted driving, driving under the
influence, running red lights, and
walking or bicycling outside of safe
and protected facilities.
“American cities are
among the most sprawling
and car-oriented cities
where, in most cases,
driving is the only travel
mode available to
households for commuting
and other transportation
needs. Higher numbers
of car trips and longer
distances significantly
increase the likelihood of
car crashes and fatalities.”
– Johns Hopkins Center
for Injury Research and
Policy, Narrowing Travel
Lanes: A Safer Choice
for U.S. Cities, 2023.
34 Traffic Safety in Fresno
How Roadway Characteristics
Influence Speed
In the City of Fresno, vehicle speeds are the second
highest contributing cause of severe injuries and fatalities during collisions. Managing vehicle speeds is a complex issue, but most research shows that roadway design has an important impact on vehicle speeds. There are several key factors in how roadway design affects vehicle speeds:
Lane Widths
As marked travel lanes increase in width, vehicle
speeds may increase. Recent research from Johns
Hopkins University finds that lane widths wider than 12 feet
are associated with less safe roadways. The National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
recommends 10-11-foot-wide travel lanes in urban
contexts to balance mobility and safety.
Visual Interruptions
Similar to edge friction, visual interruptions in the roadway can also lead to slower speeds. For example, curved
roadways and streets with more frequent intersections
can provide a varied driving environment that encourages driver attentiveness, according to research in the Journal of Planning Literature.
Edge Friction
Visual and physical cues along the roadway, like street trees on sidewalks or parked vehicles in the roadway,
may lead to calmer vehicle speeds. Street design
elements that visually or physically narrow the roadway, particularly those with strong vertical elements (street trees or utility poles) lead to edge friction. This edge friction encourages more attentive driver behavior and
slower driving speeds.
Posted Speed Limits
Simply reducing the posted speed limit along a corridor does not necessarily cause drivers to slow down, though well-marked slower speed limits can lower mean vehicle
speeds by 1 to 3 miles per hour according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Recent changes
to the California Vehicle Code in AB 43 allow cities to reduce speed limits by 5 miles per hour on HIN (High
Injury Network) streets or on streets with higher volumes of people walking and biking. However, unless these
posted speed limit changes are accompanied with traffic enforcement, they are unlikely to significantly change
speeding behavior.
Like many elements of Vision Zero, street design alone cannot lead to safer roadway behavior. It is essential for road users to adjust their behavior to protect one another - including reducing their speeds, avoiding distractions like cell phones, and following the rules of the road. But the Safe System approach that leans on multiple layers of redundancy, including street design and speed management, can lead to safer streets for all road users.
How Roadway Characteristics Influence Speed 35
What are the Underlying
Conditions in Fresno?
Population and Environmental
Considerations
A Diverse Population with Diverse Mobility Needs
Vulnerable Age Groups: Youth and older adults make up
nearly 40% of Fresno’s population. These populations are more likely to rely on walking, biking, and transit due to limited access to personal vehicles. These groups are also more physically vulnerable in traffic collisions and are overrepresented in crash data. Safe, accessible roadway design is especially critical to reduce severe and fatal injuries for these populations.
Income and Transportation Equity: Fresno’s lower median household income and higher poverty rate than state and national averages limit transportation choices for many residents, increasing reliance on walking, biking, and transit. Targeted safety investments are essential to reduce inequitable exposure to severe traffic injuries and fatalities.
Table 1 Median Household Income and
Poverty Rate Comparison
City of
Fresno California National
Median
Household
Income
$66,804 $96,334 $78,538
Poverty
Rate 20.9% 11.8% 10.6%
Ethnicity and Culture: Fresno’s diverse population includes a large share of foreign-born residents and households that speak languages other than English. Language barriers can limit access to transportation services, safety information, and participation in planning processes, making multilingual materials and culturally responsive engagement essential for effective communication and education with residents. Table 2 summarizes the major racial and ethnic groups represented in the city.
Table 2 City of Fresno Race and Ethnicity
Demographics
Race/
Ethnicity
City of
Fresno California National
Hispanic /
Latino 50.6% 40.8% 20.0%
White 38.0% 69.8% 74.8%
Asian 14.2% 17.0% 6.7%
Black /
African
American
6.7% 6.4% 13.7%
Compounding Transportation, Environmental, and
Geographic Barriers: Fresno’s Central Valley location
contributes to extreme heat and poor air quality that discourage walking and biking and increase health risks for people traveling without vehicles. When safe and comfortable travel options are limited, people who must walk, bike, or access transit face greater exposure to challenging roadway conditions. These systemic barriers disproportionately affect communities already facing higher crash risk, compounding transportation safety inequities.
Equity: The Caltrans Transportation Equity Index identifies prioritybased populations by combining transportation, environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to highlight communities that face greater transportation-related burdens and barriers. In Fresno, these populations are concentrated along major corridors, including Highways 99, 41, 180, and 168, which align closely with the City’s High Injury Network. Residents in these areas experience overlapping challenges and are disproportionately exposed to high-speed, high-volume roadways, reinforcing the strong link between equity, exposure, and traffic safety risk. 36 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Figure 2 Caltrans Transportation Equity Index Priority Populations and Fresno's High Injury Network
CLOVIS
OLD FIG
GARDEN
PRATTON
EASTON
FRESNO
0 1 2 3 4 mi.
SHAW AVE
HERNDON AVE
Cal State
University Fresno
Fresno
Yosemite
Airport
SHEPHERD AVE
ASHLAN AVE
SHIELDS AVE
MCKINLEY AVEBLACKSTONE AVE
FIRST AVE
CEDAR AVE
CHESTNUT AVE
BELMONT AVE
E VENTURA ST/E KING CANYON RD
CALIFORNIA AVE
NORTH AVE
FRESNO ST
JENSEN AVE
CENTRAL AVE
99 99
180
41 168
41 180
CLINTON AVE
SIERRA AVE
DAKOTA AVE
FRESNO ST
OLIVE AVE
MARKS AVE
WEST AVE
FRUIT AVE
TULARE AVE
BUTLER AVE
CHURCH AVE
FRIANT RD
NEES AVE
PPALM AVE
MAPLE AVE
WILLOW AVE
PEACH AVE
CLOVEIS AVE
JENSEN AVE
LEGEND
Caltrans EQI - Transportation Based Priority Populations High Injury Network
Fresno City Limit
How Roadway Characteristics Influence Speed 37
Safe Speeds
Assembly Bill 43, introduced in 2021, allows California cities to reduce the speed limit to 25 MPH in business and residential districts without a traffic study. Additionally, the California State Motor Vehicle Code 5 allows cities to reduce the standard school zone speed limit of 25 MPH to 15 MPH within 500 feet of schools for streets that are 30 MPH or less. However, even speeds of 30 MPH come with great risks for pedestrians: A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that the average risk of severe injury or fatality for pedestrians struck by a motor vehicle traveling 30 MPH is 40 percent, as illustrated in the graphic.2
Pedestrians hit at
this speed have a...
When a person is
driving at...
It takes1... 305 FT
This is their field
of vision.
1 Includes 2.5 seconds braking reaction time.
Sources
Bartmann, A., Spijkers, W., and Hess, M. 1991. Street Environment, Driving Speed and Field of Vision. Vision in Vehicles III.
W. A. Leaf, W.A. and Preusser, D.F. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries Among Selected Racial/Ethnic Groups. DTNH22-97-D-05018 Task Order 97-03. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999.
AASHTO Green Book—A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, 2018.
Teff, B. 2013. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50(87): 1-8.
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022
2 Tefft, 2013. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
38 Traffic Safety in Fresno
“This city, like most cities, isn’t made for
pedestrians. It’s made for cars. I fear for my kids
walking riding their bikes to school because there
are no sidewalks, the speed limits are too high […]”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Safe Speeds 39
Traffic Safety in Fresno
Collision Trends
The project team analyzed five
years of crash data (January 1,
2019 to December 31, 2023) to
understand where, how, and why
crashes are happening in Fresno.
Understanding this data is a crucial
step in identifying ways to make
Fresno streets safer and prevent
future crashes and fatal and severe
injuries. This section focuses on
fatal and severe injury crashes
(FSI), as understanding those
types of crashes can reveal highest
risk locations and factors. The
findings from this analysis serve as
a foundation for identifying safety
issues, prioritizing projects, and
guiding future actions in Fresno.
Over the 5-year time period,
crashes in Fresno resulted in
217 deaths and left 629 people
severely injured. That means that
on average, 43 people lost their
lives, and over 125 became
severely injured each year.
Figure 3 shows the breakdown of
fatal and severe injury crashes over
the 5-year period. Figure 4 shows
a map of all crashes in Fresno
over the 5-year period, color coded
by severity.
Figure 3 Fatal and Injury Crashes in Fresno, 2019–2023
Fatal injury: A collision that results in
the death of a person within 30 days of
the collision.
Severe (incapacitating) injury: A
collision that results in broken bones,
dislocation, severe lacerations, or
unconsciousness, but not death.
Other Visible injury (nonincapacitating): A collision that results in other visible injuries, including minor
lacerations, bruising, and rashes.
Possible injury (complaint of
pain): A collision that results in the
complaint of non-visible pain/injury, such
as confusion, limping, and soreness.
Property damage only (PDO): A collision
without injury or complaint of pain but resulting
in property damage to a vehicle or other object,
commonly referred to as a “fender bender.” TIMS
does not include non-injury crashes, therefore no
PDOs are included in this analysis.
Most Severe Least Severe
217
Fatal crashes
629
Severe injury
crashes
1,695
Minor injury
crashes
3,116
Possible injury
crashes
40 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Crashes in Fresno, 2019–2023, Crossroads and TIMS data
Traffic Safety in Fresno 41
Top Crash Trends
Overall, the crash trends analysis reveals that fatal and severe injury crashes in Fresno are highly concentrated at intersections and are driven by a combination of pedestrian exposure, speed, and impaired driving. The volume, regularity, and consistent nature of Fresno’s crashes across many locations point to systemic safety issues rather than isolated incidents. This also highlights clear opportunities for targeted interventions. The following key findings highlight the leading issues contributing to severe and fatal crashes on Fresno’s roads.
People Walking, Biking, or Riding
Motorcycles are Disproportionately
Impacted
Vulnerable road users is a term used to describe road users who do not travel inside the protection of a vehicle and are therefore more vulnerable to death and injury when crashes occur. This includes people walking, and people riding bicycles or motorcycles. In Fresno, crashes that involve vulnerable road users make up just 27% of all crashes, but 61% of fatal and severe injury crashes (Figure 5). This means that the people who are least protected during a crash are the most likely to die or be severely injured. Of fatal and severe injury crashes involving vulnerable road users, 36% involved pedestrians, 16% involved motorcyclists, and 9% involved bicyclists. This further reinforces that people walking are most at risk on Fresno’s roads.
Figure 5 All Crashes by Mode vs Fatal and Severe Crashes by Mode, 2019-2023
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
WALKING
BICYCLE
MOTORCYCLE
DRIVING ONLY
“ I was using the crosswalk at Tulare & 6th, crossing safely with the "walk" sign lit for us to go. I was pushing my 1 year old in a stroller, and my 2.5 year old was riding a push bike next to me. He moved ahead of me out of reach, while I eyed a Nissan Pathfinder turning left that was supposed to yield to us. I started yelling and waving my arms to get his attention but he did not stop and hit my son on his bike. This led to creating the Tulare Street Project through community advocacy.” – Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
42 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Crashes by Location:
Most Fatal and Severe Crashes in Fresno Happen
at Intersections
Over the 5-year period evaluated, 86% of all crashes occurred within 250 feet of an intersection. 82% of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at intersections and 18% occurred at non-intersections. This same distribution applies to fatal and severe crashes involving people walking and riding bicycles.
Key Takeaway: Reducing Conflicts
at Intersections is a Priority
The high proportion of crashes at intersections underscores the importance of intersection-focused safety
interventions, including geometric redesign, signal timing, access management, and complementary enforcement and
behavior-shaping strategies. There is also a need for safety strategies that include both design solutions and policies that prioritize reducing conflicts between roadway users.
“My husband has nearly been hit several times by
people who don't look before turning at an intersection.” – Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Traffic Safety in Fresno 43
What are the different crash types?
From most common to least common in Fresno
The following categories are used by the Fresno Police Department to code crashes in an incident report. 36%
Pedestrian/Motor Vehicle: A
crash in which a driver strikes a
person traveling on foot, including
people crossing the road, walking
along the roadway, or in the shoulder
or crosswalk.
30%
Broadside: A crash in which a driver
strikes another driver and the front
of one vehicle strikes the side of the
other vehicle. Typically occurring
at intersections and commonly
associated with drivers failing to yield,
running red lights, or turning conflicts.
(Also referred to as an angle crash.)
13%
Hit Object: A single-vehicle crash in
which a driver strikes a fixed object,
such as a tree, utility pole, sign, curb,
barrier, or guardrail. These crashes
are often associated with roadway
departures and higher travel speeds.
8%
Rear End: A crash in which a driver
strikes another driver traveling in the
same direction, typically from behind.
Often related to drivers following
too closely, stopping suddenly,
or congestion.
6%
Head-On: A crash in which a driver
strikes another driver traveling in the
opposite direction and the front ends
of the two vehicles collide. Typically
associated with people driving the
wrong way, making unsafe passing
maneuvers, or lane departure.
4%
Sideswipe: A crash in which the
sides of two vehicles make contact
while drivers are traveling in the
same or opposite directions, often
occurring when drivers change lanes
or merge.
“I just got the green arrow to begin my left turn onto Herndon (I was first in line) with my precious grandchildren in the car, and in a blink, a car flew through the intersection on a red light ... a moment later and I would have been hit on the driver's side at a speed of probably 70mph.”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
44 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Primary Collision Factors Explained
From most to least common in Fresno
The following categories are used by the Fresno Police Department in an incident report. Because police are typically not present when a crash occurs, they rely on eye-witness reports, video footage, and professional judgment to report each crash. 19%
Pedestrian Violation: A crash in
which a pedestrian’s action, such as
crossing outside a crosswalk, against
a signal, or unexpectedly entering the
roadway, is identified as the primary
contributing factor.
17%
DUI (Driving Under the Influence)
Driving or Cycling: A crash in which
alcohol and/or drug impairment of
a driver is identified as the primary
contributing factor, affecting judgment,
reaction time, or vehicle control.
16%
Unsafe Speed: A crash in which a
driver is traveling too fast for roadway,
traffic, or environmental conditions,
regardless of whether the posted
speed limit is exceeded. This includes
speeds that are unsafe due to weather,
congestion, or roadway design.
13%
Traffic Signs and Signals: A crash
resulting from a driver’s failure to obey
traffic control devices, such as running
a red light, stop sign, or disregarding
other regulatory signs or signals.
10%
Automobile Right of Way: A crash
in which a driver fails to yield the
right of way to another motor vehicle,
commonly occurring at intersections,
during merging, or when entering or
crossing a roadway.
6%
Improper Turning: A crash caused
by an unsafe or illegal turning
movement, such as improper left or
right turns, wide turns, turning from
the wrong lane, or turning without
adequate clearance.
4%
Pedestrian Right of Way: A crash
in which a driver fails to yield to a
pedestrian who has the legal right of
way, such as a pedestrian in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk or crossing
with a walk signal.
15%
Other: Crashes attributed to less
common or unspecified factors that
do not fall into the primary categories
above, including miscellaneous driver
actions, environmental factors, or
conditions not otherwise classified.
“I was waiting for the traffic signal at Audubon & Friant to change so I could cross the street. When the light changed, I stepped off the curb to cross when someone made a left turn from eastbound Audubon to northbound Friant. I had taken 2 steps into the street when I realized a car was turning on a red light.
They were driving very fast, which is common in NE Fresno.” – Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Traffic Safety in Fresno 45
Crashes by Type:
Crashes in which a person walking is struck by a
driver are the most common crash type in Fresno
Among fatal and severe injury crashes, Pedestrian/Motor Vehicle crashes accounted for the largest share (36%), followed by broadside crashes (30%) and Hit Object crashes (13%). These types of crashes indicate opportunities for systemic roadway treatments that address conflict areas between users, turning movements, and high-speed environments.
Key Takeaway: There
is a mismatch between
pedestrian travel patterns
and crossing opportunities.
Pedestrians crossing outside marked or protected
crossings or against signals account for the largest share of severe outcomes. This pattern indicates a mismatch
between pedestrian travel patterns and available crossing infrastructure. The severity of these crashes also reflects limited redundancy in the system—when a person walking
is struck by a driver, higher vehicle speeds greatly increase the likelihood of serious injury or death. These findings highlight the need for engineering solutions that provide safer, more frequent, and more intuitive crossings at
locations of high pedestrian demand, paired with education and outreach that reinforce safe crossing behaviors.
Figure 6 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Type,
2019-2023 (Crossroads data)
Why “Pedestrian Violations” Often Reflect System
Design, Not Individual Choice
Pedestrian “violations” often occur in locations where
the built environment does not provide safe,
convenient, or intuitive crossing opportunities. When
marked crossings are spaced far apart, people may
choose to cross mid-block—often near destinations
such as schools, transit stops, parks, and
neighborhood services.
For children, older adults, and people with mobility
limitations, these conditions are especially
challenging. In many cases, crossing outside of a
marked crosswalk is a predictable response to
roadway design that prioritizes vehicle movement over
safe pedestrian access. Addressing these crashes
may include changes to street design, crossing
frequency, signal timing, speed management,
education, and enforcement.
30%
Broadside
13%
Hit Object
8%
Rear End
7%
Other
6%
Head-On
4%
Sideswipe
36%
Pedestrian/
Motor Vehicle
46 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Crashes by Primary Collision Factors:
Fatal and severe crashes are driven by predictable,
system-level design and operational failures - not
isolated individual behavior - and therefore require
systemic interventions
Figure 7 illustrates that fatal and severe injury crashes are most frequently associated with pedestrian violations (19%), DUI-related behavior (17%), and unsafe speed (16%). Together, these factors point to a combination of high-risk behaviors and roadway environments that fail to safely manage speed and protect vulnerable road users. While the shares are lower, it is still notable that traffic control compliance and right-of-way violations further highlight how intersection design and driver behavior contribute to severe crashes.
Key Takeaway: Crashes involving
pedestrians and impaired driving
are far more likely to result in
severe injury or death.
These crash types represent a relatively small share of total crashes, but they produce disproportionately high severity outcomes, reflecting the vulnerability of people walking and the extreme risk posed by impairment. This
reinforces the Safe System Approach that recommends
managing crash forces through design while also
prioritizing interventions that prevent the most dangerous behaviors from occurring in the first place.
Figure 7 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Primary
Collision Factor, 2019-2023, (Crossroads data)
19%
Pedestrian
Violation
17%
DUI (Driving
or Cycling)
16%
Unsafe
Speed
15%
Other
15%
Other
13%
Traffic Signs
and Signals
6%
Improper Turning
4%
Pedestrian
Right-of-Way
Key Takeaway: High-severity crashes are
disproportionately associated with risky driving behaviors.
Driving under the influence (DUI) is the second most common contributor to high-severity crashes, followed by unsafe speeds, showing that the most severe outcomes are concentrated among a smaller set of high-risk behaviors. This indicates a need for roadway designs that reduce opportunities for speeding and severe errors, alongside targeted enforcement, policy, and public health strategies to address impaired and reckless driving. The Safe Systems approach recognizes that even with design and behavior improvements, humans will make mistakes. Systemwide strategies that reduce the severity of collision when they happen--such as lowering vehicle speeds and ensuring rapid emergency response and effective post-crash care—are essential for reducing fatal and severe collisions.
Traffic Safety in Fresno 47
Crashes by Time of Day:
Lighting conditions alone are not a primary
cause of fatal and severe injury crashes, but do
contribute to crash severity.
Most fatal and severe crashes occur during daylight or at night in areas with street lighting, suggesting that lighting conditions alone are not a primary cause of crashes. However, a higher proportion of FSI crashes occur at night (48%) compared to all injury crashes (30%), indicating that reduced visibility may contribute to more severe outcomes, particularly when combined with factors such as unsafe speeds and driving under the influence.
Key Takeaway: Most fatal and
serious injury crashes occur in
daylight or lit conditions.
The concentration of severe crashes outside of dark or
unlit environments suggests that limited visibility alone does not explain crash severity. This finding points toward systemic safety issues, such as speed, conflict complexity, and user behavior, that must be addressed through
holistic design and operational strategies rather than
lighting improvements alone.
Figure 8 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Lighting
Conditions, 2019-2023, (Crossroads data)
48%
Dark
Street Lights
Present
41%
Daylight
6%
Dark, No Street
Lights Present
4%
DuskDawn
Dark, Street Lights
1%
Not Functioning
Behavioral factors play a major role in severe crashes but are shaped by the roadway environment. Many high-severity crashes are associated with behavioral violations; however, these behaviors often occur in environments that encourage or fail to safely accommodate them.
This reinforces that neither roadway design nor behavior change interventions are enough in isolation.
Effective safety strategies must combine engineering, policy, enforcement, education, and community engagement to prevent severe outcomes.
48 Traffic Safety in Fresno
At least once a week the street light turns green
and then someone comes flying through the red
light. I wait ten seconds before going into the
intersection now after too many close calls. I also
like to walk my daughter to school but because we
have to cross a main street (Fruit Street) without a
stop sign we have to walk down to the intersection
and it adds too much time to our walk commute. If
we had more stop signs and crosswalks we would
move through the city differently.
Traffic Safety in Fresno 49
High Injury Network
A High Injury Network (HIN) uses crash data to identify street segments where severe and fatal crashes are most concentrated. Crash concentrations are normalized by segment length to allow fair comparisons across corridors.
Rather than focusing on exposure-based crash rates, the HIN prioritizes locations where the greatest number of serious injuries and fatalities occur, helping target improvements where they can have the greatest safety impact.
Key Elements of High Injury Networks3 include the following:
> A network of corridor segments where the highest concentrations of collisions occur
> In California, the High Injury Network must consist of a subset no greater than 20% of the local jurisdiction’s roadways
> Typically based on three to five years of crash data
> Typically focused on fatal and severe injury crashes
Fresno’s High Injury Network
Fresno’s HIN represents about 14% of the City’s roadway miles, but accounts for 81% of all crashes and 89% of FSI crashes. This data suggests that targeting 14% of the City’s roadways with systemic safety treatments has the potential to address the vast majority of severe crashes.
Figure 9 illustrates the City of Fresno’s HIN. The HIN is not confined to neighborhoods or districts within Fresno but is distributed citywide. This widespread pattern reveals that serious crashes are associated with major corridors, as opposed to isolated parts of the City, and impact a broad range of community members.
“I walk early in the morning every day and the
near misses I have experienced as a pedestrian
are (with) drivers who are making right turns, not
yielding the right of way when I'm crossing, drivers
who stop at traffic lights in the crosswalk instead
of behind the white line, and drivers exiting
parking lots who drive onto the sidewalk instead
of stopping behind it. I have seen law enforcement
officers, City bus drivers and delivery trucks do
this in addition to average drivers. I have also seen
many red light runners since I walk along Shaw
Avenue.”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
3 High Injury Network | SoCal Transportation Safety Resource Hub 50 Traffic Safety in Fresno
The roadway segments identified on the HIN are dominated by arterial and collector roadways. These roadways typically feature wider cross-sections, higher vehicle speeds, and more complex traffic movements. Nearly half of the HIN consists of arterial streets, while local roads make up less than 5%.
Arterials typically carry higher traffic volumes and serve more travel activity than local streets. As a result, they experience more potential conflict points and interactions between roadway users, which contribute to a greater number of severe and fatal crashes occurring on these corridors. > Arterial roads: major, high-capacity routes for long-distance traffic flow (e.g., Shaw Avenue, Blackstone Avenue, Veterans Boulevard (Super-Arterial) > Collector roads: medium-sized streets that connect traffic between arterial and local roads (e.g., Fresno Street, Clinton Avenue, Barstow Avenue) The High Injury Network provides a clear framework for understanding the systemic nature of fatal and severe crashes in Fresno. By understanding the nature of these corridors (including land use patterns, collision history, blocks, number of lanes, etc.), the City can more effectively invest in systemic treatments to reduce serious crashes in these locations. 91% of
crashes on
the HIN took
place on
arterials or
collectors.
What are arterials and
collectors?
Multilane, high-volume and
high-speed streets.
ArterialRoads
CollectorRoads
Major,
high-capacity
routes for long-distance
traffic flow (e.g., Shaw Ave,
Blackstone Ave, Veterans Ave)
Mediumsized streets that
connect traffic between
arterial and local roads (e.g.,
Fresno St, Clinton Ave, Barstow Ave)
Traffic Safety in Fresno 51
Figure 9 City of Fresno High Injury
Network, 2025, (Crossroads and
TIMS data)
CLOVIS
OLD FIG
GARDEN
PRATTON
EASTON
FRESNO
0 1 2 3 4 mi.
SHAW AVE
HERNDON AVE
Cal State
University Fresno
Fresno
Yosemite
Airport
SHEPHERD AVE
ASHLAN AVE
SHIELDS AVE
MCKINLEY AVEBLACKSTONE AVE
FIRST AVE
CEDAR AVE
CHESTNUT AVE
BELMONT AVE
E VENTURA ST/E KING CANYON RD
CALIFORNIA AVE
NORTH AVE
FRESNO ST
JENSEN AVE
CENTRAL AVE
99 99
180
41 168
41 180
CLINTON AVE
SIERRA AVE
DAKOTA AVE
FRESNO ST
OLIVE AVE
MARKS AVE
WEST AVE
FRUIT AVE
TULARE AVE
BUTLER AVE
CHURCH AVE
FRIANT RD
NEES AVE
PPALM AVE
MAPLE AVE
WILLOW AVE
PEACH AVE
CLOVEIS AVE
JENSEN AVE
LEGEND
High Injury Network
Fresno City Limit
PRATTON
SHAW AVE
JENSEN AVE
CENTRAL AVE
99 LEGEND
High Injury Network
Fresno City Limit
81% of all injury crashes and
89% of fatal and severe injury
crashes occur on the HIN.
52 Traffic Safety in Fresno
Reducing Speeds on the High Injury Network
The High Injury Network also provides a strong foundation for implementing speed limit reductions under California’s AB 43. By formally designating the HIN as safety-priority corridors, the City can use documented crash history and roadway context to support speed limit reductions on the corridors where severe crashes are most concentrated. Because the HIN covers a relatively small share of the overall street network - well within the statute’s allowance of up to 20 percent of a jurisdiction’s streets - the City also retains flexibility to accommodate evolving crash trends without requiring frequent changes to posted speed limits. Leveraging the HIN in this way supports a proactive, datadriven approach to speed management that advances citywide safety goals while focusing implementation where it will have the greatest impact.
City of Fresno Adopts 20 MPH School Zone
Speed Limits
On February 26, 2026, the Fresno City Council
adopted a resolution establishing a 20 MPH speed
limit in school zones to improve safety for students
and families traveling to and from school. The
resolution builds on California Assembly Bill 382
(AB 382), which authorizes cities to reduce speed
limits from 25 MPH to 20 MPH on streets within
school zones.
This state legislation was enacted to help
communities create safer conditions for children
walking and biking to school by allowing lower
speeds in areas with high concentrations of young
pedestrians. By adopting the 20 MPH school zone
speed limit, Fresno is implementing this authority
to improve safety around schools and better protect
students and families traveling through these areas.
Lower vehicle speeds significantly reduce both
the likelihood and severity of crashes involving
pedestrians. Slower speeds give drivers more time
to react to unexpected movements by children and
other pedestrians, and crashes that do occur are far
less likely to result in serious injury or death. The new 20 MPH school zone speed limit supports Fresno’s
broader efforts to improve traffic safety and create
safer streets for students and families.
Traffic Safety in Fresno 53
5 .
54 Traffic Safetyin Fresno
Ready to Act:
Vision Zero
Recommendations
Eliminating traffic deaths requires more than isolated projects. It demands coordinated policies, programs, and design changes that reshape how safety is prioritized citywide. This chapter outlines clear, implementable actions across Safe Road Users, Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Vehicles, Post-Crash Care, and Safety Data, with a focus on high-risk corridors and priority populations. Together, these strategies embed the Safe System Approach into everyday decision-making and move Fresno from commitment to action.
Traffic Safety in Fresno 55
Balancing Proactive Systemic
Change and Targeted
Safety Action
Vision Zero is grounded in a proactive, systemic approach that seeks to prevent fatal and severe injury crashes before they occur by transforming policies, standards, and everyday practices. While the HIN provides a broad framework for where systemic safety interventions should be applied over time, it is neither feasible nor effective to implement all improvements simultaneously.
Targeting a smaller set of priority corridors and intersections within the HIN allows the City to address the most urgent safety risks, align projects with existing implementation pipelines - such as roadway resurfacing, capital programs, grants, and local funding measures - and deliver near-term safety benefits. These focused investments complement ongoing efforts to plan and institutionalize systemic safety treatments across the entire HIN, ensuring that short-term actions reinforce long-term transformation.
How Proactive and Targeted Safety
Interventions Work Together
Table 3 Proactive and Targeted Safety Interventions
Approach Description Examples Benefits Limitations
Proactive (Systemic)
Safety Interventions
Citywide or network-based
strategies designed to reduce
risk before crashes occur by
changing policies, standards,
and default practices.
• Updating street design
standards
• Citywide speed limit
policy changes
• Systemic speed
management on
arterials
• Signal timing policies
that prioritize pedestrian
crossing time
• Safe System–aligned
capital planning
• Reduces risk across
the entire network
• Prevents crashes
before they happen
• More equitable and
consistent outcomes
• Aligns with Safe
System and Vision
Zero principles
• Often slower to
implement
• May require policy
changes and
institutional shifts
• Benefits may be
less visible in the
short term
Targeted (LocationSpecific) Safety
Interventions
Location-specific projects
focused on corridors and
intersections with a documented
history of fatal and severe injury
crashes.
• High Injury Network
corridor projects
• Intersection redesigns at
high-crash locations
• Quick-build safety
improvements
• Grant-funded
capital projects
• Delivers near-term
safety benefits
• Aligns well with
existing funding and
delivery pipelines
• Helps demonstrate
progress and build
momentum
• Addresses urgent
safety needs
• Reactive by nature
• Limited to locations
with historical crash
data
• Cannot, on their
own, eliminate
systemwide risk
56 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
On December 7, 2024, community members joined a bilingual Walk and Talk led by Every Neighborhood Partnership, walking along Blackstone Avenue and discussing safety challenges along the corridor.
Balancing Proactive Systemic Change and Targeted Safety Action 57 Programs and Policies
How Programs and Policies can
Make a Difference
The crash trends identified earlier in this plan show that the fatal and severe injury crashes in Fresno follow clear and predictable patterns. These crashes are specific to street types and in intersections where higher speeds, impaired driving, and exposure of people walking and biking combine to create unsafe conditions. Addressing these patterns requires more than isolated street design projects; it calls for coordinated programs and policies that shape how safety is prioritized and implemented across the City.
Programs and policies help ensure that safety is built into everyday transportation decisions, from street design and operations to enforcement, maintenance, and the behaviors and decisions of people using the transportation system. They allow the City to act proactively, focusing on known high-exposure locations before severe crashes occur. Policies also help align City departments around shared safety goals and provide a consistent framework for prioritizing investments, especially on the High Injury Network and in communities most impacted by traffic violence. When the City acts proactively and invests in safety, it sends a message to other local agencies, organizations, and community members that the City prioritizes a culture of safety.
By establishing clear expectations and priorities, programs and policies make safety improvements more consistent, equitable, and lasting, supporting Fresno’s progress toward the goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries.
Applying the Safe System
Approach to Programs and
Policies
The Safe System Approach recognizes that people make mistakes and that streets should be designed so those mistakes do not result in severe injury or death. Applying this approach to the programs and policies that the City and other agencies and organizations commit to shifts the focus from blaming individual behavior and inevitability to improving the conditions that shape how people travel.
In practice, this means prioritizing lower speeds, safer intersections, and better protection for people walking, biking, rolling, and using transit—especially on the streets and corridors identified in earlier sections of this plan. It also means pairing proactive street design changes with programs that address risky behaviors of all roadway users, such as unsafe operation and impairment. 58 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
By embedding Safe System principles into City policies and programs, Fresno can take a consistent, citywide approach to safety, one that reduces the risk of severe crashes, limits their impact when they occur, and supports a culture of safety for everyone.
Priority Policies, Programs, and
Populations
The priority policies and programs summarized on the following pages reflect a coordinated, citywide strategy to improve traffic safety in Fresno. Developed through collaboration with City departments, the Vision Zero Taskforce, and community stakeholders, these priorities are informed by crash trends, the High Injury Network, and community input. Together, they complement infrastructure investments by addressing the underlying conditions that contribute to fatal and severe injury crashes. Many of these actions expand or formalize work the City and its partners are already doing.
Organized to align with established safety objectives, the policies and programs span a range of strategies, with many focused on improving safety for people walking, biking, and using transit—particularly populations that experience disproportionate traffic-related harm. The table identifies lead and supporting partners and intended priority populations, providing a clear framework for embedding safety into everyday decision-making and supporting a coordinated, systemic approach to reducing fatal and severe injury crashes citywide.
The following pages also document priority actions for each aspect of the safe system approach. Priority actions are those that the City of Fresno and its partners will focus on implementing in the next 5 years.
Programs and Policies 59
Safe System Approach Objective
Safe Road Users
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Applied and Experiential Education for all road users including drivers, people walking, bicycling, and using micromobility devices such as e-scooters and e-bikes:
Education programs are integral to create a culture of
shared responsibility for traffic safety.
The City is committed to working with partners to
update and expand transportation safety education
programs using the Safe System approach. This
requires collaboration with institutions currently leading transportation education programs, including Fresno
COG, Fresno County, Fresno Unified School District, the Fresno Police Department, and community organizations
like the Fresno Bicycle Coalition.
Enhanced educational programs will center hands-on,
experiential, and behavior-focused strategies that allow participants to practice safe behaviors and understand
risk in real-world contexts. They may include interactive demonstrations, temporary street safety events, youth
bicycle and pedestrian safety trainings, Train-the-Trainer opportunities for educators and community partners,
proactive engagement with parents and caregivers, or
other strategies to meet the needs of diverse road users.
To enhance the efficacy of these programs, they can be
supplemented by resources that support safer driving
habits, including information on tools such as Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) and other in-vehicle technologies
designed to reduce speeding and support safer
teen driving.
> Lead Agency: School Districts; Youth Educational
Partners; Fresno Police Department; PARCs
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police
Department; PARCS; Fresno County Department
of Public Health; Valley Children’s Healthcare;
Fresno Fire Department; community-based safety
organizations
> Key Outcomes: Increased awareness and
adoption of safe behaviors among drivers
(especially teens), pedestrians, bicyclists, and
e-scooter/e-bike users, supporting safer shared
roadway use and reduced injuries.
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
"Education. Educate drivers, educate
cyclists, educate pedestrians,
educate everyone!"
"Create avenues to educate people
on traffic safety - especially those
tailored to communities who aren't
able to access such information
through general channels of info."
"Re-educate the public of the
dangers of distracted driving.
Also teaching young drivers the
importance of all the rules of the
road, not just the ones they studied
to get their license."
– Fresno VZAP Community
Survey, April 2025
>
60 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
PRIORITY ACTION
2. High-Risk Behavior Driving Enforcement and Training:
Strengthen enforcement of the most dangerous driving
behaviors, including speeding, reckless driving, and
impaired driving, through targeted enforcement
strategies and enhanced officer training. Expand training opportunities such as ARIDE (Advanced Roadside
Impaired Driving Enforcement) and DRE (Drug
Recognition Expert), and other professional training
programs to support effective and safety-focused traffic enforcement. Align enforcement priorities with Safe
System principles by focusing resources on behaviors
and locations associated with the highest concentrations of severe crashes.
> Lead Agency: Fresno Police Department
> Supporting Partners: Department of Public
Works; Fresno Fire Department; California Highway
Patrol
> Key Outcomes: Reduced high-risk driving
behaviors and improved capacity for effective,
safety-focused traffic enforcement
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
3. Bus Driver Training Program
Expansion:
Expand on Bus Driver Training programs to include:
> Proactive retraining for drivers involved in
preventable accidents, with emphasis on root
cause analysis and corrective actions.
> Dedicated or protected bus lanes, potentially
shared with bicycles, to minimize traffic interactions
and improve safety.
> Enhanced equipment such as mirror monitors
(already in use), audible alerts for pedestrians
during bus turns, and exploration of additional
technologies to reduce collisions
> Lead Agency: FAX
> Supporting Partners: Fresno County Rural
Transit Agency
> Key Outcomes: Reduced frequency and severity
of preventable FAX-involved crashes
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
4. Build Community Capacity:
Build long-term community capacity for traffic safety
by empowering trusted local leaders and residents
with the tools, knowledge, and resources to advocate
for safer streets. Use hands-on engagement strategies,
such as pop-up demonstrations, temporary installations, and interactive events, to help community members
experience proposed changes, provide feedback, and
co-create solutions grounded in lived experience.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Community-based
organizations; neighborhood associations;
faith-based organizations; schools; public health
partners; youth and senior-serving organizations
> Key Outcomes: Increased community capacity
to meaningfully engage in and advocate for traffic
safety improvements
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
>
Programs and Policies 61
Safe Road Users
5. Internal Capacity Building / City
Staff Training:
Provide required Safe System Approach training for City staff and partner agencies, supported by agency-specific guidance, experiential learning, and technical resources that translate Safe System principles into day-to-day
decision-making and implementation. Include training on the use, limitations, and differences among local, state, and federal crash data sources to improve interpretation, coordination, and application of safety data.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: City departments including:
Planning & Development Department; Fresno Police
Department; Fresno Fire Department; Fresno Area
Express (FAX); PARCS; Public Utilities
> Key Outcomes: Increased staff understanding
and consistent application of the Safe System
Approach across City departments and partner
agencies, improved coordination across
departments when planning, designing, and
implementing transportation projects, earlier
identification of safety impacts in routine City
decisions and projects
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
6. Safe Routes to Transit:
Partner with Fresno Area Express and Department
of Public Works to establish performance targets and
implement improvements that enhance safety and
accessibility for people walking, biking, and waiting at transit stops.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Key Outcomes: Improved safety and
accessibility for people walking, biking, and waiting
at transit stops
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
62 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Safe System Approach Objective
Safe Vehicles
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Municipal Fleet Safety:
Improve safety across municipal fleets through updated
purchasing and management policies and the use of
telematics and other technologies to monitor, support,
and reinforce safe driving practices.
> Lead Agency: General Services Department
> Supporting Partners: City departments
including: Department of Public Works; PARCS;
Fresno Fire Department; Department of Public
Utilities – Solid Waste Division; Fresno Police
Department
> Key Outcomes: Reduced frequency and severity
of preventable crashes involving municipal fleet
vehicles
2. Contractor Fleet Safety
Requirements:
Require contractors working on City-funded projects to
meet basic fleet safety standards, including driver training, vehicle safety equipment, and safe operating practices, consistent with Vision Zero goals.
> Lead Agency: General Services Department
> Supporting Partners: Department of Public
Works; Fresno Fire Department; Fresno Police
Department; Fresno Area Express (FAX); Public
Utilities; City Attorney’s Office
> Key Outcomes: Reduced frequency and severity
of preventable crashes involving contractoroperated vehicles on City-funded projects >
The project team conducted a vehicle size
and front blind spot demonstration using a
large truck and cardboard cutout showing
the size of the average kindergartner child
Programs and Policies 63
The Impact of Vehicle
Size
Across the nation, vehicle size has grown over the last two decades. The prevalence of large trucks and SUVs in Fresno exacerbates the risk associated with high vehicle speeds and reckless driver behavior. Research shows that larger vehicles are more dangerous for people walking and bicycling than standard-size sedans.
Larger trucks and SUVs have substantial front blind spots that make it harder to see children crossing in front. During a crash, tall SUV or truck bumpers strike pedestrians higher, in the torso or head, resulting in more severe injuries.
Tyndall (2024) found that just a 4-inch increase in the front-end height of a vehicle increases the pedestrian fatality risk by 22%.1 Due to the popularity of large vehicles in Fresno, it is important that community members receive education about the risks, and how to adjust their behavior to protect students walking near vehicles.
The relationship between vehicle size, speeding, and crash severity also underscores the urgency of infrastructure treatments that slow driver speeds. 1 Tyndall, J. The effect of front end vehicle height on pedestrian death risk. Economics of Transportation, 2024.
64 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Safe System Approach Objective
Safe Speeds
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Safe Speed Limits:
Establish speed limits that reflect the surrounding
street context, such as land use, street design, and
the presence of people walking, biking, and accessing
transit. Support reduced speed limits through enhanced
speed limit signs, travel lane narrowing, public education campaigns, and targeted speed enforcement. To increase
efficiency and avoid duplication, public education and
messaging efforts should be coordinated with the
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and NHTSA
Communications Calendar to complement existing highvisibility enforcement campaigns. > Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police
Department; Fresno Area Express (FAX); Fresno
Fire Department; CA Office of Traffic Safety;
NHTSA
> Key Outcomes: Lower vehicle speeds on streets
with high pedestrian and bicycle activity
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth
2. Play streets:
Temporarily or permanently limit through traffic on
neighborhood streets to create low-speed, peoplefocused spaces for play, walking, biking, and community activities.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Community-based
organizations; PARCS; neighborhood associations;
Fresno Police Department; Fresno Fire Department
> Key Outcomes: Reduced vehicle speeds and cutthrough traffic on residential streets; increased safe outdoor activity and community use of neighborhood
streets; improved perceptions of safety among
residents, particularly children and seniors
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
3. School Zones:
Improve safety in school zones by evaluating and applying context-appropriate speed limits and implementing a
combination of engineering, education, and enforcement
strategies to support safe speeds during school travel times.
This recommendation is aligned with the City Council’s
February 26, 2026 resolution establishing a 20 mph speed limit in school zones, consistent with California Assembly Bill 382 (AB 382), which authorizes cities to reduce speeds on streets near schools during school hours.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Police Department; school
districts; PARCS; Fresno Fire Department
> Key Outcomes: Reduced vehicle speeds and
improved driver compliance in school zones
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth
>
The Impact of Vehicle Size 65
Safe Speeds
4. City of Fresno Traffic Calming
Program:
Expand and clarify the City’s Residential Speed Hump
Policy to include other traffic calming treatments, using the Vision Zero Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit
and Mobility Design Guidelines to guide design,
implementation, and maintenance.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Fire Department;
Fresno Police Department
> Key Outcomes: Increased use of a broader range
of traffic calming strategies tailored to street context; reduced vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on
neighborhood and major streets; improved safety
and comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling;
greater community understanding of available traffic
calming options
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413): California’s
Daylighting Law
California's 2024 daylighting law (AB 413) allows
cities to prohibit parking within 20 feet of an
intersection. This law brings California in line with
more than 40 other states that already restrict vehicle parking near intersections for visibility.
While this was a state law that significantly changed
the legality of parking across California, individual
cities are responsible for explaining the change
and determining whether or how to implement
these parking restrictions. Most cities have relied
on enforcement (issuing parking citations to cars
parked in the 20-foot zone near intersections) and/
or engineering (marking curbs red in these 20-foot
zones) to implement AB 413.
Key Considerations:
Enforcement: An enforcement-focused approach
relies on broad public messaging about daylighting
in general, along with specifics on the change to
California Vehicle Code. While any city can now issue
parking citations to vehicles parked in the daylighting zone, most cities have issued no-fee warning
citations or educational materials to parked vehicles
prior to true enforcement.
Marking: Painting curbs red, or marking parking
restrictions with No Parking signs, at intersections is among the most effective ways to implement AB 413,
though the logistics of undertaking such a citywide
effort are daunting. The City could proactively paint
curbs red or install signs at a subset of intersections where visibility may be a contributing factor to
collisions to have the greatest safety impact. By
focusing this effort on intersections on the HIN
or near schools (in which the benefit of improved
visibility is greater for those who cannot see over or
see through a vehicle), the City could use limited
resources to better improve safety citywide.
“Hardened Daylighting”: Research from the New
York City DOT in 2025 has found that hardened
daylighting, or daylighting that includes a physical
barrier like posts or wheel stops, had a greater
safety benefit than daylighting with signs alone.
Hardened daylighting also allows roadway space to
be reallocated to different uses that do not impede
visibility: bike or scooter parking, neighborhood
parklets with planters, community art, or expansions
of sidewalk space.
66 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Safe System Approach Objective
Safe Roads
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Red Light Cameras:
Explore the implementation of SB 720, which allows
automated enforcement of red light violations. Using
crash data, identify a subset of intersections on the HIN where this automated enforcement could be deployed.
The priority intersections identified in this plan may be good candidates for initial evaluation.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police Department
> Key Outcomes: Automated enforcement
2. Pedestrian Policy and Design
Standards:
Create and adopt a policy and design guide for
pedestrian crossings, and update roadway and
streetscape design standards to improve pedestrian
safety and accessibility. Standards should provide clear, context-sensitive guidance for crossing spacing and
safety treatments, and incorporate design strategies that discourage speeding while maintaining required lane
widths, turning radii, vertical clearance, and access for emergency and service vehicles.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Fire Department;
Department of Public Utilities - Solid Waste Division;
Fresno Police Department; Planning & Development
Department; Fresno Area Express (FAX)
> Key Outcomes: Improved pedestrian safety and
accessibility through clear, context-sensitive design
standards; ensure safe operation for emergency and
service operations and vehicles
3. Complete Streets Policy:
Update and implement the City’s Complete Streets policy to explicitly align with Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach by prioritizing speed management, pedestrian
safety, and equitable investments on the High Injury
Network, while ensuring safe, continuous access for all users during construction and maintenance.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Fire Department
> Key Outcomes: More consistent, safety-focused
application of Complete Streets treatments on
high-injury corridors, resulting in lower speeds and
improved safety for people walking, biking, and
using transit
4. Traffic control:
Coordinate traffic control plans among the City, Fresno Police and Fire Departments, and school districts to
improve pedestrian safety, manage vehicle speeds, and
maintain reliable emergency access during school travel periods, construction, and special events.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Fire Department;
Fresno Police Department; school districts
> Key Outcomes: Reduced conflicts between
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and general traffic
during peak activity periods
>
The Impact of Vehicle Size 67
Safe Roads
5. Daylighting:
Provide public education on the purpose and safety
benefits of daylighting, and implement consistent, easily recognizable treatments to improve visibility and reduce conflicts at intersections and crossings.
> Lead Agency: Planning & Development
Department
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police Department;
Department of Public Works
> Key Outcomes: Improved visibility and reduced
conflicts at intersections and crossings
> Priority Populations Identified: Improved visibility
and reduced conflicts at intersections and crossings
6. Intersection control evaluation:
Incorporate Caltrans Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) and Intersection Control
Evaluation (ICE) guidance into City decision-making for evaluating and changing intersection control types to
improve safety outcomes.
> Lead Agency: Capital Project Department
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police Department;
Fresno Fire Department; Department Public Works;
Caltrans
> Key Outcomes: Improved safety outcomes at
intersections through appropriate control selection
There are so many red light runners
in this city and I truly think that we
need to get red light cameras up.
There are just too many close calls.
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey,
April 2025
68 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Safe System Approach Objective
Post-Crash Care
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Technology upgrades:
Implement traffic signal technology, such as emergency
vehicle preemption and coordinated signal progression in locations where this does not already exist in Fresno, to reduce emergency response times, improve responder
safety, and support faster access to medical care following serious crashes. Consider additional technology strategies, such as Haas alerts in emergency vehicles.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works;
Fresno Fire Department
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Fire Department;
Fresno Police Department; Fresno Area Express
(FAX); Caltrans; Clovis Community Medical Center
> Key Outcomes: Reduced emergency response
and transport times following severe crashes
2. Partnerships:
Partner with trusted community-based organizations to
connect people impacted by traffic crashes to recovery
resources, peer support, and services, and to provide
culturally responsive post-crash outreach in communities disproportionately affected by traffic violence.
> Lead Agency: Community-based organizations
> Supporting Partners: Fresno County Department
of Public Health; Fresno Fire Department; Fresno
Police Department; hospitals and trauma centers;
victim support organizations; Community Medical
Center
> Key Outcomes: Improved access to post-crash
recovery resources and support for people and
families impacted by traffic violence
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
3. Crash review and analysis:
Expand post-crash analysis beyond fatal crashes to
include serious injury and high-risk crash types through multidisciplinary review involving transportation, public safety, and health partners. Use findings to identify
systemic contributing factors and inform targeted
engineering, policy, and operational safety improvements. > Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police
Department; Fresno Fire Department; Fresno
County Department of Public Health; hospitals
and trauma centers; Planning and Development
Department; Clovis Community Medical Center
> Key Outcomes: Improved identification of systemic
factors contributing to severe and fatal crashes
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
>
The Impact of Vehicle Size 69
Safe System Approach Objective
Safety Data
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Database coordination:
Coordinate and align the City’s crash database
(Crossroads) with statewide databases (TIMS and
SWITRS) to better understand differences in definitions, reporting practices, and timelines, reduce data
discrepancies, and support more consistent safety analysis and decision-making.
> Lead Agency: Fresno Police Department
> Supporting Partners: California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans; Department of Public Works
> Key Outcomes: Improved consistency and
reliability of crash data used for Vision Zero analysis and reporting
2. Vision Zero dashboard:
Create a data dashboard to track progress towards
accomplishing Vision Zero actions and meeting key
metrics. (In Progress)
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Fresno Police Department
> Key Outcomes: Improved transparency and
accountability for Vision Zero progress and safety
outcomes
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians
3. Bike and pedestrian volumes:
Update intersection data collection to reflect California MUTCD guidance and more accurately measure bicyclist
and pedestrian volumes, supporting data-driven safety
improvements and equitable prioritization.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Planning & Development
Department; Fresno Police Department; Fresno
Area Express (FAX)
> Key Outcomes: Improved accuracy and
use of bicyclist and pedestrian volume data in
safety analysis and project decision-making and
implementation prioritization
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians
4. Motorcycle crashes:
Improve identification and tracking of motorcycle-involved crashes within the City’s Crossroads database to resolve discrepancies with statewide data and support more
accurate safety analysis and targeted countermeasures.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Key Outcomes: More accurate and consistent
identification of motorcycle-involved crashes across
City and state data systems
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
>
70 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Safety Data
5. Data coordination:
Partner with hospitals and trauma centers to establish
shared, HIPAA-compliant Vision Zero safety metrics and
reporting processes that improve understanding of injury severity, outcomes, and response times, and support more effective post-crash care and safety interventions.
> Lead Agency: Fresno County Department of
Public Health, in coordination with the Department
of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Hospitals and trauma
centers; Fresno Fire Department; Fresno Police
Department; Fresno County Department of
Public Health
> Key Outcomes: Improved understanding of fatal
and serious injury outcomes to inform post-crash
care and safety investments
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
The Impact of Vehicle Size 71
Safe System Approach Objective
Other Planning and Coordination Strategies
PRIORITY ACTION
1. Planning coordination and
alignment:
Coordinate Vision Zero implementation with related
City and regional efforts, including the Fresno Active
Transportation Plan, Fresno Unified Safe Streets for
Students program, and Fresno County Vision Zero
initiatives, to align priorities, develop coordinated project lists, and strengthen future grant applications.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Planning & Development
Department; Fresno Unified School District; Fresno
County; Fresno Council of Governments
> Key Outcomes: Improved coordination and
consistency across City and regional safety
initiatives
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
PRIORITY ACTION
2. Vision Zero Task Force:
Establish a standing Vision Zero Task Force to coordinate implementation across City departments and partner
agencies. The Task Force will meet regularly (e.g.,
quarterly) to review crash trends and performance metrics, coordinate priority safety projects and policies, and
address cross-departmental implementation barriers.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Supporting Partners: Mayor and City Manager’s
Office; Fresno Police Department; Fresno Fire
Department; Planning & Development Department;
Fresno County; Caltrans; Fresno Council of
Governments; Fresno School Districts
> Key Outcomes: Improved interdepartmental
coordination and accountability for implementing
Vision Zero strategies and tracking progress toward
reducing severe and fatal crashes.
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
3. Safety scoring criteria:
Update safety scoring criteria within major transportation funding programs (e.g., TIP) to place greater weight on crash history and severity, speed risk, High Injury Network locations, and benefits to people walking, biking, and using transit, ensuring funded projects advance Safe System and Vision Zero outcomes.
> Lead Agency: Fresno Council of Governments
> Supporting Partners: Department of Public
Works; Fresno Police Department; Planning &
Development Department; Caltrans, Fresno County
> Key Outcomes: Funding decisions that more
consistently prioritize projects with the greatest
potential to reduce severe and fatal crashes.
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
>
>
72 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Other Planning and Coordination Strategies
4. Safety plan updates:
Regularly (every five years) update City-led traffic safety plans to reflect new data, completed projects, and
emerging risks, and to maintain eligibility for state and federal safety funding programs. When the next update
occurs, consider combining the Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP) and Vision Zero Action Plan into a single
comprehensive safety plan.
> Lead Agency: Department of Public Works
> Key Outcomes: Continued eligibility for state and
federal safety funding programs
> Priority Populations Identified: Pedestrians,
youth, seniors
The Impact of Vehicle Size 73
Systemic Safety
Treatments
The crash patterns in Fresno show that fatal and severe crashes tend to occur under similar conditions across many locations, particularly on major streets with higher speeds, wide cross-sections, and frequent turning and crossing activity. Addressing these conditions effectively requires more than isolated, location-by-location fixes. Systemic safety treatments offer a way to improve safety across the city by applying proven proactive design strategies.
As part of the Vision Zero Action Plan, the City developed a Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit (Appendix A) to identify a set of flexible, contextsensitive treatments that can be applied consistently across Fresno’s street network to manage speeds, reduce conflicts, and improve safety for people walking, biking, driving, and using transit. When implemented in a coordinated and citywide manner, these treatments can help create more predictable, safer streets, reduce the likelihood of severe crashes, and support long-term progress toward Vision Zero.
Four Types of High-Impact
Systemic Safety Treatments
The treatments included in the Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit, and as part of the location-specific engineering recommendations, fall into four “types” of treatments. The following categories provide a helpful organizing principle but are not mutually exclusive (treatments may correspond to more than one category):
Travel Lanes Intersections
and Crossings
Speed
Management
Signs and
Signals
74 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Travel Lanes
Countermeasures that focus on design and operational
improvements to lane configurations to enhance safety
and mobility.
Table 4 Travel Lane Treatments
Systemic Intervention Primary Safety Benefit Options for Rapid Implementation Road diets / lane reconfiguration Reduces speeds, simplifies movements, and lowers crash frequency and severity
Interim restriping, paint, flexible delineators,
modular curb
Narrowed travel lanes / visual friction Encourages lower operating speeds and improved driver attention
Lane restriping, paint, edge lines, flexible
posts
Hardened centerlines Reduces head-on and sideswipe crashes Painted centerlines, rumble striping Median refuge islands (lane
reallocation)
Reduces pedestrian exposure and supports twostage crossingsPainted medians, delineators, modular refuge islands
Reallocation of roadway space for
bicycle facilities
Improves predictability and reduces conflicts
between modes
Striping, buffered bike lanes, flexible posts,
curb stops
Adjustments to Existing Slip Lanes
Slows turning vehicles, shortens pedestrian
crossings, and reduces pedestrian–vehicle conflict
points.
Paint, flexible delineators, modular
pedestrian refuge islands, temporary curb
extensions
Example Travel Lane Interventions:
Medians and
Pedestrian Islands
Road Diet Adjustments to
Existing Slip Lanes
Narrowed Lanes/
Visual Friction
Hardened Centerline
Systemic Safety Treatments 75
Intersections and Crossings
Countermeasures that address design and operational
improvements at intersections and pedestrian crossing
locations.
Table 5 Intersections and Crossings Treatments
Systemic Intervention Primary Safety Benefit Options for Rapid Implementation High-visibility crosswalk markings Increases pedestrian visibility and driver yielding Durable high-visibility striping Curb extensions (bulb-outs) Shortens crossing distances and slows turning speeds Paint, modular curb, delineators Protected intersections Reduces conflict points and improves multimodal safety Interim protection using striping and posts Advanced stop lines Improves sight lines and reduces vehicle encroachment Pavement markings Median refuge islands
(crossing-focused)
Allows pedestrians to cross in stages and reduces
exposure
Painted refuge areas, posts, modular
islands
Protected left turns Reduces turning conflicts by separating left-turn movements from opposing traffic
Paint, flexible delineators, modular median
extension, planter-protected median
Example Intersection and Crossing Interventions:
Protected Intersection Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
Protected Left Turns
Advanced Stop Lines Median Refuge Island
76 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Speed Management
Countermeasures that focus on reducing motorists’
speeds, recognizing the strong relationship between
speed and crash severity.
Table 6 Speed Management Treatments
Systemic Intervention Primary Safety Benefit Options for Rapid Implementation Speed limit reductions on safety
priority corridors (AB 43)
Reduces crash likelihood and severity on high-risk
corridors Signage changes supported by policy action
Corridor-wide traffic calming Lowers operating speeds and improves driver compliance Paint, striping, flexible posts, speed cushions Speed humps / speed cushions
Reduces vehicle speeds on residential and collector
streets and improves safety for people walking and
biking (note: not appropriate on arterials)
Temporary or modular speed humps/
cushions, rubber or asphalt overlays
Speed management near schools Reduces risk for children and caregivers Striping, signage, temporary curb elements Signal coordination to discourage
speeding Reduces excessive speeds between intersections Signal timing and progression adjustments Chicanes
Reduces vehicle speeds and increases driver
awareness by introducing horizontal deflection in the
travel lane
Interim restriping, paint, flexible delineators,
modular or planter-based, temporary curb
extensions
Example Speed Management Interventions:
Context-Sensitive
Speed Limits
Speed Feedback Signs Chicanes
Speed Humps/Speed
Cushions
Systemic Safety Treatments 77
Signs, Signals, and Pavement
Markings
Countermeasures that relate to regulatory, warning, and traffic control devices guiding street user behavior.
Table 7 Signs, Signals, and Pavement Marking Treatments Systemic Intervention Primary Safety Benefit Options for Rapid Implementation Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Improves pedestrian visibility and reduces turning conflicts Signal timing changes
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) Increases driver yielding at uncontrolled crossings
Permanent installation required (limited quickbuild flexibility) Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs)
Improves yielding compliance at unsignalized
crossings
Permanent installation required (limited quickbuild flexibility) Signal timing and clearance interval
adjustments
Reduces red-light running and broadside
crashes Signal timing updates
Improved signal head visibility Improves driver compliance and awareness Repositioning or upgrading signal heads High visibility pavement markings
Improves roadway visibility and driver
awareness, helping users identify crossings
and conflict areas
Paint, flexible delineators, reflective markers
Example Signs, Signals, and Pavement Marking Interventions:
High Visibility
Pavement Markings
Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons
Rapid Rectangular
Flashing Beacons
78 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Senate Bill 720 (SB 720): Red Light Cameras
Explore the implementation of SB 720, which allows
automated enforcement of red light violations. Using
crash data, identify a subset of intersections on the
HIN where this automated enforcement could be
deployed. The priority intersections identified in this plan may be good candidates for initial evaluation.
California’s 2025 red light camera law (SB 720)
allows automated enforcement of red-light violations
in cities across the state. Red-light running has
typically been classified as a moving violation,
requiring a law enforcement officer to identify
the driver of a vehicle to issue such a citation.
However, this law allows jurisdictions in California
to implement automated red light camera systems
and issue civil penalties to the registered owner of a
violating vehicle.
Automated enforcement systems can significantly
reduce red light running and improve traffic safety.
The impact of red-light safety cameras is well
documented: an Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) study found that cameras reduced the
fatal red light running crash rate of cities by 21%.
Key Considerations:
> Locations: The City of Fresno is eligible to install
automated enforcement under this law. A critical
early step is to identify intersection approaches
on the HIN that would be good candidates for
this technology: pulling crash histories to identify
incidents of red-light running across the City and
their impacts of safety. This will create an eligible
list of locations that could be further screened
by land use contexts, population centers, and
constructability restrictions.
> Analysis: SB 720 requires that implementing
jurisdictions document the potential impacts of
automated enforcement on their populations, and
that red-light cameras be placed in areas that are
geographically and socioeconomically diverse.
> Program: SB 720 allows cities to utilize
automated enforcement cameras for red-light
running by following a consistent program. Cities
must first issue warning notices before issuing
citations, the systems must be well-marked with
signage in advance, only civil penalties (not
moving violations) of $100 may be issued, and
penalties are issued to the registered owner of the
vehicle (not necessarily the driver at the time of
the violation).
> Red Light Running Only: While a separate
California law, AB 645, allows certain cities
to implement automated speed enforcement
cameras, this is currently not authorized for the
City of Fresno.
Systemic Safety Treatments 79
Designing Safer
Streets that Support
Emergency Response
Designing safer streets and maintaining reliable emergency response can sometimes see, like competing priorities. In practice, thoughtfully-designed safety treatments and early and ongoing coordination with emergency responders can support both goals.
> Safety-oriented street designs such as lane reductions, traffic calming, and protected bike lanes can affect emergency operations if not designed carefully.
> High-speed streets increase severe crashes, which generate emergency calls and strain response systems.
> Vision Zero and the Safe System approach emphasize designing streets that reduce severe crashes and coordinating with emergency responders.
There are three complementary best practices
or strategies for integrating emergency
response needs with safer streets.
1. Design streets that support
both safety and emergency
vehicle access.
Design details can help ensure that street safety treatments do not measurably hinder emergency vehicle mobility. Examples include:
> Mountable curbs in
bulb outs, medians,
roundabouts, etc.
> Flexible delineators for
vertical separation
> Speed humps with
emergency vehicles
wheel cutouts (speed
cushions)
> Visual treatments
(e.g., optical speed
bars) that reduce
motorists’ speed without
impacting emergency
vehicle mobility
1 Fresno Fire Annual Report 2024; https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2025/04/2024-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf
2 Topical Fire Report Series; June 2022; U.S. Fire Administration, FEMA https://www.usfa. fema.gov/statistics/reports/firefighters-departments/fire-department-run-profile-v22i1.html 60%
of Fresno Fire
Department responses
to medical aid calls1
14%
of fire department
responses in the U.S. are
to street incidents2
80 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Street redesigns can improve emergency vehicle mobility by organizing road space and streamlining operations. Examples include:
> Road diets that create dedicated two-way left-turn lanes that emergency responders can use as a through lane
> Protected bike lanes that can function as emergency access space > Connected streets network that allow multiple routes for emergency response > Dedicated emergency vehicle signal preemption
2. Promote coordination between
transportation and emergency
response agencies.
Early and continuous coordination between transportation and emergency response agencies helps ensure street safety projects account for safety and operational needs. Examples include:
> Develop pre-approved standards for street design treatments with EMS and fire department
> Conduct on-the-ground reviews and short-term installations with street designers and emergency responders to test and iterate on designs > Include fire department and other first responders in Vision Zero task forces and post-crash review teams
3. Adapt response models and
equipment that work in safer
street environments.
Emergency response practices and vehicle fleets can evolve alongside safer street design. Examples include:
> Deploy motor medic units and fire apparatuses that can navigate streets more easily.
> Institute dispatch strategies that send the appropriate vehicle type for the call.
> Designate priority emergency response routes where speed management treatments are strategically designed to maintain emergency mobility, while allowing for flexibility of treatments on other types of streets in the network. 3 Impact of 4-to-3 lane conversions on emergency response; July 2024; N. Corcoran, C.J. Hamann, M. L. Reyes, et. al; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2590198224001441
An Iowa study of
response times before
and after 4-to-3 lane
street conversions
found that there was no
impact to emergency
response times.3
A fire truck struggling to
find a path.
An easily navigable
two-way left-turn lane.
Designing Safer Streets that Support Emergency Response 81 Priority Streets and Intersections
High Priority Locations
To advance the City’s targeted safety intervention process, the project team identified five priority street segments and five priority intersections to focus investments over the next five years. The project team used a two-step process to identify the priority locations:
1. Analyze collision data to identify the 10 corridors and 10 intersections in the city with the highest rate of fatal and severe collisions. Located on the high injury network, over 25% of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at these 20 locations.
2. Analyze demographic, land use, and destination data, and community input to narrow the high-collision locations to the top 5 priority corridors (Table 8) and top 5 priority intersections (Table 9). Data used to identify the final priority locations included:
> Proximity to bus routes and stops
> Proximity to community centers
> Proximity to parks
> Proximity to schools
> Community engagement comments and responses
> Caltrans Equitable Transportation Index – Transportation-Based Priority Populations
> Locations with a high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian involved injuries and fatalities
The final 10 locations (Figure 10) represent key opportunities in Fresno for reducing fatal and severe injuries through coordinated infrastructure and noninfrastructure strategies. These locations reflect not only crash history, but also community context, access needs, and equity considerations.
Table 8 Top 5 Priority Street Segments
Street Name From To
Blackstone Avenue Nees Avenue Herndon Avenue
Blackstone Avenue Ashlan Avenue Shields Avenue
Belmont Avenue Palm Avenue Cedar Avenue
Fresno Street East California Avenue Divisadero Street
Shields Avenue West Avenue First Street
Table 9 Top 5 Priority Intersections
Intersection Cross Street A Cross Street B
Blackstone Avenue Herndon Avenue
Blackstone Avenue Dakota Avenue
Shields Avenue First Street
Clinton Avenue Fresno Street
East Kings Canyon Road Chestnut Avenue
82 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Figure 10 Top 5 High Priority Street Segments and Intersections Location-Specific Examples of
Systemic Challenges
Taken together, the priority intersections and street segments point to systemic safety challenges rather than isolated problem locations. These priority intersections and street segments are concentrated along high-volume arterial corridors with signalized intersections, where higher speeds, complex turning movements, and frequent pedestrian and bicycle crossings create elevated risk, particularly for people walking or riding bikes. Recurrent crash patterns, such as turning conflicts, broadside crashes, and crashes involving pedestrians and motorcycles, highlight the influence of existing conditions and operating characteristics on crash severity. Many priority locations also reflect overlapping risk factors, reinforcing the need for corridor-based, datadriven safety strategies aligned with the High Injury Network and state policy tools.
Designing Safer Streets that Support Emergency Response 83 Priority Safety Projects
As discussed in Chapter 3, the High Priority Opportunity locations represent the most impactful opportunities for reducing fatal and severe injuries through coordinated infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies.
The following section highlights recommended safety improvements for the top five priority intersections and top five priority street segments. These recommendations draw primarily from the Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit, while also identifying additional opportunities to address location-specific safety challenges. These locations are intended to serve as examples of how the City can apply similar countermeasures to other locations throughout Fresno that share similar contexts, characteristics, and risk factors. A high-level overview of the treatments applied to each street segment and intersection are included below. Corridor and intersection profiles are also included to provide additional context and project recommendations.
84 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Community members that use all
modes of travel participated in Vision
Zero Action Plan process, including
people who walk, bicycle, take transit,
drive, ride motorcycles and use
small-wheeled devices like scooters,
skateboards and one-wheels
Designing Safer Streets that Support Emergency Response 85 Crash Locations
Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street Crash data from 2019–2023 1 Speed Limit
40 Functional Class
Arterial
Segment Length (Miles)
2.5 Lane Count
4 Vehicle Volumes
9,000–18,000
Total Crashes
114
Killed or Seriously Injured
13 Top 3 Crash Types Top 3 Primary Collision
Factors 76 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
19 %
Pedestrian-Involved
5 %
Cyclist-Involved
72 %
Daylight
4 %
Dusk/Dawn
23 %
Dark - Streetlights
1 %
Dark - No Streetlights
Community Assets
53 Bus Stops**
4 Schools***
2 Parks***
1 Hospital*
* As identifi ed using the Safe
Streets Priority Finder tool
** Within a quarter-mile buffer
*** Within a half-mile buffer
Community Voices
“The street I live on (Fresno Street between C Street
and [East California Avenue]) is increasingly unsafe
for pedestrians and cyclists. There is little protection for cyclists on this busy street.”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Land Use Context
> Main arterial into and through
Downtown Fresno
> Provides Access to CA-99
> High Concentration of
Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions*
Crashes by Mode
Lighting Conditions
Intersection
100 %
Mid-block
0 %
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Presence of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
CORRIDOR PROFILE
60 %
Broadside
18 %
Vehicle & Pedestrian Crash
6 %
Rear End
35 %
Traffi c Signals & Signs
18 %
Automobile Right of way
9 %
Pedestrian Right of Way
See next page for corridor maps. Fresno Street: Cesar Chavez Boulevard to CA-99 86 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Crash Locations
Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street Crash data from 2019–2023 1 99 Divisadero Street P Street Q Street
26 G Street
Broadway Street
Fulton AvenueVan Ness Avenue
27 E Street
28 29
F Street
30 31
32 33
China Alley
34 35
36 H Street
Broadway Plaza
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45
L StreetM StreetN StreetO Street
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
R Street
58 59
60 61
62 RECOMMENDATIONS
East California Avenue
Kearney Boulevard
A StreetB Street
C Street
1 2 3
Martin Avenue
4 5
6 Klette Avenue
7 Pottle Avenue
8 9
Collins Avenue
10 11
Mayor Avenue
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19 20
21 22
24 25
99 23
Fresno Street: East California Avenue to CA-99
Fresno Street: CA-99 to Divisadero Street
Treatment Type
Intersection & Crossing
Treatment Type
Signs & Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed Management
East California Avenue
Kearney Boulevard
A StreetB Street
C Street
1 2 3
Martin Avenue
4 5
6 Klette Avenue
7 Pottle Avenue
8 9
Collins Avenue
10 11
Mayor Avenue
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19 20
21 22
24 25
99 23
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 87
Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
East Kings Canyon Rd and
Fresno St 1 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Skew angle increases pedestrian exposure and crash risk Square-up intersection Improve Intersection sight distance ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Line Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Fresno St, East Kings
Canyon Rd to Kearney Blvd 2 Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking/Restricted Parking Areas Visual Friction ✔ Fresno St, East Kings
Canyon Rd to C St 3 Travel Lanes Corridor prioritizes motor vehicle mobility over safe operations. Study the potential for a road diet Reallocating road space can enhance safety for all road users ✔ Martin Ave and Fresno St
4 Intersection and
Crossing
Driver awareness of school pedestrian activity may be insufficient In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Yielding Compliance Near School ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distances Curb Extensions Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ 5 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior near school
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ 6 Travel Lanes Ensure slow, controlled turns near school Harden Centerline Slower turning speeds ✔ Klette Ave and Fresno St 7 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhance Vulnerable Road User crossing visibility, Planned Class 1 Bikeway in Fresno ATP ✔
Pottle Ave and Fresno St 8 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Fresno St, Pottle Ave to
C St 9 Signs and Signals No School Zone Establish School Zone Conditional Speed limit School Zone Speed Limit to 20 or 15 MPH ✔ Collins Ave and Fresno St
10 Intersection and
Crossing
Driver awareness of school pedestrian activity may be insufficient In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Yielding Compliance Near School ✔ Long crossing distances Curb Extensions Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ 11 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior near school
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ Mayor Ave (south/east) and
Fresno St
12 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Line Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Driver awareness of school pedestrian activity may be insufficient In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Yielding Compliance Near School ✔ Long crossing distances Curb Extensions, on south approach Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ 13 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior near school
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ 14 Travel Lanes Unsafe crossing for people using mobility devices ADA-compliant Pedestrian Refuge Island Provides safe, accessible street crossing for people living with disabilities ✔ Kearney Blvd and Fresno
St 15 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Line Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distances Curb Extensions Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street
1 88 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street
1 Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
A St and Fresno St
16 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Driver awareness of school pedestrian activity may be insufficient In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign May increase motor vehicle yielding compliance ✔ Long crossing distances Curb Extensions, on A St north and south approaches Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ 17 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior near school
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ 18 Travel Lanes Long crossing distance Pedestrian Refuge Island Provide option for two-stage crossing ✔ Fresno St, A St to C St
19 Travel Lanes Limited bikeway delineation Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings and 6" striping Delineate bicycle facilities from travel lanes and clearly defi ne road user space ✔ 20 Speed Management School zone conditional speed limit may be too high Evaluate Lowering School Zone Speed Limit to 20 or 15 MPH ✔
B St and Fresno St 21 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ C St and Fresno St 22 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Fresno St, C St to G St 23 Travel Lanes No existing bicycle facilities Class II Bikeway (planned in Fresno ATP) Delineates road space for bicyclists and reduces bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔ CA-99 northbound off-ramp
and Fresno St
24 Intersection and
Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 25 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ CA-99 southbound off-ramp
and Fresno St
26 Intersection and
Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 27 Signs and Signals Skew angle increases pedestrian exposure and crash risk Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ E St and Fresno St
28 Intersection and
Crossing
Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 29 Signs and Signals
Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ F St and Fresno St
30 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 31 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Fresno St, between China
Alley and G St, south side
of street and center median
32 Signs and Signals Unclear lane alignment Lane Geometry Sign Provide clear guidance and minimize confl icts ✔ G St and Fresno St
33 Intersection and
Crossing
Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 34 Travel Lanes Need additional communication of "No Left Turns" Lane Geometry Pavement Markings Provide clear guidance and minimize confl icts ✔ CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 89
Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street
1 Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
Fresno St, either side
intersection with G St,
northbound and southbound lanes
35 Travel Lanes Need additional communication of "No Left Turns" Dotted Centerline Lane Extensions Delineate travel paths ✔ Fresno St between G St
and train tracks, center
median and north side of
street
36 Signs and Signals Need additional communication of "No Left Turns" Lane Geometry Sign Provide clear guidance and minimize confl icts ✔ Fresno St, G St to
Broadway St 37 Travel Lanes No existing bicycle facilities Class III Bikeway (planned in Fresno ATP) Increases bicyclist visibility and motorist awareness ✔ H Street, just before
merging with Fresno St
38 Intersection and
Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 39 Signs and Signals Insufficient driver awareness at uncontrolled crossing Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crash Reduction Factor = 47% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Fresno St, upper ramp from
Broadway St to Broadway
Plz
40 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited crossing visibility Advanced Yield Sign and Pavement Markings Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited advance warning of pedestrian crossing Advanced Pedestrian Warning Sign Increase motorist awareness of crossing ✔ Limited crossing visibility Advanced Yield Markings Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 41 Signs and Signals Insufficient driver awareness at uncontrolled crossing Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crash Reduction Factor = 47% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Broadway Plz/Broadway St
and Fresno St
42 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 43 Signs and Signals Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ Fresno St, Broadway St to
Divisadero St 44 Travel Lanes No existing bicycle facilities Class II Bikeway (planned in Fresno ATP) Delineates road space for bicyclists and reduces bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔ Fulton St and Fresno St 45 Intersection and
Crossing Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Van Ness Ave and Fresno
St
46 Intersection and
Crossing
Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 47 Signs and Signals Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ L St and Fresno St
48 Intersection and
Crossing
Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Advanced Stop Line Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 49 Signs and Signals Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ M St and Fresno St
50 Intersection and
Crossing
Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 51 Signs and Signals
Traffic signal head visibility Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Broadside crash type history No Left Turn/U-turn Blank Out Sign Minimize broadside crashes ✔ Broadside crash type history Protected Left Turn Phasing Minimize broadside crashes ✔ 90 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Fresno Street
from East California Avenue to Divisadero Street
1 Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
N St and Fresno St
52 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Near pedestrian generators Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 53 Signs and Signals Pedestrian and bicycle crash history and near pedestrian generators Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ O St and Fresno St 54 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ P St and Fresno St
55 Intersection and
Crossing
Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Near pedestrian generators Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 56 Signs and Signals Traffic signal head visibility Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian and bicycle crash history and near pedestrian generators Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ Q St and Fresno St 57 Intersection and
Crossing
Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Line Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ R St/Maddy Dr and Fresno
St
58 Intersection and
Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Near hospital Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 59 Signs and Signals Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian Awareness for Left Turning Vehicles ✔ Divisadero St and Fresno
St
60 Intersection and
Crossing Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ ✔ 61 Intersection and
Crossing Skew angle increases pedestrian exposure and crash risk Square Up Intersection Improve Intersection sight distance ✔ 62 Travel Lanes Intersection crash history Harden Centerline Minimize cross-centerline confl icts due to skewed intersection ✔ CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 91
Crash Locations
Blackstone Avenue
from Shields Avenue to Ashlan Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 2 Treatment Type
Intersection & Crossing
0 0.25 0.5 mi
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 Ashlan Avenue Griffith Way Saginaw Way
Dakota AvenueGarland Avenue
Fedora Avenue
11 12
Shields Avenue
8 9
10 13
Treatment Type
Signs & Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed Management
RECOMMENDATIONS
Speed Limit
40 Functional Class
Arterial
Segment Length (Miles)
1 Lane Count
8 Vehicle Volumes
26,000
Total Crashes
83 Killed or Seriously Injured
20 Top 3 Crash Types Top 3 Primary Collision
Factors 56 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
34 %
Pedestrian-Involved
10 %
Cyclist-Involved
47 %
Daylight
4 %
Dusk/Dawn
47 %
Dark - Streetlights
2 %
Dark - No Streetlights
Community Assets
18 Bus Stops**
1 School***
1 Park*** N/A
* As identifi ed using the Safe
Streets Priority Finder tool
** Within a quarter-mile buffer
*** Within a half-mile buffer
Community Voices
"I've seen so many accidents on Blackstone Avenue
caused by high-speed traffi c or distracted drivers."
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Land Use Context
> FAX Q Bus Rapid Transit Route
> Commercial & multi-family
residences
> High Concentration of
Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions*
Crashes by Mode
Lighting Conditions
Intersection
86 %
Mid-block
14 %
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Presence of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
CORRIDOR PROFILE
34 %
Vehicle & Pedestrian Crash
28 %
Broadside
23 %
Rear End
24 %
Unsafe Speed
20 %
Traffi c Signals & Signs
16 %
Pedestrian Violation
92 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
2 Blackstone Avenue
from Shields Avenue to Ashlan Avenue
Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
Ashlan Ave and Blackstone
Ave
1 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distances Review Pedestrian Crossing Times Ensure pedestrians have ample time to cross intersection ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 2 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ 3 Travel Lanes Wide intersections create uncertainty about proper turning paths. Dotted Lane Extension Lines - Left Turn Delineate travel paths ✔ Blackstone Ave, mid-block
between Griffith Way and
Ashlan Ave
4 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility
Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop
Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ Griffith Way and Blackstone
Ave
5 Intersection and Crossing
Long crossing distances Review Pedestrian Crossing Times Ensure pedestrians have ample time to cross intersection ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Limited pedestrian visibility when vehicles stop at crosswalk markings. Advanced Stop Lines Crash Reduction Factor = 25% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 6 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Pedestrian and bicycle crash history Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian and bicycle awareness for left turning vehicles ✔ Blackstone Ave, from Dakota
Ave to Ashlan Ave 7 Speed Management Corridor prioritizes motor vehicle mobility over safe operations.
Once projects south of Dakota are complete, study
the potential of a road diet or reallocating roadway
space, Business Access & Transit Lanes, wider
sidewalks and eliminating right-turn lanes
Reallocating road space can enhance safety for all road users ✔ Dakota Ave and Blackstone
Ave
8 Intersection and Crossing
9 Signs and Signals See Blackstone Ave and Dakota Ave Profi le for detailed recommendations. 10 Travel Lanes
Fedora Ave and Blackstone
Ave 11 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Blackstone Ave at
Manchester Transit Center
parking lot entrance
12 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Blackstone Ave, from Shields
Ave, north along canal 13 Travel Lanes No bicycle facilities present. Class I Bikeway (planned in Fresno ATP) Physically separates bikes from motor vehicles, minimizing bicycle–vehicle confl icts ✔ CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 93
Crash Locations
Shields Avenue
from West Avenue to First Street Crash data from 2019–2023 3 Treatment Type
Intersection & Crossing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 21 22 24 25 30 26 27 28 29 0 0.25 0.5 mi
41 41
West AvenueChanning AvenueTeilman AvenueFruit Avenue
Adoline Avenue
Harrison AvenuePalm AvenueWilson AvenueVan Ness BoulevardWishon AvenueMaroa AvenueBlackstone AvenueFresno StreetFirst Avenue 3 5 8 18 20 23 30
Treatment Type
Signs & Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed Management
RECOMMENDATIONS
Speed Limit
40 Functional Class
Arterial
Segment Length (Miles)
3 Lane Count
6 Vehicle Volumes
13,000–31,000
Total Crashes
125
Killed or Seriously Injured
28 Top 3 Crash Types Top 3 Primary Collision
Factors 78 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
14 %
Pedestrian-Involved
8 %
Cyclist-Involved
54 %
Daylight
2 %
Dusk/Dawn
43 %
Dark - Streetlights
1 %
Dark - No Streetlights
Community Assets
5 Bus Stops**
2 Schools***
1 Park*** N/A
* N/A
** Within a quarter-mile buffer
*** Within a half-mile buffer
Community Voices
“[I see lots of] crashes around Blackstone Avenue/
Shields Avenue”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Land Use Context
> Major east-west connector
> Commercial and residential
land use
> Provids access to CA-41
Crashes by Mode
Lighting Conditions
Intersection
90 %
Mid-block
10 %
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Presence of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
CORRIDOR PROFILE
50 %
Broadside
20 %
Rear End
14 %
Vehicle & Pedestrian Crash
33 %
Traffi c Signals & Signs
18 %
Unsafe Speed
12 %
Autombile Right of Way
94 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
3 Shields Avenue
from West Avenue to First Street
Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
West Ave and
Shields Ave
1 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
2 Travel Lanes
Unclear turn-lane guidance Lane geometry pavement markings and signs Provide clear guidance and minimize confl icts ✔ Unclear bike lane termination and merging behavior. Install Shared Lane Markings through the intersection in accordance with CA MUTCD guidance Provide guidance to bicyclists and motorists ✔ Shields Ave,
from West Ave to
Channing Way
3 Signs and Signals Non-intersection broadside crash type history Access Management Numerous driveways and broadside collisions ✔ Shields Ave, from
West Ave to First
Ave
4 Travel Lanes and Speed
Management
Speed-involved crash history Narrow Travel Lanes (10' inner/10.5' Outer) Traffic Calming, Allows bicycle lanes to be buffered ✔ No existing bicycle facilities Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings and 6" striping Delineate bicycle facilities from travel lanes and clearly defi ne road user space ✔ Teilman Ave and
Shields Ave 5 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Median Diverter/Modal
Filter, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings, Median/Modal fi lter will restrict NB-SB through and left-turn movements ✔ Fruit Ave and
Shields Ave 6 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
Broadside crash history Consider protected-only left turn phasing Minimize broadside crashes ✔ Shields Ave, from
Fruit Ave to Palm
Ave
7 Speed Management Corridor prioritizes motor vehicle mobility over safe operations. Study the potential for a road diet, bicycle facilities, street side parking, eliminating right-turn lanes, curb extensions Reallocating road space can enhance safety for all road users ✔ Adoline Ave and
Shields Ave 8 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Median Diverter/Modal
Filter, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs,
Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings, Median/Modal fi lter will restrict NB-SB through and left-turn movements ✔ Harrison Ave and
Shields Ave
9 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety. Additionally, this crossing meets CA MUTCD guidance for proximity to school grounds.
Yellow High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if the SB dedicated right-turn lane is needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
10 Signs and Signals Crossing is near an elementary school Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Palm Ave and
Shields Ave
11 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
Intersection and Crossing Bicycle crash history Two-stage bicycle turning boxes for bicyclist traveling on Shields Ave and turning to Palm Ave Allows bicyclists to turn left in two stages, reducing confl icts with motor vehicle traffic. ✔ 12 Signs and Signals Broadside and rear end crash types history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Shields Ave, from
Harrison Ave to
train tracks
13 Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking and No Parking Areas Visual Friction ✔ Shields Ave,
from Fruit Ave to
Blackstone Ave
14 Travel Lanes No existing bikeways Class II Bikeways (planned in Fresno ATP) Delineates road space for bicyclists and reduces bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔ Van Ness Blvd
and Shields Ave
15 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
16 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Time of Day Protected/Permissive Left Turn Phasing via Flashing Yellow Arrows Crash Reduction Factor = 16% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 95
Shields Avenue
from West Avenue to First Street
3 Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
Wishon Ave and
Shields Ave 17 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ Maroa Ave and
Shields Ave 18 Speed Management Long crossing distances Curb Extensions NW and NE corners Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Blackstone Ave
and Shields Ave
19 Intersection and Crossing Large high-volume intersection with bikeways and bicycle crash history Consider studying the need and potential for bicycle signals May provide bicyclists a dedicated right-of-way, reducing confl icts and improving predictability. ✔ Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
20 Signs and Signals Broadside and rear end crash types history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Shields Ave,
between
Blackstone
Ave and CA-41
underpass
21 Travel Lanes Existing high stress bikeways terminate without notice/guidance Bicycle Lane Guidance Markings Provide guidance to bicyclists and motorists ✔ Travel Lanes Limited bikeway delineation Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings and 6" striping Delineate bicycle facilities from travel lanes and clearly defi ne road user space ✔ Travel Lanes Long crossing distance Consider the need for two lanes on the SB on-ramp from WB Shields Ave
Will allow a shorter crossing distance at the crosswalk and may improve pedestrian comfort and safety ✔
Travel Lanes Skewed slip lanes encourage high-speed turns and reduce visibility, increasing crash risk for all road users.
Consider studying CA-41 ramps reconstruction; slip lanes should be perpendicular to Shields Ave, consistent with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Can slow turn speeds, improve sight distance, and minimize vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts ✔
Shields Ave, from
Blackstone to
Fresno St
22 Travel Lanes High stress bicycling conditions Class I Bikeways (planned in Fresno ATP) Physically separates bikes from motor vehicles, minimizing bicycle–vehicle confl icts ✔ Travel Lanes No pedestrian walkways on southside of Shields Ave at CA-41 Sidewalks (EB Shields Ave) Provides a pedestrian facility and guidance for pedestrians walking along Shields Ave ✔ Shields Ave
entrance to parking lot between
Blackstone Ave
and CA-41
23 Travel Lanes Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Shields Ave, from
CA-41 underpass
to Fresno St
24 Travel Lanes Existing high stress bikeways terminate without notice/guidance Bicycle Lane Guidance Markings Provide guidance to bicyclists and motorists ✔ Fresno St and
Shields Ave 25 Intersection and Crossing
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for continuous bicycle facilities and pedestrian facility improvements ✔
Shields Ave, from
Fresno St to First
St
26 Travel Lanes No on street bikeways Class II Bikeways (planned in Fresno ATP) Delineates road space for bicyclists and reduces bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔ Shields Ave and
First Ave
27 Intersection and Crossing
28 Signs and Signals See Shields Avenue and First Avenue Profi le for detailed recommendations. 29 Travel Lanes
Shields Ave
Frontage Road
and Shields Ave,
west of First St
30 Travel Lanes Existing high stress bikeways terminate without notice/guidance Install Wayfi nding/Guidance Signs and Pavement Markings (Bike Lane Ends, Arrow to Shields Frontage) Provide guidance to bicyclists and motorists ✔ 96 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Crash Locations
Blackstone Avenue
from Herndon Avenue to Nees Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 4 Treatment Type
Intersection & Crossing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 0 0.25 0.5 mi
Nees Avenue
El Paso Avenue
Alluvial Avenue
Pinedale AvenueMinarets AvenueB irch AvenueSpruce Avenue Locust Avenue
Abby Street
Herndon Avenue
Treatment Type
Signs & Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed Management
RECOMMENDATIONS
Speed Limit
40 Functional Class
Arterial
Segment Length (Miles)
1 Lane Count
9 Vehicle Volumes
40,000
Total Crashes
53 Killed or Seriously Injured
8 Top 3 Crash Types Top 3 Primary Collision
Factors 72 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
24 %
Pedestrian-Involved
4 %
Cyclist-Involved
56 %
Daylight
4 %
Dusk/Dawn
38 %
Dark - Streetlights
2 %
Dark - No Streetlights
Community Assets
15 Bus Stops**
1 School***
1 Park*** N/A
* N/A
** Within a quarter-mile buffer
*** Within a half-mile buffer
Community Voices
"The major streets like Blackstone Avenue have
no bike lanes. The busiest streets are the most
dangerous for pedestrians and cycling. A bike lane is
necessary for public safety."
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Land Use Context
> Major north-south corridor
> Commercial land use
> Runs parallel to CA-41
Crashes by Mode
Lighting Conditions
Intersection
87 %
Mid-block
13 %
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Presence of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
CORRIDOR PROFILE
47 %
Broadside
25 %
Vehicle & Pedestrian Crash
13 %
Rear End
28 %
Traffi c Signals & Signs
19 %
Unsafe Speed
17 %
Pedestrian Violation
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 97
4 Blackstone Avenue
from Herndon Avenue to Nees Avenue
Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
El Paso
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
1 Intersection and Crossing
Turning confl icts at long crossings. Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Turning confl icts at driveways and intersections with dedicated right-turn lanes
Revisit bicycle facility designs at confl ict points to better refl ect the 2024 AASHTO Bike Guide’s design principles, including shorter merge areas, reduced storage lengths, buffer or physical separation between pocket bicycle lane and thru travel lane, clear yield signage (R4-4), and consideration of treatments such as two-stage turn boxes, outside-running bikeways, and protected bike signal phases.
Minimize bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts at driveways and intersections ✔ Alluvial
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
2 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Pinedale
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
3 Speed Management Long crossing distance on minor street. Curb Extensions NW and SW corner Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Consider a two-stage Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) utilizing the median as a protected refuge area, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔ Minarets
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
4 Speed Management
Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds, may yield space for bicycle and pedestrian improvements ✔ Long crossing distance on minor street. Curb Extensions on Minarets Ave at NW and SE corner Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Birch
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
5 Speed Management
Long crossing distance on minor street. Curb Extensions NW and SW corner Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Gap in sidewalk (NE corner) ADA-compliant sidewalk and curb ramps Crash Reduction Factor = 65-89% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure), will provide opportunity to reduce curb radii and provide directional curb ramps ✔ Spruce
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave
6 Speed Management
Long crossing distance on minor street. Curb Extensions NW and SW corner Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Turning confl icts at long crossings. Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 7 Signs and Signals
Longer wait times and complicated operations may increase unsafe crossing behavior
Consider reviewing the current signal operation to determine whether a more conventional traffic signal pattern could be used
Opportunity to reduce pedestrian wait times and confusion, which may increase predicatable crossing behavior ✔
Turning confl icts at long crossings. Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators (TLPI) Pedestrian Awareness for Left Turning Vehicles ✔ Locust
Ave and
Blackstone
Ave (west
approach)
8 Speed Management
Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distance on minor street. Curb Extensions NW and SW corner Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ ✔ Blackstone
Ave from
Herndon
Ave to
Minarets
Ave
9 Speed Management Corridor prioritizes motor vehicle mobility over safe operations.
Study the opportunity to reallocate roadway space to accommodate bicycle facilities, Business Access & Transit Lanes, wider sidewalks, and eliminating right-turn lanes
Reallocating road space can enhance safety for all road users and create continutiy and uniformity in this segment. ✔ Frontage
Rd, NE of
Herndon/
Blackstone
intersection
10 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Blackstone
Ave and
Herndon
Ave
11 Intersection and Crossing
12 Signs and Signals See Blackstone Avenue and Herndon Avenue Profi le for detailed recommendations. 13 Travel Lanes
98 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Crash Locations
Belmont Avenue
from Palm Avenue to Cedar Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 5 Treatment Type
Intersection & Crossing
0 0.25 0.5 mi
3 180 41
180
1 2
4 5
6 7 8
10 9 11
12 13 14
Valerie Street
15 16 17 18
19 20
22 21 23
25 24
27 26
28 29
Palm AvenueRoosevelt AvenueBroadway StreetFulton StreetVan Ness Avenue San Pablo Avenue
Glenn Avenue
Blackstone Avenue
Abby Street
Clark StreetThesta StreetFresno StreetFirst StreetBond Street4th Street5th StreetMillbrook Avenue9th StreetCedar Avenue Treatment Type
Signs & Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
RECOMMENDATIONS
Speed Limit
30-40
Functional Class
Collector
Segment Length (Miles)
3 Lane Count
Between 3 and 5
Vehicle Volumes
10,000–15,000
Total Crashes
138
Killed or Seriously Injured
25 Top 3 Crash Types Top 3 Primary Collision
Factors 73 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
23 %
Pedestrian-Involved
4 %
Cyclist-Involved
57 %
Daylight
3 %
Dusk/Dawn
38 %
Dark - Streetlights
2 %
Dark - No Streetlights
Community Assets
54 Bus Stops**
2 Schools***
3 Parks*** N/A
* As identifi ed using the Safe
Streets Priority Finder tool
** Within a quarter-mile buffer
*** Within a half-mile buffer
Community Voices
"I'm on the border of riding my bike more often than
driving, but need a few more safe routes between
home and places I'm going.”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Land Use Context
> Major east-west connector
> Commercial land use
> High Concentration of
Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions*
Crashes by Mode
Lighting Conditions
Intersection
99 %
Mid-block
1 %
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Presence of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
CORRIDOR PROFILE
43 %
Broadside
22 %
Vehicle & Pedestrian Crash
15 %
Rear End
26 %
Traffi c Signals & Signs
17 %
Automobile Right of way
12 %
Pedestrian Violation
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 99
5 Belmont Avenue
from Palm Avenue to Cedar Avenue
Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
Palm Ave and Belmont
Ave 1 Intersection and Crossing
Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distance Corner Redesign, NW corner Slow turning speeds and shorten crossing distance ✔ Long crossing distance Curb extensions, NW corner Slow turning speeds and shorten crossing distance ✔ ✔ Many bicycle-motor vehicle confl ict points Study the potential to convert to a protected intersection Slow turning speeds and minimize bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔ ✔ Skew angle increases pedestrian exposure and crash risk Square-up intersection Improve Intersection sight distance ✔ Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if SB dedicated right-turn lane is needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Broadway St and Belmont
Ave
2 Intersection and Crossing
Irregular intersection geometry increases pedestrian–vehicle confl ict risk Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Long crossing distance and overly wide receiving lane Corner Redesign, SW corner Slow turning speeds ✔ 3 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Time of Day Protected/Permissive Left Turn Phasing via Flashing Yellow Arrows Crash Reduction Factor = 16% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Fulton St and Belmont
Ave 4 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Van Ness Ave and
Belmont Ave
5 Intersection and Crossing Irregular intersection geometry increases pedestrian–vehicle confl ict risk Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ 6 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Split Phasing Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ San Pablo Ave and
Belmont Ave 7
Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts
Consider a study to determine if dedicated SB right-turn lane is needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ Glenn Ave and Belmont
Ave 8 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Refuge Island (z-crossing), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Yield Sign and Pavement Markings
Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility ✔
Blackstone Ave and
Belmont Ave
9 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 10 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Split Phasing (Coordinated with Abby intersection) Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Abby St and Belmont Ave
11 Intersection and Crossing
Pedestrian crash history Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 12 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Split Phasing (Coordinated with Blackstone intersection) Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Belmont Ave, Abby St to
Cedar Ave 13 Travel Lanes Corridor prioritizes motor vehicle mobility over safe operations Study the potential for a road diet, bicycle facilities, street side parking, eliminating right-turn lanes, curb extensions Reallocating road space can enhance safety for all road users ✔ Blackstone Ave and
Beechwood Ave 14 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior
Consider a two-stage Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) utilizing the median as a protected refuge area, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔
Belmont Ave, Abby St to
First St 15 Travel Lanes No bicycle facilities Class IV Bikeways (planned in Fresno ATP) An on-street protected bikeway, separating bicycle and motor vehicle traffic ✔ Belmont Ave, Clark St to
Valeria St 16 Signs and Signals Lack of marked crossings over long distances encourages unsafe crossing behavior Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings ✔
100 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
Belmont Avenue
from Palm Avenue to Cedar Avenue
5 Location ID Treatment Type Issue Recommended Treatment Safety Benefi ts Phasing
Short
Term
Medium
Term
Long
Term
Belmont Ave, east of
Valeria St to Fresno St 17 Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking/Restricted Parking Areas, north side of street Visual Friction ✔ Belmont Ave, east of
Thesta St to Fresno St 18 Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking/Restricted Parking Areas, south side of street Visual Friction ✔ Fresno St and Belmont
Ave
19 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Proximity to elementary and middle school Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Unsafe crossing for people using mobility devices ADA-compliant curb ramps needed at NW, NE, and SW corners Provides safe, accessible street crossings for people living with disabilities ✔
Intersection and Crossing Long crossing distances Curb extensions, all corners Slow turning speeds and shorten crossing distance ✔ 20 Signs and Signals Broadside crash type history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Belmont Ave, east of
CA-41 to just west of
First St
21 Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking/Restricted Parking Areas, south side of street Visual Friction ✔
Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe on-street Parking, north side of street Visual Friction ✔ First St and Belmont Ave
22 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Dedicated right-turn lanes encourage faster turns and create more vulnerable road user-motor vehicle confl icts Consider a study to determine if dedicated right-turn lanes are needed Shorten crossing distance and slow turning speeds ✔ 23 Signs and Signals Broadside and head-on crash history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ Belmont Ave, between
Bond St and 4th St 24
Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Proximity to middle school Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ 5th St and Belmont Ave
25 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Long crossing distances Curb extensions, NE corner Slow turning speeds and shorten crossing distance ✔ ✔ Intersection and Crossing Skew angle increases pedestrian exposure and crash risk Square-up SB approach Improve Intersection sight distance ✔ 26 Signs and Signals Uncontrolled school crossing
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Median/Modal Filter, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs
Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings, Median/Modal fi lter will restrict NB-SB through and left-turn movements
✔
Millbrook Ave and
Belmont Ave
27 Intersection and Crossing Standard crosswalk markings limit crosswalk visibility and safety High Visibility Continental Crosswalks Crash Reduction Factor = 42% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Proximity to elementary school Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Crash Reduction Factor = 13% (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) ✔ Intersection and Crossing Long crossing distances Curb extensions, all corners Slow turning speeds and shorten crossing distance ✔ Intersection and Crossing Near-side stops increase confl icts by blocking sight lines and encourage vehicles to pass or unsafely make a right turn around a stopped bus Consider relocation transit stop to far-side of intersection instead of near-side
Improves intersection visibility and minimizes confl icts with turning and passing vehicles ✔
28 Signs and Signals Intersection crash history Review of yellow and red light clearance times Minimize Broadside/Rear-end Crashes ✔ 9th St and Belmont Ave 29 Signs and Signals Uncontrolled school crossing Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Median Diverter/Modal Filter, High Visibility Pavement Markings, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Advanced Stop Lines, Stop Here on Red Signs, Advanced Warning Signs Enhanced crossing visibility and shortens distance between safe ped crossings, Median/Modal fi lter will restrict NB-SB through and left-turn movements
✔
Belmont Ave, First St to
Cedar Ave 30
Travel Lanes Delineate road and add visual friction for traffic calming Stripe Street Side Parking/Restricted Parking Areas, north and south side of street Visual Friction ✔
Travel Lanes No bicycle facilities Class II Bikeways (planned in Fresno ATP) Delineates road space for bicyclists and reduces bicycle-motor vehicle confl icts ✔
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 101
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Blackstone Avenue and Dakota Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 Killed or Seriously
Injured
7 Total Crashes
25 No Bike Lane Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Sidewalk
Present
Crashes by Mode Presence of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
INTERSECTION PROFILE
Community Voices
"Dakota Avenue and Blackstone
Avenue [is] very unsafe, Vision Zero is
a disciplined approach [to making our
city safer]"
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Community Assets
2 Bus Stops*
1 Park**
2 Schools**
* within a quarter-mile buffer
** within a half-mile buffer
Top Crash Types Primary Collision Factor
40 %
Broadside
32 %
Vehicle and Pedestrian Crash
12 %
Rear End
24 %
Unsafe Speed
20 %
Automobile Right of Way
16 %
Traffi c Signals and Signs
Treatment Type
Intersection &
Crossing
0 0.0625 0.125 mi Blackstone Avenue
Dakota Avenue
Treatment Type
Signs &
Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed
Management
Treatments
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING
> High Visibility Continental Crosswalks
> Review Pedestrian Crossing Times
> Advanced Stop Lines
> Adjust Pedestrian Crossing Locations
> Consider a study to determine if
dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
> Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SIGNS AND SIGNALS
> Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders
> Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators
(TLPI)
> No Right Turn on Red
> Time-of-Day Protected Only Left Turn
Phasing (Dakota Ave via Flashing
Yellow Arrows)
> Dilemma Zone Protection (Advance
Detection)
> Review of yellow and red light clearance times
> Emergency Vehicle Preemption
TRAVEL LANES
> Bikeway Transition Striping to Pocket
Bike Lane
> Class II Bikeways (planned in Fresno
ATP)
60 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
36 %
Pedestrian-Involved
4 %
Cyclist-Involved
Lighting Conditions
56 %
Daylight
8 %
Dusk/Dawn
36 %
Dark - Streetlights
0 %
Dark - No Streetlights
BLACKSTONE AVE DAKOTA AVE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE
FACILITY
BLACKSTONE AVE DAKOTA AVE
40 mph
8 35
mph
4 SPEED LIMIT LANE COUNT
102 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
RECOMMENDATIONS
2 First Street and Shields Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 Killed or Seriously
Injured
7 Total Crashes
19 Partial Bike
Lane
Bike Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Sidewalk
Present
Crashes by Mode Presence of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
INTERSECTION PROFILE
Community Voices
"At First Street & Shields Avenue, my
wife and I exited a parking lot… a car
approached from the left, about to run
the red light. We both FELT it pass as it
narrowly missed slamming into us”
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Community Assets
5 Bus Stops*
1 Park**
2 Schools**
* within a quarter-mile buffer
** within a half-mile buffer
Top Crash Types Primary Collision Factor
26 %
Broadside
26 %
Rear End
21 %
Vehicle and Pedestrian
37 %
Traffi c Signals and Signs
16 %
DUI/BUI
16 %
Unsafe Speed
Treatment Type
Intersection &
Crossing
Shields Avenue
0 0.0625 0.125 mi First Street
Treatment Type
Signs &
Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed
Management
Treatments
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING
> High Visibility Continental Crosswalks
> Restripe crosswalk to eliminate
obstructions in crossing path
> Advanced Stop Lines
> Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
> Corner Redesign (tighter curb radii)
> Pedestrian illumination
> Consider a study to determine if
dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
SIGNS AND SIGNALS
> Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders
> Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators
(TLPI)
> Time-of-Day NTOR
> Dilemma Zone Protection (Advance
Detection)
> Review of yellow and red light clearance times
> Pedestrian/Bicycle Detection for Signal
Actuation & Extension
TRAVEL LANES
> Colored Bike Confl ict Zone Markings
74 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
21 %
Pedestrian-Involved
5 %
Cyclist-Involved
Lighting Conditions
58 %
Daylight
0 %
Dusk/Dawn
42 %
Dark - Streetlights
0 %
Dark - No Streetlights
FIRST ST SHIELDS AVE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE
FACILITY
FIRST ST SHIELDS AVE
40 mph
6 40
mph
6 SPEED LIMIT LANE COUNT
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 103
RECOMMENDATIONS
3 Chestnut Avenue and East Kings Canyon Road Crash data from 2019–2023 Killed or Seriously
Injured
4 Total Crashes
17 Partial Bike
Lane
Partial Bike
Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Sidewalk
Present
Crashes by Mode Presence of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
INTERSECTION PROFILE
Community Voices
"Disappearing bike lanes at intersections
[like Chesnut Avenue and East Kings
Canyon Road] make me feel unsafe."
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Community Assets
5 Bus Stops*
1 Park**
2 Schools**
* within a quarter-mile buffer
** within a half-mile buffer
Top Crash Types Primary Collision Factor
35 %
Rear End
24 %
Vehicle and Pedestrian Crash
18 %
Broadside
35 %
Unsafe Speed
18 %
Pedestrian Violation
12 %
Automobile Right of Way
Treatment Type
Intersection &
Crossing
East Kings Canyon Rd
0 0.0625 0.125 mi Chestnut Avenue
Treatment Type
Signs &
Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed
Management
Treatments
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING
> Yellow High Visibility Continental
Crosswalks
> Advanced Stop Lines
> Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
> Consider using fl oating bus stops
where bicycle facilities are continuous
between the gutter and right travel lane
> Consider a study to determine if
dedicated right-turn lanes are needed
> Corner Redesign (all corners)
> Pedestrian illumination
SIGNS AND SIGNALS
> Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders
> Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators
(TLPI)
> Time-of-Day NTOR
> Dilemma Zone Protection (Advance
Detection)
> Review of yellow and red light clearance times
52 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
24 %
Pedestrian-Involved
24 %
Cyclist-Involved
Lighting Conditions
53 %
Daylight
6 %
Dusk/Dawn
41 %
Dark - Streetlights
0 %
Dark - No Streetlights
EAST KINGS CANYON
RD
CHESTNUT AVE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE
FACILITY
EAST KINGS CANYON
RD
CHESTNUT AVE
40 mph
7 35
mph
7 SPEED LIMIT LANE COUNT
104 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
RECOMMENDATIONS
4 Blackstone Avenue and Herndon Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 Killed or Seriously
Injured
4 Total Crashes
20 No Bike Lane No Bike Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Partial
Sidewalk
Crashes by Mode Presence of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
INTERSECTION PROFILE
Community Voices
"It’s not uncommon to see people run
red lights on Herndon Avenue. The
speed limits here are high. Herndon Ave
might as well be a freeway except it is
residential and commercial."
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Community Assets
4 Bus Stops*
1 Park**
1 School**
1 Community
Center**
* within a quarter-mile buffer
** within a half-mile buffer
Top Crash Types Primary Collision Factor
40 %
Broadside
25 %
Rear End
15 %
Sideswipe
40 %
Traffi c Signals and Signs
15 %
Improper Turning
15 %
Unsafe Speed
Treatment Type
Intersection &
Crossing
Herndon Avenue
0 0.0625 0.125 mi Blackstone Avenue
Treatment Type
Signs &
Signals
Treatment Type
Travel Lanes
Treatment Type
Speed
Management
Treatments
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING
> High Visibility Continental Crosswalks
> Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon
(RRFB), Raised Crossing, High
Visibility Continental Crosswalk,
Advanced Yield Sign and Pavement
Markings
> Adjust Pedestrian Crossing Locations
> Pedestrian illumination
> Continuous sidewalks on south side of
intersection
SIGNS AND SIGNALS
> Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators
(TLPI)
> Backplates w/ Retrorefl ective Borders
> Dilemma Zone Protection (Advance
Detection)
> Review of yellow and red light clearance times
TRAVEL LANES
> Dotted Lane Extension Lines - Left Turn
85 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
10 %
Pedestrian-Involved
5 %
Cyclist-Involved
Lighting Conditions
55 %
Daylight
10 %
Dusk/Dawn
35 %
Dark - Streetlights
0 %
Dark - No Streetlights
BLACKSTONE AVE HERNDON AVE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE
FACILITY
BLACKSTONE AVE HERNDON AVE
35 mph
9 45
mph
9 SPEED LIMIT LANE COUNT
CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES 105
RECOMMENDATIONS
5 Fresno Street and Clinton Avenue Crash data from 2019–2023 Killed or Seriously
Injured
2 Total Crashes
23 No Bike Lane No Bike Lane
Sidewalk
Present
Sidewalk
Present
Crashes by Mode Presence of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
INTERSECTION PROFILE
Community Voices
"Students are not able to safely cross
Fresno Street and many large trucks
pass through at high speeds."
– Fresno VZAP Community Survey, April 2025
Community Assets
8 Bus Stops*
1 Park**
2 Schools**
1 Hospital*
* within a quarter-mile buffer
** within a half-mile buffer
Top Crash Types Primary Collision Factor
48 %
Broadside
17 %
Head-On
9 %
Rear End
43 %
Automobile Right of Way
17 %
DUI/BUI
17 %
Traffi c Signals and Signs
Treatment Type
Intersection &
Crossing
e Clinton Avenue
0 0.0625 0.125 mi Fresno Street
Treatment Type
Signs &
Signals
Treatments
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING
> Advanced Stop Lines
> Pedestrian illumination
SIGNS AND SIGNALS
> Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
> Turning Lane Pedestrian Indicators
(TLPI)
> Dilemma Zone Protection (Advance
Detection)
> Review of yellow and red light clearance times
87 %
Motor Vehicle or
Motorcycle-Involved
4 %
Pedestrian-Involved
9 %
Cyclist-Involved
Lighting Conditions
57 %
Daylight
9 %
Dusk/Dawn
35 %
Dark - Streetlights
0 %
Dark - No Streetlights
FRESNO ST CLINTON AVE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE
FACILITY
FRESNO ST CLINTON AVE
40 mph
5 40
mph
5 SPEED LIMIT LANE COUNT
106 CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION PROFILES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Designing Safer Streets that Support Emergency Response 107 6 .
108 Ready to Act: Vision Zero Recommendations
Achieving Zero:
Implementation
Vision Zero success depends on sustained leadership, accountability, and transparent progress tracking. This chapter establishes the governance structure, funding pathways, and performance measures needed to turn recommendations into measurable safety outcomes. By aligning departments, leveraging existing programs and grants, and publicly tracking progress, Fresno positions itself to make steady, lasting progress toward zero traffic deaths and severe injuries.
Designing Safer Streets that Support Emergency Response 109 Achieving Vision Zero in Fresno will require sustained leadership, clear accountability, coordinated action across departments and partners, and consistent tracking of progress over time. Earlier chapters of this plan identify where the most serious crashes occur, who is most impacted, and which strategies are most effective at reducing fatal and severe injuries. This chapter focuses on how the City can translate those findings into action, by establishing clear roles and responsibilities, aligning funding with safety priorities, and using performance measures to guide and evaluate progress.
The implementation framework outlined below is designed to support a proactive, data-driven, and equitable approach to traffic safety, ensuring that safety improvements are applied consistently across the City and focus on the locations and populations most at risk.
Governance and
Accountability
Leadership Roles and
Accountability
The City of Fresno’s leadership commitment to Vision Zero is carried forward through clear roles, accountability structures, and decision-making processes that guide implementation over time. City leadership is responsible for ensuring that Vision Zero goals are integrated into policies, programs, and investments, and that progress is regularly monitored and reported.
This includes aligning departmental responsibilities around shared safety objectives, prioritizing resources toward high-risk locations and communities, and reinforcing the application of the Safe System Approach across transportation planning, design, operations, and maintenance. Leadership also plays a key role in maintaining continuity as staff, funding sources, and priorities evolve, ensuring that Vision Zero remains central to City decision-making.
Through these governance and accountability mechanisms, the City establishes clear ownership of Vision Zero outcomes and creates the conditions necessary for sustained, citywide progress toward eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries.
110 Achieving Zero: Implementation
Interdepartmental and Agency
Coordination
Crash trends in Fresno show that severe crashes are driven by a combination of street design, speed, vehicle characteristics, user behavior, and post-crash response. Addressing these factors requires coordination across multiple City departments and external partners, including Transportation, Public Works, Planning, Police, Fire, Public Health, Transit Agencies, School Districts, and Community Organizations.
Coordination on Integrated Policies and
Programs
The Vision Zero Task Force provides a foundation for continued collaboration.
Ongoing coordination will help ensure that safety strategies are implemented consistently, avoid duplication of effort, and reflect both technical expertise and community input. Partnerships with state agencies, regional entities, and community-based organizations will also be critical for addressing equity, supporting behavior-focused programs, and improving post-crash care.
Implementation: Critical Next Step
To sustain interdepartmental and agency coordination, The City will formalize the Vision Zero Task Force as a standing, recurring body that meets regularly (e.g., quarterly) and is led by Transportation/Department of Public Works with support from the City Mayor and Manager’s Office. The Task Force will include decision-making representatives from key City departments and partner agencies and will convene around a consistent agenda focused on reviewing crash trends and performance metrics, coordinating implementation of priority projects and policies, and resolving cross-departmental barriers.
Governance and Accountability 111
Coordination on Capital Projects Across
Jurisdictions and Right-of-Way Owners
Interdepartmental coordination is essential for implementing the systemic safety treatments and priority policies identified in this Plan. Speed management strategies, for example, require coordination across roadway design, signal operations, enforcement, and public education, while improvements on priority corridors and intersections depend on alignment among public works, emergency response, capital planning, maintenance, and operations. Many priority projects also extend across jurisdictional boundaries or occur on roadways owned or operated by multiple agencies, requiring early and ongoing coordination among the City of Fresno, Fresno County, Fresno Area Express (FAX), school districts, and neighboring jurisdictions such as the City of Clovis to align design, funding, operations, and maintenance responsibilities and ensure consistent safety outcomes.
Project types that require cross-agency implementation coordination include:
Table 10 Project Types and Cross-Agency Coordination
Project Type Agencies Requiring Coordination
Corridor and intersection safety improvements
on roadways crossing neighboring cities, City–County
boundaries or within County islands
City of Fresno Public Works; Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning; Caltrans District 6 (where state routes are involved), City of Clovis Speed management projects (lane
reconfiguration, traffic calming, signal timing changes) involving multiple roadway owners or shared
responsibilities
City of Fresno Public Works (Traffic Engineering); Fresno County Public Works; Fresno Police Department; Fresno County Sheriff’s Office; California Highway Patrol (on state routes), City of Clovis
Transit-related safety improvements (bus stop
access, crossings, lighting, curb management)
City of Fresno; Fresno Area Express (FAX); Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG); Fresno County Public Works or Caltrans District 6, as applicable, Fresno County Rural Transit Agency
School-area safety projects (Safe Routes to
School, crossings, loading zones, speed management
near campuses)
City of Fresno; Fresno Unified School District; Clovis Unified School District; Sanger Unified School District, Central Unified School District, Washington Unified School District Fresno County Office of Education; applicable roadway owner (City, County, or Caltrans)
Pedestrian and bicycle network connections
crossing jurisdictional boundaries or connecting
facilities owned by different agencies
City of Fresno; Fresno County; City of Clovis; Caltrans District 6; Fresno COG Emergency response and post-crash safety
improvements (access management, signal
preemption, intersection modifications)
City of Fresno Police Department; City of Fresno Fire Department; Fresno County Sheriff’s Office; Fresno County Fire Protection District; emergency medical service providers; applicable roadway owner
112 Achieving Zero: Implementation
Implementation
Through Existing
Maintenance
Processes
While many capital improvement projects require elements of construction, reconstruction, or installation of new signal equipment, some of the recommended safety projects described in this plan require little more than striping and sign installation and may be implemented as part of the City’s routine restriping and resurfacing plans. This is a cost- and time-efficient way to implement improvements without having to apply for and procure additional grant funding. To leverage this implementation mechanism, the City can regularly review the full list of all recommended infrastructure projects before carrying out their routine restriping and resurfacing. Furthermore, the City should share these recommendations with the County and FAX so that they also can review the relevant recommendations and potentially implement them through routine maintenance.
Implementation
Through the Existing
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program
Many systemic traffic safety recommendations in this plan - particularly those addressing speeding on residential streets - can be advanced through the City’s established Residential Traffic Calming Program. The City of Fresno currently administers a Residential Street Speed Hump Program through the Public Works Traffic & Engineering Services Division, allowing neighborhoods with demonstrated speeding concerns and sufficient petition support to request speed humps and similar calming measures. Applications are accepted annually and ranked based on traffic speed, volume, collision history, and complaint data, with installations occurring between May and October of the following year.
While the Vision Zero Action Plan priority corridors are primarily located on major streets (arterials and collectors), the Residential Traffic Calming Program provides a complimentary mechanism to address speeding concerns on local neighborhood streets. Leveraging this existing program allows the City to continue responding to community concerns while supporting broader Vision Zero goals of reducing speeds and improving safety across the full street network.
Implementation Through Existing Maintenance Processes 113 Funding
A range of funding opportunities exist at the Federal, State, and regional level to increase safety on roadways. While future funding is uncertain, the funding programs below provide the City of Fresno opportunities to compete effectively for public grants that can advance the actions and project recommendations included in this plan to help eliminate crashes that kill and seriously injure people.
Priority funding mechanisms for the City of Fresno (those most typically used to fund safety infrastructure and programs in Fresno) are indicated with a green flag.
Infrastructure Funding
Opportunities
Table 11 Federal, State, and Local Competitive Grant Opportunities Program Agency What it Supports Description Typical
Award
Amount
Application Cycle
and Next Deadline
FEDERAL
Active
Transportation
Infrastructure
Investment
Program (ATIIP)
Federal
Highway
Administration
Funds Planning and
Design projects including
developing plans for active
transportation networks
and active transportation
spines.
Funds Construction
projects that provide safe
and connective active
transportation facilities in
an active transportation
network or active
transportation spine.
Both types of grants can go
towards planning, designing,
and constructing active
transportation networks and
active transportation spines.
Active transportation networks
are active transportation
facilities that connect
between destinations within
a community or metropolitan
region, including schools,
workplaces, residences,
businesses, recreation areas,
medical facilities, and other
community areas. Active
transportation spines are active
transportation facilities that
connect between communities,
metropolitan regions.
Funds
Planning
and Design
projects
of at least
$100,000.
Funds
construction
projects of
at least $15
million.
Annual: Last cycle
applications closed in
summer 2024. Next
cycle anticipated Spring/
Summer 2026.
Better Utilizing
Investments
to Leverage
Development
(BUILD)
Transportation
Discretionary
Grants
U.S. Dept. of
Transportation
Roads, bridges, transit,
rail, ports, or intermodal
transportation
Funds capital investments on
surface transportation projects
that achieve a significant
impact for a metropolitan area,
region, or the nation. Selection
criteria encompass safety,
economic competitiveness,
quality of life, state of good
repair, innovation, and
partnerships with a broad
range of stakeholders.
$1M-$25M+ Annual: FY2026
applications were
due February 24,
2026. FY2027 NOFO
anticipated in Winter
2026
114 Achieving Zero: Implementation
Program Agency What it Supports Description Typical
Award
Amount
Application Cycle
and Next Deadline
Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG)
Housing
and Urban
Development
(HUD)
Neighborhood
revitalization,
transportation services,
public safety programs,
drainage facilities, water
and sewer improvements,
street improvements for
pedestrians and bicyclists
Provides communities with
resources to address a wide
range of unique community
development needs by
providing decent housing and
a suitable living environment,
and by expanding economic
opportunities, principally for
low- and moderate-income
persons.
$200-$400K Annual: Next entitlement
allocations and funding
guidance typically open
in early-to-mid 2026
(check HUD for official
schedule)
City of Fresno applied
in 2026
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A)
PRIORITY
GRANT
PROGRAM
FOR FRESNO
U.S. Dept. of
Transportation
Planning, demonstration
projects (pilot or quickbuild projects), and
implementation
Funds regional, local, and
tribal initiatives to prevent
roadway deaths and serious
injuries. The City of Fresno is
highly competitive for SS4A
funds and has completed
successful applications
during FY2022 and FY2025.
To date, The City of Fresno
has focused on applying for
supplemental planning funds.
With an adopted Vision Zero
Action Plan, the City will be
eligible for implementation
funds in FY2026.
$200K-$25M Annual: FY2025
applications closed in
June 2025. FY2026 (the
final cycle) NOFO due
May 26, 2026.
Note: FY2026 will be
the last committed grant
cycle as part of the IJAA.
Future grant cycles will
depend on what happens
with the transportation
authorization funding
package at the
federal level
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
(STBG)
Federal
Highway
Administration
Bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects.
Funds are administered at
the County level through
the Fresno Council of
Governments. Projects
awarded with STBG funding
require an 11.47% match by
the project sponsor for all
project phases.
Varies; funding for FFY
2027/2030 closed Oct.
2025. Next cycle will
likely open with the next
Federal Transportation
Improvement Program
STATE
Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
California
Transportation
Commission
Bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects
Prioritizes projects in
disadvantaged communities
that closes gaps in pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure
between communities of need.
$500K-$2M 2-4 Year Cycle: ATP
Cycle 8 Call for Projects
is scheduled to open
March 19–20, 2026, with
applications due June
22, 2026.
California
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
PRIORITY
GRANT
PROGRAM
FOR FRESNO
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Infrastructure projects
with nationally recognized
crash reduction factors
(CRFs). Local HSIP
projects must be identified
on the basis of crash
experience, crash
potential, crash rate, or
other data-supported
means.
Funds projects and programs
that reduce traffic fatalities
and serious injuries by
correcting or improving a
specific problem. Highly
competitive at the state level
– roughly 75% of projects
were funded during Cycle 12.
Requires a Vision Zero Action
Plan or an eligible local road
safety plan.
HSIP can be used to fund
systemic safety treatments
across multiple locations, or
location-specific and corridorlevel safety interventions. $100K-$10M 2-Year Cycle: Cycle
13 schedule not yet
released. Monitor HSIP
for future NOFOs.
Funding 115
Program Agency What it Supports Description Typical
Award
Amount
Application Cycle
and Next Deadline
California
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
(STEP)
California Air
Resources
Board
Funds clean transportation
and supporting projects,
including public transit
and shared mobility
services, pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure,
urban greening, land
use planning and
housing policy, workforce
development, and clean
transportation planning
and education.
Funds community-led
transportation projects that
address local transportation
needs, increase access to
key destinations, and reduce
vehicle miles traveled in
disadvantaged or low-income
communities.
$3M-$14M Annual: No current
funding available;
application window is
currently closed. Monitor
CARB for future RFA
announcements
Sustainable
Transportation
Planning (STP)
Grants
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Planning, community
engagement, and studies
to improve bicycle and
pedestrian connections
Funds for communities to do
planning, studies, and design
work to identify and evaluate
projects, including conducting
outreach or implementing
pilot projects.
$100K-$500K Annual: FY2026-27
applications closed
November 2025. Next
cycle NOFO anticipated
Fall 2026.
Local Streets
and Roads
Program (LSRP)
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Infrastructure projects that
improve or add pedestrian
crosswalks, accessible
sidewalks, road repair,
lane reconfiguration, and
bike facilities
Provides approximately
$1.5 billion per year to cities
and counties for basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation,
and critical safety projects
on the local streets and
roads system.
Varies Annual: Typically opens
in spring – monitor
Caltrans Local
Assistance updates in
early 2026.
LOCAL
Measure C
PRIORITY
FUNDING
MECHANISM
FOR FRESNO
Fresno County
Transportation
Authority
Funds transportation
projects across the region
including local streets
and roads, highway
improvements, transit
services, bike lanes,
pedestrian pathways,
and environmental
transportation programs.
Funds projects that
improve the overall
quality of Fresno County’s
transportation system.
Varies Current Measure C
extension set to expire
2027; a citizen-led
Measure C will be on the
2026 ballot.
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District’s
Bikeway
Incentive
Program (Bike
Path Program)
California
Air Pollution
Control Board
Bicycle facility projects
including:
Class I: Bicycle paths/trails
Class II: Bicycle lane
striping
Class III: Bicycle route
signage and shared-lane
markings (e.g., sharrows)
Funds the development
or expansion of a
comprehensive bicycletransportation network
which will provide a viable
transportation option for
travel to school, work, and
commercial sites.
Class I: Up to
$150,000 per
project
Class II: Up
to $100,000
per project
Class III: Up
to $100,000
per project
Typical annual call-forprojects; exact 2026
cycle dates not posted
116 Achieving Zero: Implementation
Programmatic Funding
Opportunities
Several state grant resources can be leveraged by school districts and other lead/partner agencies to support implementation of programmatic opportunities to advance Vision Zero priorities.
Table 12 Programmatic Competitive Grant Opportunities
Program Agency What it Supports Description
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
California
Transportation
Commission
Safe Routes
Programs (including
infrastructure and
non-infrastructure)
Funds a wide range of capital and non-capital projects. A strong preference is given to projects in disadvantaged communities that closes gaps in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure between communities of need. Applicants include jurisdictional agencies as well as schools/school districts.
California Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grants
California Office of
Traffic Safety
Certain activities
under the SRTS,
safety/ education
and enforcement
programs
Funds traffic-safety education, awareness and enforcement programs aimed at drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Fresno County and the Fresno Unified School District are currently using OTS funding to fund Safe Routes to Schools projects across the city and the county.
California Highway
Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Certain activities
under the SRTS,
safety/ education
and enforcement
programs
Funds projects and programs that reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries by correcting or improving a specific problem.
Highly competitive at the state level.
Local Control and
Accountability Plan
(LCAP)
California Department
of Education
Non-infrastructure
safe routes to school
activities
The LCAP is a three-year plan that describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes that address eight key state and local priorities related to school standards, student achievement, parent involvement, and school climate.
Funding 117
Performance
Measures
Tracking progress is essential to achieving Vision Zero. Performance measures help the City understand whether safety strategies are working, identify emerging trends, and adjust approaches as needed. Transparent performance tracking also supports accountability by clearly communicating progress to City leadership, partner agencies, and the public.
While reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries remain the ultimate measure of success, the City will also use leading indicators, such as changes in vehicle speeds, implementation of safety treatments, and progress on Vision Zero actions, to assess whether Fresno is moving in the right direction over time. Together, these measures reinforce Vision Zero as an ongoing, datainformed effort rather than a one-time plan.
Vision Zero Data Dashboard
The City of Fresno has developed a public-facing Vision Zero Data Dashboard to track and communicate progress over time. The dashboard provides up-todate information on crash trends, locations, severity, and contributing factors, and serves as the primary tool for annual reporting on Vision Zero performance.
Figure 11 Fresno Vision Zero Data Dashboard
118 Achieving Zero: Implementation
The dashboard is publicly accessible and allows community members, decision-makers, and partner agencies to view trends across the city and filter data based on:
> Crash trends
> Crashes by mode
> Crashes by severity
> Crashes by year
> Primary collision factors
> Crashes by lighting conditions
By making safety data accessible and easy to understand, the dashboard supports transparency, builds public trust, and helps keep Vision Zero outcomes visible over time. The dashboard is designed to evolve as new data sources become available, including improved coordination between local and statewide crash databases and partnerships with hospitals and public health agencies. Over time, it may expand to include additional performance measures beyond crash outcomes to support evaluation of safety strategies and investment priorities.
While crash and injury data remain critical for measuring long-term safety outcomes, the City recognizes that these data often lag by several years. To demonstrate near-term progress and maintain accountability, updates over the next 5-years to the Vision Zero Data Dashboard will incorporate a limited set of short-term, process-based performance measures that reflect implementation activity and momentum.
These measures may include:
> Number of street redesign or safety improvement projects completed annually
> Implementation of proactive speed management measures, such as speed limit updates or traffic calming installations
> Adoption or updates of Vision Zero–related policies and standards > Community outreach and engagement activities conducted each year > Progress on priority Vision Zero action items
Together, these near-term indicators will complement crash data by showing how the City is advancing Vision Zero strategies in real time, particularly within the first five years of implementation.
Performance Measures 119
Plan Updates and Next
Steps
Vision Zero is a long-term commitment that requires continuous learning and adaptation. As safety improvements are implemented and conditions change, the City should regularly revisit and update this Action Plan to reflect new data, community input, and lessons learned. No city has completely solved roadway safety, and best practices are evolving. This plan will be updated to reflect those evolutions and ensure that strategies remain relevant and that resources continue to be directed where they are most needed.
Next steps following adoption of this Plan include advancing recommended priority projects, implementing systemic safety treatments using the Major Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit, and continuing to refine policies and programs identified through the Vision Zero Taskforce. The top five priority intersections and street segments highlighted in earlier chapters are intended to serve as early implementation opportunities and as examples for applying similar strategies across the City. They can also be used to apply for future grant opportunities.
By pairing strong leadership, coordinated action, sustainable funding, and transparent performance tracking, Fresno can make steady progress toward its Vision Zero goal—to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all road users.
120 Achieving Zero: Implementation