EXHIBIT 2
MEMORANDUM
January 21, 2025
Project: Glendale Vision Zero Safety Action Plan
Re: Glendale Vision Zero – Prioritization Outputs
A
s part of the Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan, the City of Glendale must be able to direct resources to safety treatments on roadways with the greatest needs. This memo outlines the framework that the City can use to direct those resources and summarizes the initial outputs when that framework is applied to Glendale’s roadways .
The overall prioritization process utilizes quantitative metrics that reflect priorities shared by the Project Development team and the City project team. These include:
Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Crashes
Total Crashes of All Modes
Inclusion on Overall HIN
Total KSI Crashes
Healthy Places Index
As the framework is applied in the future and utilized in identifying projects at prioritized locations, qualitative factors such as the following could be used, but are not required, to adjust locations and their extents. Inclusion of qualitative factors for future adjustments is at the discretion of the City:
• Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study (CTMS) public comments • Consolidation of parallel or adjacent corridors
• Alignment with Glendale TIP and other planned projects • Opportunities for quick-build
Scoring Process
Following presentation of proposed priority factors to the Project Development T eam (PDT) in September 2024, the below quantitative scoring process was developed. The PDT provided direction to focus on overall crash frequency and KSI crashes, and recommended survey comments be included as a qualitative step. Scores were updated following the PDT meeting, in October 2024, in consultation with City staff.
Crashes were derived from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System/Transportation Injury Mapping System dataset of crashes on local Glendale streets, and the Healthy Places Index (H PI) was utilized as an equity metric to reflect socioeconomic needs in the City.
2 Table 1. Quantitative Scoring Approach
Prioritization Factor Points Score Type Note
Number of KSI Crashes (All
Modes)
0 - 10 By Percentile,
or no score
Number of KSI crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment
Equity Score (Healthy
Places Index Score)
1-8 By percentile,
across scores
within city
For any segment that crosses multiple equity
score polygons, use the highest equity need score
Number of Crashes (All
Modes)
0 - 8 By Percentile,
or no score
Number of crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment
Presence on High Injury
Network
0 - 5 By overlap
with HIN
Percent overlap with HIN (e.g., a segment 50% on
HIN scores 2.5 points)
Number of Vulnerable
Road User Crashes
(Bicycle- and Pedestrian-
Involved)
0 - 4 By quartile, or
no score
Number of VRU crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment
Overview of the Prioritization Scoring
Scores for each segment and intersection were determined through the approach and metrics detailed in Table 1.
The total possible points for each metric are shown in the second column. The differing number of possible points reflects the overall emphasis on each factor. For example, KSI crashes yield the most points as they reflect the most serious crash types and indications of safety need.
Scores for most metrics are determined by percentile as noted in the Score Type column, comparing how they place among all other segments or intersections in the city. After the scoring process, these are summed into one overall score for the segment or intersection.
How does the percentile score work?
A percentile reflects the distribution of a metric across other segments or intersections: a segment in the 85th percentile of crashes means that 85% of street segments saw fewer crashes. That percentile is then adapted to the respective point amount proportionally, such that segments in the 50th percentile receive half the possible points, the 100th percentile receive full points, and so on.
For example, a segment of Los Feliz Road between San Fernando Road and Central Avenue had 2 KSI crashes (97th percentile across all segments, 9.77 points out of 10), 54 overall crashes (highest percentile, 8 points of 8), and 12 VRU crashes (highest quartile, 4 points of 4). It also fully overlapped the HIN, receiving the full 5 points, and had an HPI score placing it in the 87th percentile, or 6.99 points out of 8. Added together, this yielded a score of 33.76 points. For further information on how segment scores were weighted into aggregated corridors, please see the Segment Prioritization section below.
Prioritization Outputs
Intersection Prioritization
Table 2 below shows the top 30 highest-scoring intersections in Glendale using the quantitative prioritization framework, as mapped on Figure 1. Intersections were generated based on connections in the city street grid, 3 with additional intersections manually added where Glendale streets connect to local freeways via on- and off- ramps. High-scoring intersections are generally centered in central and western Glendale, along major corridors such as Glenoaks Boulevard, Broadway, and Glendale Avenue.
Figure 1. Top 30 Prioritized Intersections
4 Table 2. Prioritized Intersections - Highest 30 Scoring Street Name 1 Street Name 2 Total KSI
Crashes
Total Score Rank
(Including Ties)
Cerritos Avenue Brand Boulevard 2 34.62 1
Alameda Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 2 34.28 2
Cypress Street Glendale Avenue 1 34.07 3
Los Feliz Road Brand Boulevard 1 34.01 4
Boynton Street
Chevy Chase
Drive 1 34.01 4
Colorado Street Brand Boulevard 1 33.99 5
Broadway Brand Boulevard 1 33.95 6
San Fernando
Road Glendale Avenue 1 33.94 7
Broadway Glendale Avenue 1 33.92 8
Broadway Everett Street 1 33.9 9
Colorado Street Adams Street 1 33.85 10
Irving Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 4 33.75 11
Western Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 1 33.7 12
Allen Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard
1 33.67 13
Broadway Jackson Street 1 33.59 14
Elk Avenue Glendale Avenue 2 33.46 15
San Fernando
Road Western Avenue 4 33.45 16
San Fernando
Road
Sonora Avenue 4 33.41 17
5 Street Name 1 Street Name 2 Total KSI
Crashes
Total Score Rank
(Including Ties)
San Fernando
Road Palmer Avenue 2 33.21 18
Flower Street Sonora Avenue 2 33.15 19
Broadway Artsakh Avenue 1 33.1 20
Harvard Street Louise Street 1 33.1 20
Justin Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 1 33.01 21
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Winchester
Avenue
1 33.01 21
Wilson Avenue Verdugo Road 2 32.97 22
Central Avenue Lomita Avenue 2 32.89 23
Colorado Street Verdugo Road 2 32.87 24
Broadway Verdugo Road 2 32.87 24
Princeton Street
San Fernando
Road 1
32.8 25
California
Avenue Glendale Avenue 2
32.67 26
Segment Prioritization
Segment prioritization followed the same scoring inputs and points allocation as intersections, applied to longer street segment. The highest-scoring segments were identified by filtering all segments with a score of 30 or above. This identified approximately 200 unique segments, which are presented in Figure 2 below . Of these, resulting segments were aggregated into longer corridors when continuous. Where there were small breaks equal to 400 feet or shorter (the length of a typical short block in central Glendale), the corridor was deemed continuous, and that segment was included.
The resulting scores of segments were given weights by their respective length and averaged together to create the weighted average score shown in Table 3. Figure 3 shows where these corridors are located within the city:
they include longer segments on Glendale Avenue, Broadway, and Colorado Street, as well as shorter segments on street such as San Fernando Road and Doran Street.
6 2. Top 200 Prioritized Segments
7 Figure 3. Top 30 Prioritized Corridors
8 Table 3. Top 30 Prioritized Corridors
Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Glendale
Avenue Lomita Avenue Colorado Street 0.11 2 33.76 1
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Valenica
Avenue
(approx.)
Spazier Avenue
(approx.) 0.07
2 33.72 2
Chevy Chase
Drive
Glendale
Avenue La Boice Dr 0.47 2 33.69 3
Glendale
Avenue Madison Way Palmer Avenue
(approx.) 0.16 1 33.43 4
San Fernando
Road
Raymond
Avenue
Winchester
Avenue 0.15 4 33.32 5
San Fernando
Road Grover Avenue Ruberta Avenue 0.15 4 33.27 6
Western
Avenue
San Fernando
Road
(approx.)
Glenwood Road 0.25
3 33.08 7
San Fernando
Road
Glendale
Boulevard Dolores Street 0.21 2 32.97 8
Glendale
Avenue Harvard Street CA-134 Freeway 0.85 7 32.88 9
San Fernando
Road
Chevy Chase
Drive Magnolia Avenue 0.19 3 32.88 9
Louise Street Broadway Colorado Street 0.26 1 32.85 11
San Fernando
Road Los Feliz Road Central Avenue 0.13 1 32.82 12
Broadway Olive Street Lukens Place 0.25 3 32.78 13
Broadway Orange Street
(approx.)
Louise Street
(approx.) 0.15 2 32.76 14
9 Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Central Avenue Cypress Street Los Feliz Road 0.08 1 32.64 15 Glenoaks
Boulevard
Linden Avenue
(approx.) Sonora Avenue 0.62 10 32.43 16
Colorado
Street
San Fernando
Road
Brand Boulevard
(approx.) 0.87 8 32.42 17
Brand
Boulevard Maple Street Chestnut Street 0.08 1 32.41 18
Riverdale Drive Pacific Avenue Central Avenue 0.38 2 32.24 19 Central Avenue Acacia Avenue
(approx.) Palmer Avenue 0.15 1 32.17 20
Verdugo Road California
Avenue
Rock Glen
Avenue 0.68 10 31.95 21
Doran Street Everett Street
(approx..) Adams Street 0.14 4 31.9 22
Doran Street Orange Street
(approx.) Maryland Avenue 0.11 4 31.84 23
Chevy Chase
Drive Virginia Place Central Avenue
(approx..) 0.3 2 31.76 24
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Grandview
Avenue Newby Street 0.09 1 31.72 25
Maple Street Louise Street Glendale Avenue 0.09 1 31.69 26 San Fernando
Road Milford Street Salem Street 0.25 4 31.66 27
Colorado
Street Cedar Street Langley Street 0.64 7 31.64 28
Sonora Avenue Grand Central
Avenue I-5 Freeway 0.27 2 31.64 28
10 Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Chevy Chase
Drive Harvard Street Elk Avenue 0.21 2 31.61 30
Next Steps
Following the review of the quantitative prioritization outputs and any subsequent adjustments, the outputs lists may be evaluated, with City direction, against the qualitative criteria described in the process overview to determine if any projects should be shifted to a higher or lower priority based on those metrics. For example, a location that is ranked 10th on the list using quantitative analysis might be shifted to a higher priority if it can leverage an adjacent project or a project on the CIP list. Another location might be shifted to a higher priority for quick-build potential if there is an upcoming planned restriping of the corridor in which a road diet or a quick-build intersection daylighting could be implemented at the same time. Additional adjustments may be based on criteria such as the following:
• Public comments received through the CTMS survey
• Consolidation or separation of adjacent or parallel corridors, with City input • Adjustments based on alignment with planned projects identified by the City • Opportunities for quick-build implementation and pilots