Hanford City Council
May 16, 2023

as any amended claims, as may be required.

In regards to filing of an Exemption Notice, Title 14, Section 14104 (c) Public Resources Code stipulates that rehabilitation and or reconstruction of existing highways and streets within existing rights of way is categorically exempt from EIR requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated funds of $1,170,803, based on estimates and subject to adjustment, will be deposited into the Gas Tax Transportation Capital Improvement Fund for use on the street projects capital improvement program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 23-10-R

2. TDA FY 23-24

3. FY 23/24 TDA Claim

4. Attachment C - CIP FY22-26

5. NOE 2023

ATTACHMENT “B”
RESOLUTION NO. ______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

REGARDING THE PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS WITHIN THE CITY OF HANFORD

AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on May 16th, 2023 it was moved by Council Member ___________________, and seconded by Council Member _________________, and carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act provides for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for meeting transportation needs that can be reasonably met; and WHEREAS, once public transportation needs are met, the balance of the LTF may be claimed for local streets and roads; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford has participated with the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency to provide public transportation for the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, the Kings County Area Public Transportation Authority Board, a joint powers authority, will conduct a Public Hearing on behalf of the City Council to determine if there are unmet transportation needs that are reasonable to meet; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned service is currently meeting all transit needs that are reasonable to be met.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby find that, based on current evidence, there are no areas within the City of Hanford with unmet public transit needs which could reasonably be met by expansion of existing transportation systems or by establishing new systems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford claim the unused balance of the Local Transportation Funds, not used for public transportation and transportation planning, for maintenance of local streets and roads and that maintenance of streets and roads is categorically 23-10-R

exempt from environmental review and that the City Manager is authorized to sign and submit the claim for funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the 16th day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member _______________________________________ _______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
NOES: Council Member _______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Member _______________________________________ ABSENT: Council Member _______________________________________ _______________________________________
, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May, 2023.

Dated: May 16, 2023 ________________________________
Natalie Ortega, City Clerk

ESTIMATED FY 2023-24

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT SHARES
FY 2023-24 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SHARES AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT REMAINING

1. Estimate of LTF for Fiscal Year 2023-24 by Kings $6,200,000 County Auditor pursuant to Section 6620 of the
California Administrative Code:

2. Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: $124,000 $6,200,000 (amount available)
AMOUNT
Claimed to date $0

3. Shares of remaining LTF based on the Department of $6,200,000 Finance population estimate as of May 1, 2022:

AGENCY POPULATION* PERCENTAGE SHARE Avenal 13,186 8.6737% $537,769
Corcoran 22,047 14.5024% $899,149
Hanford 58,299 38.3488% $2,377,626
Lemoore 27,058 17.7986% $1,103,513
Kings Co. 31,433 20.6765% $1,281,943
TOTAL 152,023 100.0000% $6,200,000

4. LTF Administration and Article 8 Transportation $120,000 $6,080,000 Planning cost for KCAG:

AGENCY PERCENTAGE SHARE
Avenal 8.6737% $10,408
Corcoran 14.5024% $17,403
Hanford 38.3488% $46,019
Lemoore 17.7986% $21,358
Kings Co. 20.6765% $24,812
TOTAL 100.0000% $120,000

5. Article 4, Public Transit, KART (Not Shared by Corcoran): $2,000,000 $4,080,000

AGENCY PERCENTAGE SHARE
(Based on Pop. & Hrs. of Service)
Avenal 5.6285% $112,570
Corcoran 0.0000% $0
Hanford 58.0402% $1,160,804
Lemoore 21.3811% $427,622
Kings Co. 14.9502% $299,004
TOTAL 100.0000% $2,000,000

6. Article 8, Transportation Services and Planning, City of Avenal: $4,000 $4,076,000 (From Avenal's Share)

AGENCY SHARE
Avenal $4,000

7. Article 4, Public Transit, Corcoran Dial-A-Ride: $786,746 $3,289,254 (From Corcoran's Share)

AGENCY SHARE
Corcoran $786,746

8. Article 8, Transportation Services: $95,000 $3,194,254 (From Corcoran's Share)

AGENCY SHARE
Corcoran KART tickets $0
Corcoran Amtrak tickets $95,000

9. Remaining Article 8 shares for streets and roads.
(By population % shown in item #3 above): $3,194,254 $0

AGENCY SHARE
Avenal $410,791
Corcoran $0
Hanford $1,170,803
Lemoore $654,533
Kings Co. $958,127
TOTAL $3,194,254
Estimated FY 2023-24 LTF: $6,200,000
* Based on 2022 Department of Finance estimates released on May 1, 2022 2/24/2023 TDA FY 23-24.xlsx

CLAIM FOR TDA FUND

OTHER CLAIMS
ARTICLE 8

1. Claimant: City of Hanford

900 S. 10th Ave.

Hanford, CA 93230

2. Claim for FY 2023-24

3. Amount of Apportionment (estimate): 38.3488% $ 2,377,626

4. Purpose for which claimed funds will be used:

Article 8, Section 99400(a), Local Street and Roads and projects which are provided for use by pedestrians and bicycles. $ 1,170,803

Article 8, Section 99400(b), Passenger Rail Service Operations and Capital Improvements (including Article 3, Section 99234.9, Rail Passenger Service Projects). $ 0

Article 8, Section 99400(c), Contracted Transportation Services. $ 0

Article 8, Section 99400(d), Contracted Transportation Services Administrative and Planning. $ 0

Article 8, Section 99402, Transportation Planning Process (including Article 3, Section 99233.1, RTPA Administration). $ 46,019

5. NOTE: KCAPTA will Claim $ 1,160,804 through Article 4.

6. Has your governing body conducted a public hearing for the purpose of soliciting comments on the unmet transit needs that may exist within your jurisdiction?

NO YES

7. Has your governing body passed a resolution in which the finding was made that there are no areas within your jurisdiction with unmet public transit needs which could reasonably be met by expansion of existing transportation systems or by establishing a new system?

NO YES

Include a copy of that resolution and documentation of the finding, including evidence and information that provides the basis for the finding, and designate it as "Attachment B".

H:\RTPA\LTF\FY2023-24\Article 8 Form.docx
REV 02_2023

8. Has your governing body passed a resolution authoring the person whose signature appears below to submit this claim?

NO YES

9. Proposed road maintenance and construction budget for the fiscal year of this claim:

$

Include a list of road maintenance and construction projects for which the funds are requested and designate it as "Attachment C".

10. Has your governing body certified environmental documents for projects to be funded by this claim?

NO YES

11. Signature and Title Date

Payment for projects approved by KCAG will be made to Claimant as money is available for distribution in Claimant's account.

PROJECT TITLE 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs 42,140 41,030 43,000 43,000 43,000 New Sidewalk and ADA Improvements 52,100 51,410 54,000 54,000 54,000 Street Division Maintenance 315,798 311,645 327,000 327,000 327,000 Unscheduled Arterial Upgrades & Traffic Signal Installation 210,530 207,750 218,000 218,000 218,000 Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update 15,780 15,580 15,000 15,000 15,000 Pavement Resurfacing Treatment 996,850 983,690 950,000 950,000 950,000 East Lacey Boulevard Widening / Reconstruction, 10th Avenue to Sierra Drive 4,679,020 4,617,240 0 0 0 Reclamite Seal Treatment 181,580 0 187,500 0 187,500
Grangeville Blvd. Widening, Centennial Dr. to 13th Ave. 0 0 500,000 3,920,000 0 0 0 0 625,000 5,130,000
TOTAL $6,493,798 $6,228,345 $2,294,500 $6,152,000 $6,924,500

FUNDING SOURCES
0040 Gas Tax 864,638 674,057 864,500 677,000 864,500
0045 Gas Tax (RMRA) 994,423 981,293 0 0 0
0050 Gas Tax (TDA Transportation) 959,351 946,129 697,000 1,697,000 1,697,000 0052 Gas Tax (RSTP Exchange Funds) 00000
0055 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 463,715 457,592 0 0 0 0181 Transportation Impact Fees 1,780,671 1,757,159 718,000 2,313,000 2,948,000 0359 Storm Drainage Capital 523,380 524,260 7,500 507,500 507,500 0362 Wastewater Capital 271,674 268,091 7,500 457,500 407,500 0391 Water Capital 635,946 619,764 0 500,000 500,000
TOTAL $6,493,798 $6,228,345 $2,294,500 $6,152,000 $6,924,500

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN
Lacey Blvd. Widening / Reconstruction, from Magna Carta to 13th Ave. and 13th Ave. from Lacey Blvd. to 1300 feet north.

GOV CODE 6103
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 212
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of Kings
Kings County Government Center
Hanford, CA 93230
From: City of Hanford – Public Works
900 S. 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230
Project Title: Streets and Roads Maintenance and Reconstruction Project Location – Existing street rights of way within the Hanford City of Hanford Limits
Project Location – City: HanfordProject Location – County: Kings County Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:

Improvement of City streets for the benefit of the citizens of Hanford and Kings County.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Hanford, Public Works Department Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080 (b) (1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080 (b) (3); 15269(a);
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080 (b) (4); 15269(b) (c);
Categorical Exemption State type and section number: (Sec. 15301 (c)); Statutory Exemption. State code number: 15301 Existing Facilities Other (Sec. 1410 (c) Public Resources Code).

Reasons why project is exempt:

Street maintenance and construction within existing City rights of way is exempt per CEQA 15301 (c) – Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutter, bicycle and pedestrian trails and similar facilities.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Lisa Dock Area Code/Telephone: (559) 585-2555 Signature: Date: Title: City Engineer
Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

Signed by Applicant

13.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 5/16/2023 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT:

A Public Hearing to accept comments related to the Approval of the 2023 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and Adoption of Resolution No. 23-8-R, Authorizing and Approving the proposed 2023-24 Annual Action.

BACKGROUND:

SEE ATTACHED STAFF REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report CC-051623 Public Hearing AP23

2. Attachment 1 - CDBG Action Plan 2023-24

3. Attachement 2 Resolution 22-09-R

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the Draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan for
2023-2024

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Open the public hearing and accept comments about the CDBG proposed 2023-24 Action Plan.

2. Adopt R-23-8 Resolution Authorizing and Approving the proposed 2023-24 Annual Action.

BACKGROUND
The 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan, approved by City Council on May 7, 2019, established a multi-year strategy for using CDBG funds in the community. CDBG funding supports the development of viable urban communities by supporting projects and activities that create or enhance the availability of decent housing, suitable living environments, and expansion of economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.

The Annual Action Plan identifies specific projects and activities funded through CDBG each year of the Consolidated Plan. The 2023-24 Annual Plan is an expenditure plan using the upcoming year’s CDBG allocation for the specific activities outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

As presented during the Study Session on March 7, 2023. Hanford must adopt the 2023- 24 Annual Action Plan to identify projects for the upcoming budget year. The Council directed staff to distribute the budget of $521,703 to the following projects:
2023-24 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (ATTACHMENT 1)
Housing Rehabilitation $ 139,108
Homeless Housing Navigation Center $ 200,000 Kings County Commission on Aging- Meal Program $ 48,255 Warming Center $ 20,000
Kings Tulare COC $ 10,000
Administration $ 104,340
Total $521,703

“Backup” Projects
The Annual Action Plan contains a list of projects funded for the program year with funding anticipated. However, additional funding may become available during each program year due to program income, projects completed below budget, or projects canceled or delayed for various reasons.

Therefore, a list of affordable housing, public facility, infrastructure improvement projects, and public services (subject to the 15% cap) be included in the Annual Action Plan and approved by the City Council for funding as backup projects. The City may activate these backup projects when funding becomes available. The City receives HUD approval for these backup projects and the approved and funded projects as part of its approval for the Annual Action Plan. Initiation and funding of these projects do not constitute a “substantial amendment,” as defined above.

Preferential consideration will be given to projects that demonstrate the ability to spend CDBG funds on time, consistent with the City’s goal to meet CDBG timeliness rules and projects that meet the community’s needs defined in the Consolidated Plan.

Housing Rehabilitation
(additional funding to be added to the total) $ 200,000 First-time Homebuyer Assistance $ 150,000
Homeless Housing Navigation Center $ 200,000 Eligible Public Facility and Improvements $ 200,000 Additional funding for Public Service Subrecipients Subject to 15% CAP Public Review:

The Action Plan was released for a 30-day public review period on April 10, 2023, with a public notice of availability published in the Hanford Sentinel on March 7, 2023, and April 22, 2023. One comment has been received as of the date of preparation of this report.

Public comments received before the closing of the comment period on May 11, 2023, will be summarized in the final document.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action is a prerequisite to ensuring the City can receive its anticipated $521,703 CDBG entitlement funds.

ACTION FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will submit the 2023-24 Annual Action Plan to HUD. Funds will be available upon HUD’s approval of the plan.

13.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 5/16/2023 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT:

Public hearing to accept comments related to the adoption of Resolution No. 23-13-R, under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “CMFA”), a joint exercise of powers authority and public entity of the State of California, in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000, (the “Bonds”), a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds (approximately $7,000,000) will be used to construct an approximately 15,000 square foot health center at 939 South 12th Avenue in Hanford, California, containing approximately 24 medical exam rooms and ten dental rooms (the “Project”).

BACKGROUND:

See attached staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Family Healthcare Network Staff Report

2. TEFRAResolutionHanford 051623

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Conduit financing for Family Healthcare Network

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY:

Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) on May 16, 2023, in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “CMFA”), a joint exercise of powers authority and public entity of the State of California, in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000, (the “Bonds”), a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds (approximately $7,000,000) will be used to construct an approximately 15,000 square foot health center at 939 South 12th Avenue in Hanford, California, containing approximately 24 medical exam rooms and ten dental rooms (the “Project”).

Adopt a resolution to approve the financing of the Project by the CMFA.

Recommendations
1) Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of TEFRA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).
2) Adopt resolution 23-13-R approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Family HealthCare Network to provide for the financing of the Project; such adoption is solely to satisfy the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and follow).

BACKGROUND
Family HealthCare Network, a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation and an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“FHCN”), has requested that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 (the “Bonds”). A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds (approximately $7,000,000) will be used to construct an approximately 15,000-square-foot health center at 939 South 12th Avenue in Hanford, California, containing approximately 24 medical exam rooms and ten dental rooms.

For all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Hanford must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Before such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the community members. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.

CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY:

The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004, under a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural, and community development through financing economic development and charitable activities throughout California. Over 350 municipalities, including the City of Hanford, have become members of CMFA. The city became a member of the CMFA on December 15, 2015.

The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with issuing taxable and tax-exempt bonds to improve California's standard of living. The CMFA’s representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.

All financing documents for the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not the obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these fees to the Foundation to support local charities. Concerning the City of Hanford, it is expected that the CMFA will grant a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City to the general fund of the City. Such a grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the city.

SUMMARY:

Considering the foregoing, and to support affordable housing, staff recommend that the city conduct the TEFRA Hearing and adopt resolution 23-13-R in favor of the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA.

Quint & Thimmig LLP 04/26/23
03042.195

CITY OF HANFORD
RESOLUTION NO. 23-13-R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION,

CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, AND EQUIPPING OF HEALTH FACILITIES

FOR FAMILY HEALTHCARE NETWORK, AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS

RELATING THERETO
RESOLVED, by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Hanford (the “City”), as follows:

WHEREAS, Family HealthCare Network, a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation and an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“FHCN”), has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) participate in the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 (the “Bonds”). A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds (approximately $7,000,000) will be used to construct an approximately 15,000-square-foot health center at 939 South 12th Avenue in Hanford, California, containing approximately 24 medical exam rooms and ten dental rooms.

WHEREAS, pursuant to section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City;
WHEREAS, the Council is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code;
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority to satisfy the public approval requirement of section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004, (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 147(f) of the Code, the Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED and DETERMINED as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the Council that this resolution constitutes approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for (a) section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected

-2-
representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any things and to execute and deliver any documents which they deem necessary or advisable to carry out, give effect to, and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Hanford in a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of _________, 2023, by the following vote:

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day _____ of ___________, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May, 2023.

Dated: _________________, 2023
Travis Paden, Mayor of Hanford
ATTEST:

Natalie Corral, City Clerk

-3-
Natalie Corral, City Clerk

14.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 5/16/2023 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Approval of the City of Hanford Local Road and Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve the attached City of Hanford Local Road and Safety Plan
BACKGROUND:

A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive document that outlines strategies and actions to improve traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian safety on local roads.

LRSPs are developed by city and county governments, and are required by state and federal agencies as a condition for many grant applications. The attached LRSP plan analyses data and identifies multiple safety improvement projects in Hanford that are candidates for potential Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) grant funding.

In September 2021, the City was awarded a State of California Local Roadway Safety Plan preparation grant in the amount of $57,000 for developing an LRSP for the City of Hanford.

On May 3, 2022, Council awarded a contract to 4Creeks Engineering of Hanford for the amount of $71,861.00 to complete the preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan.

The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to identify and analyze safety problems, and recommend safety improvements. Preparation of the City’s LRSP was accomplished through acquiring and analyzing data, involving stakeholders reviewing the data, selecting emphasis areas, developing safety strategies and countermeasures, and adopting the final plan.

The LRSP has played a critical role in addressing traffic collision risks and has identified specific or unique conditions that contribute to traffic collisions within the city. During the project development, there were two meetings held with the public and stakeholders. The first Stakeholders Meeting was held July 13, 2022. Comments were received and a second Stakeholders Meeting was held November 16, 2022. The LRSP provides the City with the opportunity to proactively correct high collision or problem locations in hopes of preventing local road fatalities and injuries. The final plan includes proven countermeasures, provides a structured and realistic set of responses that implement changes over time, will integrate the “4 E’s” approach (Education, Enforcement, Emergency Service, and Engineering) in its proposed solution strategies, and will identify road safety partners that could sustain a long-term effort.

On March 23, 2023, the Parking and Traffic Commission approved the recommendation to City Council to approve the DRAFT LRSP. Attached are the meeting minutes for Council review. The document was posted on the City of Hanford webpage for (30) days with a call for the public to review and comment. The attached draft has been amended based on the comments of the Parking and Traffic Commission, stakeholders and public comments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City received grant funding from The Department of Transportation in the amount of $57,000.00 for Agency Preliminary Engineering for the Local Roadway Safety Plan. The additional city share in the amount of $14,900.00 was funded through the Transportation Development Act Fund (TDA Fund).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Hanford LRSP_ Final Draft

2. 3.23.23 Parking and Traffic Minutes

CITY OF

LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN

HANFORD
PREPARED BY:

2 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

CITY OF HANFORD

CITY OF HANFORD

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
March 13, 2023
Prepared by: 4Creeks, Inc.

DRAFT

3 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Hanford employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this Local Roadway Safety Plan. 4Creeks would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

City of Hanford
Jennifer Minear, Project Manager
Lisa Dock, City Engineer
Russ Sterling, Deputy Public Works Director/Street Manager Shawn Dailey, Engineering Technician II
Steve Pendergrass, Fire Chief
Parker Sever, Police Chief
Karl Anderson, Police Captain
4Creeks, Consultant Team
Lisa Wallis-Dutra
Molly Muirhead
Joe Christianson
Maggie Navarrete

STATUTORY NOTICE
STATUTORY NOTICE 23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

4 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
7 INTRODUCTION
7 Purpose
8 LRSP Organization
9 VISION, GOAL, & OBJECTIVES
10 LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
10 Development of LRSP
12 Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Meetings
13 Review Of Existing City Documents
13 Guiding Manuals
Highway Safety Manual
Local Roadway Safety: A Manual For
California's Local Road Owners
15 Analysis Techniques
Crash And Network Screening Analysis
Equivalent Property Damage Only
(EPDO)
16 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY

CONDITIONS
16 Data Sources
17 Crash Patterns And Trends
Crashes by Severity
Crashes By Type
Crashes By Time Of Day
Primary Collision Factors
Pedestrian Crashes
Bicycle Crashes
High-Risk Locations
24 Office Of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Statewide Comparison
25 Hanford's Highest (Worst) OTS
Rankings(.)
25 Hanford's Lowest (Best) OTS
Rankings(+)
26 RECOMMENDATIONS
26 Improving Roadway Safety in
Hanford
27 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area 1 - Improve Intersection
Safety
Emphasis Area 2 - Speed Management
Emphasis Area 3 - Improve Pedestrian
Safety
Emphasis Area 4 - Reduce Wrong Side
of the Road Bicycle Crashes
Emphasis Area 5 - Reduce Impaired
Driving and Increase Driver Awareness
33 Countermeasures Toolbox - The 4 E's
Engineering Countermeasures
Education Countermeasures
Enforcement Countermeasures
Emergency Medical Services
Countermeasures
36 Safety Projects
39 FUNDING
39 Federal Programs
Surface Transportation Block Grant
(STBG) Program
Rebuilding American Infrastructure
With Sustainability And Equity (RAISE)
Grant
Infrastructure For Rebuilding America
(INFRA) Grant
Safe Streets And Roads For All (SS4A)
Funding
Strengthening Mobility And
Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART)
Grants Program
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
41 State Programs
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Grants
Local Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Grants
California Office Of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grants
State-Local Partnership Program (LPP)
Sustainable Transportation Planning

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
(STP) Grants
State Highway Operation And
Protection Program (SHOPP) Grants
Recreational Trails Program
Affordable Housing And
Sustainable Housing Communities
(AHSC) Grant Program
Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
Environmental Enhancement And
Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program
Caltrans Railway-Highway Crossing
Program (RHCP) Section 130
45 IMPLEMENTATION
45 Implementation and Evaluation
46 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Excerpts From Existing City
Documents
City of Hanford 2035 General Plan
Update (Completed in 2017)
City Of Hanford Pedestrian And
Bicycle Master Plan (2016)
Hanford Downtown East Precise
Plan (2013)
Engineering And Traffic Survey
(2015)
Suggested Route To School Maps
Capital Improvement Program
City Construction Standards And
Specifications
Kings County Local Roadway Safety
Plan (2022)

APPENDIX B
Priority Tables

APPENDIX C
Caltrans LRSM 2022

APPENDIX D
Safety Projects

FIGURES
11 Figure 1 - LRSP Timeline
14 Figure 2 - Network Screening
Process
18 Figure 3 - Traffic Collisions by
Severity
17 Figure 4 - Percent Distribution of
Crashes by Severity
19 Figure 5 - Number of Crashes by
Type
19 Figure 6 - Crashes by Time of Day
20 Figure 7 - Number of Crashes by
Primary Collision Factors
21 Figure 8 - Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions
22 Figure 9 - Number of Crashes by
Pedestrian Action
22 Figure 10 - Number of Bicycle
Crashes by Severity
23 Figure 11 - Intersections vs. Roadway
Segments
TABLES
15 Table 1 - Weighing Factors by
Severity
24 Table 2 - OTS Ranking
28 Table 3 - Emphasis Area 1
29 Table 4 - Emphasis Area 2
30 Table 5 - Emphasis Area 3
31 Table 6 - Emphasis Area 4
32 Table 7 - Emphasis Area 5
33 Table 8 - Engineering
Countermeasures Toolbox
37 Table 9 - Safety Projects

6 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AASHTO – American Association of
State Highway and Transportation
Officials
AHSC – Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Housing Communities
ATP – Active Transportation
Program
BIL – Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
BUILD – Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage
Development
Caltrans – California Department of
Transportation
City – City of Hanford
CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality
CPUC – California Public Utilities
Commission
CRF – Crash Reduction Factor
CTC – California Transportation
Commission
DPR – Department of Parks and
Recreation
DLA – Division of Local Assistance
EEM – Environmental Enhancement
and Mitigation
EPDO – Equivalent Property
Damage Only
FHWA – Federal Highway
Administration
GIS – Geographic Information
System
GPU – General Plan Amendment
HSIP – Highway Safety
Improvement Program
HSM – Highway Safety Manual
HVE – High-Visibility Enforcement
INFRA – Infrastructure for
Rebuilding America
LPP – Local Partnership Program
LRSM – Local Roadway Safety: A
Manual for California’s Local Road
Owners
LRSP – Local Roadway Safety Plan
NHTSA – National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
OTS – Office of Traffic Safety
PCF – Primary Collision Factor
PDO – Property Damage Only
RAISE – Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity
RHCP – Railway-Highway Crossing
Program
Safe TREC – Safe Transportation
Research & Education Center
SHOPP – State Highway Operation
and Protection Program
SHS – State Highway System
SMART – Strengthening Mobility
and Revolutionizing Transportation
SS4A – Safe Streets and Roads for
All
STBG – Surface Transportation
Block Grant
STP – Sustainable Transportation
Planning
SWITRS – Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System
TCC – Transformative Climate
Communities
TIGER – Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery
TIMS – Transportation Injury
Mapping System
USDOT – United States Department
of Transportation

7 INTRODUCTION
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE
The City of Hanford (City) is the county seat of Kings County, California, in the south-central San Joaquin Valley with an estimated population of 58,496 residents over a total area of approximately

17.4 square miles1. For a five-year period from 2015 to 2019, there was a total of 1,669 reported crashes with an average of 12.6 fatal and serious injury crashes per year on City of Hanford roadways. The City is committed to reducing fatalities and serious injury crashes on its streets. In that effort, the City initiated the development of this Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

This LRSP is a proactive approach the City has undertaken to address roadway safety with the goal of preventing local roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The process included acquiring and analyzing crash data to identify emphasis areas, as well as “high-risk” intersections and corridors, to address through the development of systemic treatments, safety strategies, and countermeasures to improve roadway safety in the City. This effort included stakeholder input and resulted in prioritized safety improvements for the City. However, this LRSP should be considered a living document to be reviewed and updated as the City continues to work on achieving its goal of reducing fatalities and serious injury crashes.
1 US Census Bureau (2021). Quick Facts Hanford city, California. Retrieved from https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/hanfordcitycalifornia

8 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

9 VISION, GOAL & OBJECTIVES
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

VISION, GOAL, & OBJECTIVES
Following an initial review of existing plans and policies for the City and discussions with City staff and stakeholders, the following Vision, Goal, and Objectives were established for the LRSP.

OBJECTIVES:
• Analyze crash data and identify priority locations for safety improvements • Identify feasible, cost-effective, and systemic safety countermeasures • Improve pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ safety by implementing proven and effective safety countermeasures
• Continually seek funding for safety improvements
• Ensure prioritization and selection of safety improvements is fair and equitable for all City of Hanford residents
• Continue monitoring crash data and updating the City’s LRSP document and implementation VISION: To contribute to California’s vision of reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users
GOAL:

To reduce fatalities and severe injuries in the City of Hanford by identifying and implementing safety countermeasures

10 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

DEVELOPMENT OF LRSP
In general, the development of the LRSP includes acquiring and analyzing crash data; identifying and coordinating with stakeholders to review the data; developing the plan vision, goal, and objectives; identifying “high-risk” corridors and intersections; selecting emphasis areas; developing safety strategies and countermeasures; prioritizing safety improvements; preparing the final LRSP; and ultimately evaluating and updating the LRSP.

The LRSP project timeline
is presented in Figure 1 on
the following page.

LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

11 LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 1

12 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
To ensure the community’s perspective was considered and remained a priority during the LRSP process, a local stakeholders' working group comprised of City staff and external stakeholders was formed and engaged in the LRSP process. This group was crucial in helping to establish priorities, give local context, and evaluate the analysis. The stakeholders' working group will also be crucial in assisting the City to advance the safety strategies identified in the LRSP. The stakeholders involved in the development of this LRSP include:
• Hanford Administration Department
• Hanford Community Development Department
• Hanford Public Works Department
• Hanford Fire Department
• Hanford Police Department
• Hanford City Parking and Traffic Commission
• Kings County Transit
• Kings County Association of Governments

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The first stakeholders' working group meeting was held on June 2, 2022, at the City Corporation Yard conference room. At this meeting, the group was introduced to the project and given a presentation on what is a LRSP. The group was also presented preliminary collision analysis findings for the City; prepared the draft vision, goal, and objectives of the LRSP; discussed preliminary emphasis areas for the plan; and discussed the City’s existing efforts and strategies for current roadway safety measures. The presentation as well as a technical memorandum with all information presented in the meeting was distributed to the stakeholders' working group for further review and comment.

The second stakeholders' working group meeting was held on November 16, 2022, at the same location. The LRSP process was again reviewed for the group. At this meeting, the group finalized and approved the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP. Updated collision analysis findings, which included data from Hanford Police Department, was presented. The results of the network screening analysis and “high-risk” intersections and roadway segments were reviewed with the stakeholders, as well as the preliminary emphasis areas and countermeasures. Members of the group provided input and comments for the LRSP.

13 LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

REVIEW OF EXISTING CITY DOCUMENTS
Existing City documents and relevant projects recently completed or underway were reviewed at the start of the LRSP process to understand existing efforts and to ensure the LRSP vision, goal, and objectives, as well as potential safety strategies, are consistent with existing City policies, programs, and guidelines. The following documents were reviewed:
• City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
• Downtown East Precise Plan
• Engineering and Traffic Survey
• Suggested Route to School Maps
• Captial Improvement Program
• City Construction Standards and Specifications
• Kings County Local Roadway Safety Plan
For detailed information and findings from the existing City documents listed above, please see Appendix A at the end of the LRSP.

GUIDING MANUALS
Guiding manuals for the LRSP process are provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Both agencies have provided typical frameworks for the LRSP process based on the following guiding manuals.

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (2010) provides various methods and analytical tools that may be used to quantify the potential effects that planning, engineering, operations, and maintenance decisions may have on crash frequency and severity.

Chapter 4, Network Screening, of the HSM discusses the process of network screening which can be used by a local agency to review their transportation network and identify and rank locations from most likely to least likely to realize a reduction in crash frequency with the implementation of a countermeasure.

Figure 2 identifies the five major steps of the network screening process.

14 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Figure 2
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY: A MANUAL FOR CALIFORNIA'S LOCAL

ROAD OWNERS
Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.6, April 2022) is created by Caltrans in conjunction with FHWA and the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (Safe TREC) for the express benefit of California local agencies. By encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and position themselves to effectively compete for Caltrans' statewide, data-driven project funding opportunities, the agency hopes to maximize the safety advantages for local roadways.

15 LRSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The HSM provides numerous performance measure analysis techniques; however, the amount of data available may limit the performance measures that can be used. Based on data available at the time, this LRSP used the following three performance measures:
• Number of crashes
• Number of fatal and serious injury crashes
• Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)

CRASH AND NETWORK SCREENING ANALYSIS
The initial screening process categorized the crashes as either intersection or roadway segments.

The intersection crashes were further subcategorized as by the intersection control type, either signalized or unsignalized. Roadway segments screened for this LRSP were all categorized as arterials. These screening processes were used to determine those areas that may see more crashes than expected or determine where higher number of specific crash types may occur.

For this LRSP, a short list of locations was identified and approved by the stakeholders on which to focus. These locations were reviewed for various crash factors including:
• Crash severity – fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
• Crash type – broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, hit object, head on, overturned, and other, as well as pedestrian, and bicycle
• Driver behavior – aggressive, distracted, and impaired driving • Environmental factors – day/night, lighting, and wet roads

EQUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY (EPDO)
The EPDO method assigns weighting factors to crashes by severity to develop a combined property damage only score for each location. An injury crash cost is determined for each location.

For this LRSP, these costs were taken from the Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners and are shown in
Table 1. This value is then divided by the
cost for a property damage only crash.

The result then allows the locations to
be compared and prioritized based on
equivalent number of property damage
only crashes.

This document's main objective is to offer a simple, all-inclusive framework for the procedures and analytical tools required to locate problematic areas for roadway safety and the suitable solutions.

Although it follows the same principles of the HSM, it provides a more streamlined process with specific information related to safety countermeasure selection and project benefit-to-cost ratios for those competing for the statewide, project funding opportunities.

16 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
The results of the crash analysis completed for this LRSP are shown in this chapter. It includes information on the data sources, the analysis results including crash patterns and trends, and identifies “high-risk” intersections and roadway segments. It also includes a comparison of Hanford’s traffic safety statistics with cities of similar-sized populations as indicated by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS).

DATA SOURCES
The most recent, available crash data for the City of Hanford was collected from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for a 5-year period between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. TIMS is a geocoded mapping system of the SWITRS data which is a database of the statewide collision reports. Data from TIMS does not include Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes. PDO data was collected from SWITRS and combined with the TIMS information. In addition, this data was compared to information provided by the Hanford Police Department. Data that appeared to conflict was verified when possible. For instance, when the location description was not identifiable or did not match geocoded data that was provided, it was verified with the Hanford Police Department when possible.

Crash types were also broken into categories of roadway segments or intersections. This information was identified from TIMS and SWITRS which is originally identified in the collision report. This category was compared to the location description and geocoded data for confirmation.

Intersections were also classified by signalized or unsignalized control type which was verified in the field. Categories of roadway segments were identified from the City’s 2035 General Plan.

EXISTING ROADWAY

SAFETY CONDITIONS

17 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

CRASH PATTERNS AND TRENDS
The initial crash analysis considers the combined data of all local roadway crashes to identify crash patterns and trends and “high-risk” corridors and intersections to develop safety strategies and countermeasures, prioritize safety improvements, and select emphasis areas.

CRASHES BY SEVERITY
There was a total of 1,669 total crashes reported in the City of Hanford. See Figure 3 on the following page for locations of crashes by severity. 7 crashes resulted in fatalities, 56 resulted in a severe injury, 288 resulted in other visible injuries, 448 resulted in complaint of pain, and 870 resulted in property damage only (PDO). Figure 4 below shows the percent distribution of crashes by severity.

Figure 4

18 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
Hanford
12TH AVE
13TH AVE
10TH AVE
9TH AVE

FARGO AVE

HANFORD ARMONA RD
11TH AVE

GRANGEVILLE BLVD

LACEY BLVD
8 1/2 AVE

HOUSTON AVE

IONA AVE IDAHO AVE
HIGHWAY 43

CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

FLINT AVE
·|}þ43
·|}þ198
City of Hanford
2015-2019 Traffic Collisions
Legend
Collisions by Severity
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only Collisions
Hanford City
Limits
Major Roads
Streets
Railroads
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 3
Figure 3

19 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

CRASHES BY TYPE
The number of crashes by type is shown in Figure 5. The analysis shows 642 crashes (38.5%) resulted in broadside, followed by 371 (22.2%) rear-end crashes.

CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY
The number of crashes by time of day is shown in the below Figure 6. The analysis shows 14.5% of crashes occur between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, followed by 13.5% occurring between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM and 12.0% occurring between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM.

Figure 5
Figure 6

20 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS
The primary collision factor (PCF) is the primary cause of the crash as assigned by the responding or reporting officer. Of the 1,669 crashes in Hanford, automobile right of way violations accounted for 367 crashes (22.0%). This was followed by 355 crashes (21.3%) due to unsafe speed. This was followed by 286 crashes (17.1%) with an improper turning PCF, 233 crashes (14.0%) with a traffic signals and signs PCF, and 173 crashes (10.4%) with a driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug PCF. The number of crashes by primary collision factor is shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7

PEDESTRIAN CRASHES
Of the 1,669 crashes in Hanford, 74 (4.4%) involved a pedestrian. See Figure 8 on the following page for pedestrian crash locations. In 24 (32.4%) of those crashes, the pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. In another 24 (32.4%) of those crashes, the pedestrian was crossing not in a crosswalk. In 14 (18.9%) of those crashes, the pedestrian was in the road, including the shoulder. Figure 9 shows the number of crashes by pedestrian action.

Of the 74 pedestrian crashes, 29 (39.2%) were due to the driver’s failure to yield the right of way to the pedestrian at a marked or unmarked crosswalk. In 10 (13.5%) of the pedestrian crashes, the pedestrian failed to yield right of way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

Also of the 74 pedestrian crashes, 39 (52.7%) occurred during the daylight, one (1.4%) occurred at dusk or dawn, 29 (39.2%) occurred during dark where there were streetlights, and five (6.8%) occurred during dark where there were no streetlights.
12TH AVE
13TH AVE
10TH AVE
9TH AVE

FARGO AVE

HANFORD ARMONA RD
11TH AVE

GRANGEVILLE BLVD

LACEY BLVD
8 1/2 AVE

HOUSTON AVE

IONA AVE IDAHO AVE
HIGHWAY 43

CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

FLINT AVE
Hanford
·|}þ43
·|}þ198
City of Hanford
2015-2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions
Legend
Pedestrian
Collisions
Bicycle
Collisions
Hanford City
Limits
Major Roads
Streets
Railroads
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 8

21 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
Figure 8
12TH AVE
13TH AVE
10TH AVE
9TH AVE

FARGO AVE

HANFORD ARMONA RD
11TH AVE

GRANGEVILLE BLVD

LACEY BLVD
8 1/2 AVE

HOUSTON AVE

IONA AVE IDAHO AVE
HIGHWAY 43

CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

FLINT AVE
Hanford
·|}þ43
·|}þ198
City of Hanford
2015-2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions
Legend
Pedestrian
Collisions
Bicycle
Collisions
Hanford City
Limits
Major Roads
Streets
Railroads
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 8

22 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS

BICYCLE CRASHES
Of the 1,669 crashes in Hanford, 67 (4.0%) involved a bicyclist. See Figure 8 for bicycle crash locations. Although there were no fatalities of the bicycle crashes, eight (11.9%) resulted in a severe injury. Other visible injuries
occurred in 34 (50.7%)
of the bicycle crashes,
and 22 (32.8%) of the
bicycle crashes resulted in
complaint of pain injuries.

Figure 10 shows the
number of bicycle crashes
by severity.

Of the 67 crashes involving
a bicyclist, the PCF for 26
(38.8%) of them were wrong
side of road, followed by 13
(19.4%) that were automobile
right of way, and 10 (14.9%)
that were traffic signals and
signs.

Most of the pedestrian crashes, 70 (94.6%) occurred when the weather was clear, one (1.4%) occurred when it was cloudy, and three (4.1%) occurred when it was raining.

Figure 10
Figure 9

23 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

HIGH-RISK LOCATIONS
In analyzing the crashes, “high-risk” intersections and roadway segments were identified. “High- risk” locations do not mean unsafe locations. An LRSP is a proactive process to improve safety; therefore, these locations are those that may benefit the most from improvements.

The crash data was analyzed to determine how many crashes occurred at intersections as compared to roadway segments. Of the City’s 1,669 crashes, 1,102 (66%) occurred at intersections while 501 (30%) occurred on roadway segments. Of the data analyzed, 66 crash reports (4%) did not state if the crash occurred at an intersection or roadway segment. Figure 11 below shows the percent distribution of crashes that occurred at intersections vs. roadway segments.

The initial network screening process determines intersections and roadway segments based on the number of crashes, EPDO score, as well as reviewing crash factors that may be higher than expected for that type of location. After completing the initial network screening process, the following signalized intersection, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments were identified as “high-risk” locations:

Signalized Intersections:
• 11th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard
• 11th Avenue and Florinda Street/Rodgers Road
• 12th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard
• 11th Avenue and Hanford-Armona Road
• 11th Avenue and Grangeville Boulevard
• 10th Avenue and Grangeville Boulevard
• 12th Avenue and Centennial Drive/Mall Drive
• 11th Avenue and Fargo Avenue
• Grangeville Boulevard and Redington Street
• 11th Avenue and Elm Street
• Lacey Boulevard and Mall Drive
• 11th Avenue and Davis Street
• Grangeville Boulevard and Rodgers Road
• Grangeville Boulevard and University Avenue
• Douty Street and Florinda Street
• Redington Street and Seventh Street
• Douty Street and Seventh Street
• Douty Street and Fargo Avenue
• 11th Avenue and Seventh Street
• 11th Avenue and Cortner Street
Unsignalized Intersections:
• 12th Avenue and Glendale Avenue
• Sixth Street and Phillips Street
• Douty Street and Third Street
• 11th Avenue and Sixth Street
• Douty Street and Center Street
Figure 11

24 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
Roadway Segments:
• Grangeville Boulevard – 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue
• 11th Avenue – Fourth Street to Lacey Boulevard
• Grangeville Boulevard – 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue
• Hanford-Armona Road – 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue
• Hanford-Armona Road – 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue
Additionally, the stakeholders identified several different intersections they wanted included in the review and analysis. Several of those locations were already identified in the network screening process. The remaining intersections identified by the stakeholders include the following:

Signalized Intersections:
• 10th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard/Seventh Street
• Douty Street and Grangeville Boulevard
• 10th Avenue and Fargo Avenue
Unsignalized Intersections:
• Park Avenue and Ivy Street
• Fargo Avenue and Glacier Way
• 11th Avenue and Pepper Drive
• 10th Avenue and Second Street
Detailed information on crash numbers, EPDO score, and crash severity and type for each location can be found in Appendix B.

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) STATEWIDE COMPARISON
The OTS rankings were also
reviewed to compare Hanford’s
traffic safety statistics to those
of other cities with similar-
sized populations (50,001 to
100,000). The results can also
help the City identify traffic
safety problem areas to be
addressed. For 2019, the most
recent OTS rankings available,
Hanford rankings are noted
in Table 2. The first number
shown in the OTS ranking
column is the number the City
ranks in that category. The
second number (105) is the
total number of cities/counties
within that population group. It
should be noted that number 1
in the rankings is the highest, or
worst, ranking of the total 105
cities compared.

Table 2
• Hanford's Highest (Worst) Rankings
+ Hanford's Lowest (Best) Rankings

25 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
HANFORD'S HIGHEST (WORST) OTS RANKINGS (.)
HANFORD'S LOWEST (BEST) OTS RANKINGS (+)

26 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS

IMPROVING ROADWAY SAFETY IN HANFORD
It will take a coordinated effort from a wide range of stakeholders to get the greatest improvement in roadway safety in the City of Hanford. Emphasis areas on which to focus those efforts have been identified and are noted on the following pages. Strategies, or countermeasures, are identified and incorporate the four E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services. The likelihood of success in improving roadway safety rises when countermeasures from all four E's are combined.

RECOMMENDATIONS

27 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on the crash patterns and trends identified, the greatest opportunity to improve roadway safety in the City and thereby reduce fatal and serious injury crashes is through implementing the following identified emphasis areas:

1. IMPROVE INTERSECTION SAFETY

2. SPEED MANAGEMENT

3. IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

4. REDUCE WRONG SIDE OF ROAD BICYCLE CRASHES

5. REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING AND INCREASE

IIIIDRIVER AWARENESS

28 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
Performance
Measure
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Engineering
Number of
intersections
improved
Number of
intersection
crashes related to
traffic movement
compared to the
previous year
Education
Number of media
outlets and
campaigns
Number of
responses
received from the
public
Enforcement
Number of
warnings/citations
issued at "high-
risk" intersections
Number of
intersection
crashes compared
to previous year
EMS
EMS response
time
EMS response
time compared to
previous year
High-visibility media campaign about intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals/stop signs, turning violations, pedestrian movements, and speeding.

High-visibility enforcement targeting "high-risk" intersections "Move-over" media campaign
S05, Install emergency vehicle preemption systems
Objective: To reduce the number of collisions at intersections S01, Add intersection lighting
S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before)
S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
NS01, Add intersection lighting
NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or YIELD control) NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
NS08, Install flashing beacons at STOP-controlled intersections NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (clear sight triangle) R01, Install segment lighting
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) Strategy
Table 3
EMPHASIS AREA 1 - IMPROVE INTERSECTION SAFETY
The following Table 3 are 4 E strategies and countermeasures that may be used in Hanford to address Emphasis Area 1.
66% 38.5% 22.2%
City crashes that occur
at intersections
Broadside crashes
(most common)
Rear-end crashes

29 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
EMPHASIS AREA 2 - SPEED MANAGEMENT
The following Table 4 are 4 E strategies and countermeasures that may be used in Hanford to address Emphasis Area 2.
21%
Crashes due to
unsafe speed
Performance
Measure
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Engineering
Number of
engineering safety
projects pursued
and amount of
funding awarded
Number of safety
project locations
improved
Education
Number of media
outlets,
campaigns, and
deployments of
trailer
Number of
responses
received from the
public
Enforcement
Number of
citations issued
for unsafe
speeding
Citations issued
for unsafe
speeding
compared to
previous year
EMS
Number of
fatalities in unsafe
speed crashes
Number of
fatalities in unsafe
speed crashes
compared to
previous year
First-aid training
"Move-over" media campaign
S05, Install emergency vehicle preemption systems
Objective: To reduce the number of speed-related crashes within the City S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) S11, Improve pavement friction (high friction surface treatments) S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
NS10, Install transverse rumple strips on approaches
NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (clear sight triangle) NS12, Improve pavement friction (high friction surface treatments) R03, Install Median Barrier
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
Install speed feedback signs
Decrease lane width
Install bulbouts at intersection curb returns
Speed monitoring radar trailer
High-vsibility media campaign about unsafe speeding
High-visibility enforcement targeting unsafe speeding
Strategy
Table 4
21%
Fatal and severe
injury crashes due
to unsafe speed
63%
Rear-end crashes

30 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 5
EMPHASIS AREA 3 - IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
4 E strategies and countermeasures that may be used for Emphasis Area 3 are shown in Table 5.

Performance
Measure
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Engineering
Number of
engineering safety
projects pursued
and amount of
funding awarded
Number of safety
project locations
improved
Education
Number of media
outlets and
campaigns
Number of
responses
received from the
public
Enforcement
Number of
warnings/citations
issued for
pedestrian safety
traffic violations
Number of
pedestrian
crashes compared
to previous year
EMS
Number of
fatalities in
pedestrian
crashes
Number of
fatalities in
pedestrian
crashes compared
to previous year
First-aid training
"Move-over" media campaign
S05, Install emergency vehicle preemption systems
Objective: To reduce the number of pedestrian-related crashes within the City S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (clear sight triangle) NS19PB, Install raised medians/refuge islands
NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Install bulbouts at intersection curb returns or mid-block crossings Install high-visibility type crosswalks
Road safety education to children
High-vsibility media campaign about pedestrian safety
High-visibility enforcement targeting pedestrian safety traffic violations Zero tolerance of traffic law violations in school zones Strategy
Of pedestrian crashes
involved a pedestrian
crossing in a crosswalk at
an intersection
Of pedestrian crashes
involved a pedestrian
crossing not in a
crosswalk

32.4%32.4%
Of pedestrian
crashes involved
alcohol
23%

31 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
Table 6
EMPHASIS AREA 4 - REDUCE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD

BICYCLE CRASHES
4 E strategies and countermeasures that may be used for Emphasis Area 4 are shown in Table 6.

38.8%
Of bicycle crashes
are wrong side of
the road
Performance
Measure
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Engineering
Number of
engineering safety
projects pursued
and amount of
funding awarded
Number of safety
project locations
improved
Education
Number of media
outlets and
campaigns, as
well as school
events
Number of
responses
received from the
public
Enforcement
Number of
warnings/citations
issued for
bicycling on
wrong side of
road
Warnings/
citations issued
for bicycling on
wrong side of
road compared to
previous year
EMS
Number of
individuals trained
in first-aid
Number of
individuals trained
in first-aid
compared to
previous year
First-aid training
Objective: To reduce the number of wrong side of road violations that lead to bicycle crashes S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) - to install bike wrong way signs on the back of bike lane signs Road safety education to children
High-visibility media campaign about bicycling rules of the road High-visibility enforcement targeting bicycling on the wrong side of the road Zero tolerance of traffic law violations in school zones Strategy

61.2%
Of bicycle crashes
occurred at an
intersection

32.8%
Of bicycle crashes
are broadside (most
common)

32 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
EMPHASIS AREA 5 - REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING AND INCREASE

DRIVER AWARENESS
The following Table 7 are 4 E strategies and countermeasures that may be used in Hanford to address Emphasis Area 5.

Performance
Measure
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Engineering
Number of
engineering safety
projects pursued
and amount of
funding awarded
Number of safety
project locations
improved
Education
Number of media
outlets and
campaigns
Number of
responses
received from the
public
Enforcement
Number of
citations issued
for DUI
Citations issued
for DUI compared
to previous year
EMS
Number of
fatalities in
impaired driving
crashes
Number of
fatalities in
impaired driving
crashes compared
to previous year
First-aid training
"Move-over" media campaign
S05, Install emergency vehicle preemption systems
Objective: To reduce the number of crashes caused due to impaired driving and increase driver awareness S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before)
S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) S11, Improve pavement friction (high friction surface treatments) S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (clear sight triangle) NS12, Improve pavement friction (high friction surface treatments) R03, Install Median Barrier
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
High-vsibility media campaign about impaired driving
High-visibility enforcement targeting impaired driving
Strategy
Table 7
Crashes PCF cited as
driving or bicycling
under the influence of
alcohol or drug
Ranking out of 105 cities of
similar-sized population for
crashes in which there were
victims killed or injured where
a party had been drinking
25TH10.4%
Crashes involving
alcohol

12.7%

33 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX - THE 4 E'S
Strategies and countermeasures have been chosen based on the City’s existing roadway safety conditions, as well as potential for success. As conditions continue to change, or the traffic safety professionals’ approach to these issue progresses, these countermeasures should be reviewed with the LRSP updates and revised as appropriate.

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
This section identifies the engineering safety countermeasures that can be used to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes throughout the City. The Caltrans LRSM provides 81 countermeasures: 20 for signalized intersections, 23 for unsignalized intersections, and 38 for roadway segments, and provides guidance on how and where they should be used. While there may be many countermeasures to improve roadway safety, Table 8 is a summary of the engineering countermeasures chosen as the most likely considered effective for the “high-risk” locations identified in this LRSP. Table 8 identifies the countermeasures, crash types, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), expected life of the countermeasure in years, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding percentage eligibility, and whether the countermeasure provided a high opportunity for a systemic approach. The Caltrans LRSM detailing all available engineering countermeasures is available for reference in Appendix C .

Table 8
Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
S - Signalized intersection countermeasures
NS - Non-signalized intersection countermeasures
R - Roadway Segment Countermeasures
S01 Install intersection lighting Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
retroreflective backplates, signal size, and
number
All 15% 10 90% Very High
S03 Improve signal timing: coordination, red, and
yellow All 15% 10 50% Very High
S05 Install emergency vehicle preemption
systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
S06 Install left-turn lane and add left-turn phase All 55% 20 60% Low S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-
mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium
S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping
(through intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High
S11 Improve pavement friction (high friction
surface treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium
S12 Install raised median on approaches (SI) All 25% 20 90% Medium S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from
signal) All Varies 20 90% Low
S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Pedestrian & Bicycle 25% 20 90% Very High
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Pedestrian &
Bicycle 60% 10 90% Very High
Code

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Safety Countermeasure Crash Type(s)
Systematic
Approach
Opportunity
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Expected
Life
(Years)
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)

34 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 8 Continued
Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox Continued
S - Signalized intersection countermeasures
NS - Non-signalized intersection countermeasures
R - Roadway Segment Countermeasures
NS01 Add intersection lighting Night 40% 20 90% Medium
NS02 Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way
or YIELD control) All 50% 10 90% High
NS06
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Install flashing beacons at STOP-controlled
intersections All 15% 10 90% High
NS10 Install transverse rumble strips on
approaches All 20% 10 90% High
NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection,
including installing red curb All 20% 10 90% High
NS12 Improve pavement friction (high friction
surface treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium
NS19PB Install raised medians/refuge islands (NSI) Pedestrian & Bicycle 45% 20 90% Medium
NS21PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Pedestrian &
Bicycle 35% 20 90% Medium
NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Pedestrian &
Bicycle 35% 20 90% Medium
R01 Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium
R03 Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium
R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers All 15% 10 90% Very High
R30 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R33PB Install separated bike lanes Pedestrian &
Bicycle 45% 20 90% High
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
Pedestrian &
Bicycle 35% 20 90% Medium
Install speed feedback signs
Decrease lane width
Install bulbouts at intersection curb returns
or mid-block crossings
Install high-visibility type crosswalks
Code

ROADWAY SEGMENTS

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Safety Countermeasure Crash Type(s)
Systematic
Approach
Opportunity
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Expected
Life
(Years)
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)

35 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

EDUCATION COUNTERMEASURES
Everyone needs to be involved in improving roadway safety, including users of the City’s roadway network. For this reason, educating the users is an important strategy for the plan’s success. The following education countermeasures were identified for the City:

Speed Monitoring Radar Trailer – Speed monitoring radar trailers are portable trailers that visually displays a drivers’ speed as compared to the posted speed limit. These are an educational tool to help make a driver more aware of their speed. These are often used in residential neighborhoods, school zones, or used in conjunction with other safety education programs. Hanford currently has one speed monitoring radar trailer and a second one for the City is recommended.

Road Safety Education to Children – Educating children on roadway safety provides many advantages. Children will not only be less likely to be involved in a crash but will also carry those lessons forward to become more knowledgeable and careful drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Educating children on roadway safety can also inform families of the safety benefits and promote walking and biking as viable modes of transportation. Road safety education programs for children have been implemented by many agencies and school districts, and there are extensive resources that are available through the National Center for Safe Routes to School (National Center) at https://www.saferoutesinfo.org/. One choice is Walk, Bike, & Roll to School Day activities, which unite elected officials and community members together to pledge to address traffic safety in the City and promote the benefits of walking, biking, and rolling to school.

High-Visibility Media Campaign – A high-visibility media campaign for roadway safety aims to spread awareness of safe driving habits and traffic laws through a variety of mass media outlets.

Media campaign(s) should be used to target the emphasis areas and may include billboards, print ads, radio, television, digital ads, and social media. The objective is to reach a large audience, increase awareness of the issue, and inspire improvement.

ENFORCEMENT COUNTERMEASURES
Although best efforts may be made implementing education and engineering countermeasures, motorists failing to follow traffic laws can still result in fatal and severe crashes. Police enforcement plays a role in reducing traffic crashes; however, research has found that many enforcement strategies do not have long-term success. The most successful strategies are those that are visible and transparent to the community, done regularly, and done along with educational campaigns.

High-Visibility Enforcement (HVE) – HVE is a traffic safety approach which combines enforcement, visibility elements, and a publicity strategy to educate and promote voluntary compliance of traffic laws. HVE are proactive efforts targeting a specific traffic safety issue but must be highly visible to the public. Examples are checkpoints, saturation patrols, and waves (increased enforcement of a specific traffic violation at a targeted location that occurs periodically). HVE should occur at locations chosen based on data; therefore, “high-risk” locations identified in the LRSP could be chosen. The HVE objective is to make the public aware and deter them of the specific, unsafe traffic behaviors.

Zero Tolerance in School Zones – One enforcement countermeasure that can improve the safety of children walking and biking to school as well as motorists is the strict enforcement of traffic

36 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
laws in school zones. Potential solutions include enacting a "zero tolerance" policy for drivers who speed in school zones and even raising the fines they must pay.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNTERMEASURES
First-Aid Training – The City can partner with other groups to provide first aid training to community members, as they may be first on scene of a crash and able to provide aid to those injured. The Hanford Fire Department currently trains City staff first aid which can be used by the many City workers in the field each day.
“Move-Over” Media Campaign – A “move-over” campaign is designed to informs motorists how to respond when an emergency vehicle approaches. It also informs motorists of the importance of slowing down and switching lanes when they come across an emergency vehicle on the side of the road, giving the emergency personnel sufficient room to work safely. The goal is to improve roadway safety, improve emergency vehicle response times, and reduce the likelihood of crashes involving emergency vehicles.

Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) – EVP is used at traffic signals to change normal traffic signal operations to provide a green signal indication to an approaching emergency vehicle while providing a red signal indication to others. The City of Hanford currently utilizes EVP for fire vehicles only. Modifications to existing traffic signal systems where EVP does not exist should be considered, and EVP should be installed with any new traffic signal system.

SAFETY PROJECTS
The next step in the LRSP process is to identify specific safety improvements for the "high-risk" priority locations based on the emphasis areas and using the countermeasures identified. Safety projects are identified and the benefit of implementing the proposed improvements is then estimated. In general, a project is rated by calculating it’s Benefit-to-Cost (B/C) ratio. The B/C ratio is simply calculated by taking the project’s overall benefit and dividing it by the project’s overall cost.

The specific engineering countermeasures chosen for the projects were from the Caltrans LRSM to be best positioned for future HSIP funding. Also, “to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site.” 2 Therefore, the countermeasures identified are based on the crash analysis, field observations, stakeholder input, and those most likely to improve safety at the locations.

Table 9 lists a summary of the safety projects for the “high-risk” intersections and roadway segments, along with the project costs and B/C ratio. Complete cost, benefit, and B/C ratio calculations for the safety projects are included in Appendix D. The total cost per location includes construction costs; plans, specifications, and estimates; environmental reporting; and construction engineering.

Construction costs are based on 2023 industry standards from recent projects in the Central Valley.

Detailed methodology for calculating B/C ratio is included in the Caltrans LRSM in Appendix C. 2 Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California's Local Road Owner's, Version 1.6 April 2022, Caltrans, pp.37, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf

37 RECOMMENDATIONS
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan
Total Cost Total Costs
per All Locations
Location (Costs 2023)
11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096
11th Avenue & Florinda Street/Rodgers Road S02 S03 S21PB $53,082 12th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $56,801
11th Avenue & Hanford-Armona Road S02 S03 $54,096
11th Avenue & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096 10th Avenue & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096 12th Avenue & Centennial Drive/Mall Drive S02 S03 $47,334 11th Avenue & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $54,096
Grangeville Boulevard & Redington Street S02 S03 S21PB $51,391 11th Avenue & Elm Street S02 S03 S21PB $41,924
Lacey Boulevard & Mall Drive S02 S03 S21PB $54,096
11th Avenue & Davis Street S02 S03 S21PB $51,391
Grangeville Boulevard & Rodgers Road S02 S03 S21PB $51,391 Grangeville Boulevard & University Avenue S02 S03 $54,096 Douty Street & Florinda Street S02 S03 $48,686
Douty Street & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $47,334
11th Avenue & Seventh Avenue S02 S03 S21PB $55,448
11th Avenue & Cortner Street S02 S03 $51,391
10th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard/Seventh Street S02 S03 S21PB $54,096 Douty Street & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 $54,434
10th Avenue & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $54,096
12th Avenue & Glendale Avenue NS06 NS07 $10,143
Sixth Street & Phillips Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $34,655
Douty Street & Third Street NS06 NS07 $10,143
11th Avenue & Sixth Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $38,882
Douty Street & Center Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $32,965
Park Avenue & Ivy Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $20,286
Fargo Avenue & Glacier Way NS06 NS07 $7,607
10th Avenue & Second Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $24,512
Replace pedestal mounted traffic signal S08 $673,089 $673,089 1.45 CM = Countermeasure
B/C = Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
Location's chosen by Stakeholder's Working Group

SAFETY PROJECTS
Location CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 B/C
Project 1 - Signalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades Project 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades Project 3 - Redington Street and Seventh Street
$1,097,473
$179,193

20.02 17.73

COUNTERMEASURE NAME
S02 - Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S08 - Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) NS01 - Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS06 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
Table 9
Safety Projects
Total Cost Total Costs
per All Locations
Location (Costs 2023)
11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096
11th Avenue & Florinda Street/Rodgers Road S02 S03 S21PB $53,082 12th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $56,801
11th Avenue & Hanford-Armona Road S02 S03 $54,096
11th Avenue & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096 10th Avenue & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 S21PB $54,096 12th Avenue & Centennial Drive/Mall Drive S02 S03 $47,334 11th Avenue & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $54,096
Grangeville Boulevard & Redington Street S02 S03 S21PB $51,391 11th Avenue & Elm Street S02 S03 S21PB $41,924
Lacey Boulevard & Mall Drive S02 S03 S21PB $54,096
11th Avenue & Davis Street S02 S03 S21PB $51,391
Grangeville Boulevard & Rodgers Road S02 S03 S21PB $51,391 Grangeville Boulevard & University Avenue S02 S03 $54,096 Douty Street & Florinda Street S02 S03 $48,686
Douty Street & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $47,334
11th Avenue & Seventh Avenue S02 S03 S21PB $55,448
11th Avenue & Cortner Street S02 S03 $51,391
10th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard/Seventh
Street S02 S03 S21PB $54,096
Douty Street & Grangeville Boulevard S02 S03 $54,434
10th Avenue & Fargo Avenue S02 S03 $54,096
12th Avenue & Glendale Avenue NS06 NS07 $10,143
Sixth Street & Phillips Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $34,655
Douty Street & Third Street NS06 NS07 $10,143
11th Avenue & Sixth Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $38,882
Douty Street & Center Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $32,965
Park Avenue & Ivy Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $20,286
Fargo Avenue & Glacier Way NS06 NS07 $7,607
11th Avenue & Pepper Drive NS06 NS07 $7,607
10th Avenue & Second Street NS01 NS06 NS07 $24,512
Replace pedestal mounted traffic signal S08 $673,089 $673,089 1.45 Project 1 - Signalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades Project 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades Project 3 - Redington Street and Seventh Street
$1,097,473
$186,800

20.02 18.77
Location CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 B/C

38 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are brief descriptions of the projects identified in Table 9.

Signalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades – The improvements at these intersections include the installation of near-side vehicle signal heads and backplates with retroreflective borders. Only two of the intersections (12th Avenue/Centennial Drive/Mall Drive and Douty Street/ Fargo Avenue) currently have near-side vehicle signal heads. The remaining intersections should have near-side signal heads installed. None of the intersections currently have the retroreflective backplates. The installation of the near-side signal heads and retroreflective backplates will help improve visibility and aid the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

Additionally, the countermeasures include signal timing improvements at the intersections, as well as modifying signal phasing to implement a leading pedestrian interval at the intersections where pedestrian or bicycle collisions occurred.

Unsignalized Intersection Safety Improvement Upgrades – The improvements at the unsignalized intersections include the installation of intersection safety lighting, as well as upgrades to signing and pavement markings such as advance warning signs and markings.

Redington Street and Seventh Street – The safety project identified for this location is the replacement of the existing pedestal-mounted traffic signals with a mast arm traffic signals to improve visibility and the driver’s advance perception of the intersection.

These above-listed projects can be used when preparing for future grant programs, including developing future HSIP grant applications. It should be noted that the above projects were based on the “high-risk” locations identified in the LRSP; however, it should be noted that the grant applications may be expanded to include numerous locations in the City. For instance, more signalized locations could be included in the signalized intersection safety improvement upgrades project if the additional locations were found to be beneficial to the overall B/C ratio. The HSIP is a competitive program based on a B/C analysis. Therefore, the higher the B/C ratio, the more competitive the project.

It should be noted there are many pedestal mounted traffic signals in Downtown Hanford.

Although these other locations were not included with the Redington Street and Seventh Street project, they could be included and combined as one HSIP grant application if beneficial to the overall B/C ratio.

It should also be noted that the Douty Street and Seventh Street signalized intersection has not been included with the signalized intersection safety improvement upgrades. There is a current City project to remove the existing pedestal traffic signal at the intersection and to install a new roundabout. Therefore, since the City has a current project planned for this location, one has not been included in this document.

39 FUNDING
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Various funding resources exist to help local agencies in the planning and implementation of roadway safety projects. The City of Hanford should seek to utilize available funding sources and grant opportunities to advance roadway safety projects in the City. The following is a summary of both federal and state funding sources and grant opportunities of which the City should be aware and apply for funding as appropriate.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG) PROGRAM
Managing Agency: Federal Highway Administration
Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/
The STBG program provides flexible funding for State and local agencies for their transportation projects. STBG funding may be used to preserve and improve any Federal-aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.

REBUILDING AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SUSTAINABILITY

AND EQUITY (RAISE) GRANT
Managing Agency: US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Website: https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants
The RAISE Discretionary Grant program is a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Better Utilizing

FUNDING

40 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

FUNDING
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, Congress has dedicated nearly $12.1 billion for 14 rounds of National Infrastructure Investments to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact. Based on the program requirements, agencies can obtain funding for multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional USDOT programs.

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING AMERICA (INFRA) GRANT
Managing Agency: US Department of Transportation
Website: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grants-program INFRA (known statutorily as the Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight & Highway Projects) awards competitive grants for multimodal freight and highway projects of national or regional significance to improve safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and urban areas. Although the INFRA program is not new, it was updated with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) in 2021 that included new eligibilities, set-asides, and other programming changes. Eligible projects include those that improve safety, generate economic benefits, reduce congestion, and improve critical freight movements.

SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) FUNDING
Managing Agency: US Department of Transportation
Website: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A
The BIL established the SS4A discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over five years for regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent deaths and serious injuries on our nation’s roadways. Grant funding is eligible to develop or update a comprehensive safety action plan (Action Plan); conduct planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan; and carry out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan.

STRENGTHENING MOBILITY AND REVOLUTIONIZING

TRANSPORTATION (SMART) GRANTS PROGRAM
Managing Agency: US Department of Transportation
Website: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SMART
The BIL established the SMART discretionary grant program to provide grants to eligible public sector agencies to conduct demonstration projects focused on advanced smart community technologies and systems in order to improve transportation efficiency and safety. Although cities are not eligible, a State; a political subdivision of a State; a Tribal government; a public transit agency or authority; a public toll authority; a metropolitan planning agency; and a group of two more eligible entities detail above, applying through a single lead applicant are eligible. Projects should target real-world challenges where the use of new technologies and approaches can create benefits for the community.

41 FUNDING
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ)

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Managing Agency: Federal Highway Administration
Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/ The CMAQ program provides a funding source for State and local governments to fund transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funds support state- and locally-selected transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in both current and former areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be in nonattainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter.

Many types of projects are eligible under the CMAQ program including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit improvements, and electric vehicles and charging stations. In addition to improving air quality and reducing congestion, safety projects may also qualify for CMAQ funding.

STATE PROGRAMS

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) GRANTS
Managing Agency: California Transportation Commission (CTC) Website: https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program The California ATP consolidated various transportation programs into a single program which uses both federal and state funds to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The program aims to increase the percentage of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance efforts to achieve greenhouse gas reduction, enhance public health efforts, ensure disadvantage communities fully share in the program, and provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. Agencies are eligible for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.

The ATP indicates project cycles are to be released every even year with funding adopted on the following odd year.

LOCAL HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
GRANTS
Managing Agency: California Department of Transportation Website:https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program
The HSIP is a core federal-aid program to states with the aim to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The local agency share of California’s Local HSIP funds are managed by the Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance (DLA). Local HSIP focuses

42 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

FUNDING
on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors and projects must be identified on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, and other data-supported means. Local agencies must have completed their LRSP, or equivalent, to be eligible for HSIP funds. HSIP calls for projects are typically made at two year intervals.

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) GRANTS
Managing Agency: California Office of Traffic Safety
Website: https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
The OTS is one of California’s leaders in the efforts to make California roadways safe for all users.

Made available by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), OTS annually funds over $80 million in innovative, evidence-based education and enforcement programs and technologies designed to make California’s roadways safer. A selection of grants are provided to local and state agencies aimed at eliminating fatalities, injuries, and economic losses resulting from crashes.

STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (LPP)
Managing Agency: California Transportation Commission
Website: https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the LPP and continues to appropriate $200 million annually in funding. The primary objective is to provide funding to local and regional transportation agencies that have approved sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed fees dedicated to transportation improvements. These funds may be used to improve aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit and rail, and health and safety benefits.

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (STP) GRANTS
Managing Agency: California Department of Transportation Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-planning/ regional-and-community-planning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants The STP Grant Program was created to support Caltrans’ mission to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The STP Grant Program includes three types of grants: 1) Sustainable Communities Grants to ultimately achieve the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, 2) Climate Adaptation Planning Grants to support development of local climate adaptation plans and identify adaptation projects and strategies for transportation infrastructure, and 3) Strategic Partnerships Grants (federally-funded) to support Federal Planning Factors and address State highway/transit issues of regional, interregional, and/ or statewide significance, in partnership, with Caltrans.

43 FUNDING
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

STATE HIGHWAY OPERATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM
(SHOPP) GRANTS
Managing Agency: California Department of Transportation Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection- program-shopp-minor-program-shopp
The SHOPP is the State Highway System’s (SHS) “fix-it-first” program that funds the repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the SHS. The funded projects improve the condition, operation, and sustainability of the SHS and associated transportation infrastructure. It is intended for projects on the SHS, including the interstate system, and other state-owned assets such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, culverts, transportation management systems, safety roadside rest areas, and maintenance stations.

RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM
Managing Agency: California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
The RTP is administered at the federal level by the FHWA and at the state level by the California DPR and the Caltrans’ ATP. The RTP provides funds annually to develop and maintain recreational trails and trails-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized projects.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

COMMUNITIES (AHSC) GRANT PROGRAM
Managing Agency: California Strategic Growth Council
Website: https://www.sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
The vision of AHSC is to make it easier for Californians to drive less by making sure housing, jobs, and key destinations are accessible by walking, biking, and transit. AHSC provides funding for newly constructed or renovated affordable housing developments and transportation-related infrastructure and amenities. Such infrastructure and amenities may include new transit vehicles; sidewalks; bike lanes; bus shelters; benches; shade trees; and programs that encourage residents to walk, bike, and use public transit. Eligible applicants include local governments, transportation agencies, housing developers, joint powers of authorities, education districts, and Federally recognized Indian tribes.

TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES (TCC) PROGRAM
Managing Agency: California Office of Traffic Safety
Website: https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/

44 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

FUNDING
The TCC Program funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities.

Projects must significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time, leverage additional funding sources, and provide health, environmental, and economic benefits to the community. While the program can fund many types of projects, transportation-related projects may include, but is not limited to: public transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, roundabouts, and car sharing and mobility enhancement projects. Eligible applicants include community-based organizations, local governments, non-profit organizations, philanthropic organizations and foundations, faith- based organizations, coalitions or associations of nonprofits, community development finance institutions, community development corporations, joint powers authorities, and California Native American Tribes.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION (EEM)

GRANT PROGRAM
Managing Agency: California Natural Resources Agency
Website: https://resources.ca.gov/grants/environmental-enhancement-and-mitigation-eem/ The EEM Program authorizes the legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. Projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The Natural Resources Agency recommends projects for funding to the CTC who awards grants from the recommendations. Eligible projects may include those designed to offset vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide; projects for the acquisition or enhancement of resource lands to mitigate the loss of, or the detriment to, resource lands lying within the right of way acquired for transportation improvements; or projects to mitigate the impact of proposed transportation facilities or to enhance the environment, where the ability to do so is beyond the scope of the lead agency responsible.

CALTRANS RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSING PROGRAM (RHCP)
SECTION 130
Managing Agency: California Department of Transportation Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/sec130 The RHCP Section 130 program aims to reduce the number and severity of crashes and to improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at existing at-grade railroad crossings. The program is a collaborative effort led by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), funded by FHWA, and managed by Caltrans DLA in cooperation with local agencies and railroads. Each year, the CPUC evaluates at-grade crossings that could benefit from funded improvements and creates a priority list of projects based on crash history, vehicle and train volumes, pedestrian issues, geometry, and diagnostic site visits. The list is typically finalized in August each year and sent to Caltrans RHCP.

Improvements for at-grade crossings not on the list will not be funded by the program.

45 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The success of the LRSP will depend on the implementation of the various countermeasures and safety projects as identified to help the City reduce fatal and severe injury collisions. It is recommended the City continue to coordinate with the stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the progress of the LRSP. The City should seek funding to begin completing the various projects and programs identified in the LRSP. These can be completed in coordination with the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Performance measures as identified for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually once countermeasures have been implemented. And monitoring of fatal and severe injury crashes should continue annually to determine if there is a decrease in these crashes as the countermeasures are implemented. If the City does not see a decrease in the fatal and severe injury crashes as expected for a specific countermeasure, it should be reviewed. These annual reviews are recommended in coordination with an annual stakeholders’ working group meeting.

It is also recommended an update to the LRSP should be completed after no more than five years.

The LRSP update can resolve any issue identified in the annual reviews. The update should also include the latest collision data, and may include new emphasis areas and 4E strategies, as well as progress of the previous plan.

IMPLEMENTATION

46 HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDICES
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDIX A

EXCERPTS FROM EXISTING CITY DOCUMENTS
CITY OF HANFORD 2035 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (COMPLETED IN
2017)
The 2035 General Plan Update (GPU) establishes the City’s policies and guidance regarding future development and land uses. The below sections of the GPU are related to roadway safety and must be considered when preparing the LRSP.

Included in Chapter 4, Transportation & Circulation, of the GPU Policy Document are the following guiding principles related to transportation and circulation:
• Coordinated land use and circulation systems
• Safe, reliable, efficient movement of people and goods • Less reliance on private motorized transportation
• A prosperous community
• Downtown area as the physical, cultural, civic, and commercial center of Hanford • Hanford as the regional commercial, service, and government center of Kings County • Enhancement of quality of life
• Respect for private property rights
• Enhancement of the historic center of the City
• A well-designed, physically integrated, livable community The GPU Policy Document also identifies the below goals. The document also includes several policies and actions to meet these identified goals.

Goal T3: City streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial good movers.

HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDICES
Goal T4: An interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: Improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

CITY OF HANFORD PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
(2016)
The vision of the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan is “Hanford – A City where walking and cycling are fully integrated into daily life, providing environmentally-friendly transportation alternatives that are both safe and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.” Identified in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan are the following safety-related objectives and policies in support of the plan’s vision.

Objective 4 : Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing education and promotion programs for all Hanford residents and by enforcing pedestrian, bicycle and motorist laws and regulations affecting pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Objective 8: Street crossings should be safe and accessible.

HANFORD DOWNTOWN EAST PRECISE PLAN (2013)
The Downtown East Precise Plan serves as a guide for the City in promoting development and revitalization of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown East area which encompasses approximately 63-acres. The area is identified as 10th Avenue to Harris Street (east-west), and Ninth Street to the San Joaquin Valley railroad tracks (north-south), as well as the area bounded by Brown Street, Ninth Street, 10th Avenue, and Tenth Street. The plan identifies bike and pedestrian improvements, streetscape, lighting, and street furnishings as priority projects. One of the plan objectives for circulation and mobility is to promote a safe and comfortable multi-modal district and pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. The plan also identifies several traffic calming measures to improve overall traffic safety, including curb extensions, special crosswalk paving, and mid-block crossings.

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (2015)
The City of Hanford completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey in 2015 to update posted speed limits throughout the City. Recommended speeds from this study will be utilized when determining appropriate countermeasures for identified roadway safety issues.

APPENDICES
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL MAPS
The City of Hanford maintains Suggested Route to School Maps for the elementary and middle schools in the City, including the following:

Hanford Elementary School District
• Hamilton Elementary
• Jefferson Academy
• Lee Richmond Elementary
• Lincoln Elementary
• Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
• Monroe Elementary
• Roosevelt Elementary
• Simas Elementary
• Washington Elementary
• John F. Kennedy Jr. High
• Woodrow Wilson Jr. High
Pioneer Union Elementary School District
• Pioneer Elementary
• Frontier Elementary
• Pioneer Middle
St. Rose-McCarthy Catholic School
The suggested route to school maps will be utilized when determining appropriate countermeasures for identified roadway safety issues.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The City of Hanford’s 2022-2026 Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was reviewed, and projects were identified that might affect roadway safety issues. The CIP identifies the following potential safety-related projects:
• New Sidewalk and ADA Improvements – to install in areas currently void of such improvements to provide pedestrians with safe walkways outside vehicular travel areas. • East Lacey Boulevard Widening/Reconstruction, 10th Avenue to Sierra Drive – to improve traffic flow capacity and safety by providing additional travel lanes, a protected left-turn lane, and traffic signal system at the East Lacey Boulevard/Ninth Avenue intersection, as well as improving pedestrian safety with the addition of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting.
• Traffic Signal at 12th Avenue and Hume Avenue – to improve traffic flow efficiency and reduce intersection congestion in an area where development continues to increase

HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDICES
placing demands on the City’s transportation system.
• Campus Drive Resurfacing, Lacey Boulevard to Greenfield Avenue – to improve roadway surfacing, install accessibility ramps, and restripe the roadway.

CITY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Included in the City’s Construction Standards and Specifications are the following standard details related to roadway safety:
• ST-44 Standard X-walk Markings
• ST-47 Stop & Yield Pavement Markings
• ST-50 School X-ing and Pedestrian X-ing Pavement Markings • ST-53 Railroad X-ing Pavement Markings
KINGS COUNTY LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (2022)
Kings County recently completed their LRSP with the vision to “encourage and promote safety on Kings County roadways to serve the mobility needs of all people.” The County’s mission is “to create a safer roadway system and develop a culture in support of traffic safety in Kings County.” The County established the following goals to meet their identified vision and mission. • Advance delivery of safety enhancements in underserved communities. • Educate the public on traveling safety throughout the County. • Provide targeted safety education for school-age population. • Reduce the annual number of severe and fatal transportation-related injuries. • Increase enforcement targeted around driving under the influence.

APPENDICES
HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDIX B

PRIORITY TABLES

INTERSECTION
Total Crashes
Fatal & Injury Crashes
Equivalent Property
Damage Only
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Rear-End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head On
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
11th Ave & Lacey Blvd 29 18 276 0 1 9 8 11 16 4 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 22 0 2 7 1 11th Ave & Florinda St/Rodgers Rd 27 11 111 0 0 6 5 16 11 6 1 0 7 0 2 0 2 20 0 1 12 1 12th Ave & Lacey Blvd 23 17 242 0 1 4 12 6 13 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 18 0 1 9 1 11th Ave & Hanford-Armona Rd 20 15 115 0 0 4 11 5 7 10 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 7 2 11th Ave & Grangeville Blvd 20 9 75 0 0 2 7 11 8 6 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 15 0 1 5 1 10th Ave & Grangeville Blvd 17 14 325 1 1 2 10 3 6 5 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 11 0 2 4 0 12th Ave & Centennial Dr/Mall Dr 17 5 47 0 0 1 4 12 9 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 4 1 11th Ave & Fargo Ave 16 8 175 0 1 1 6 8 7 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 7 2 Grangeville Blvd & Redington St 15 9 70 0 0 2 7 6 12 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 3 1 11th Ave & Elm St 12 8 57 0 0 1 7 4 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 8 0 1 3 1 Lacey Blvd & Mall Dr 12 4 32 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 2 1 11th Ave & Davis St 11 8 70 0 0 4 4 3 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 5 0 3 7 3 Grangeville Blvd & Rodgers Rd 11 7 170 0 1 2 4 4 5 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 7 0 2 4 1 Grangeville Blvd & University Ave 11 6 60 0 0 4 2 5 7 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 1 Douty St & Florinda St 11 6 46 0 0 1 5 5 4 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 Redington St & Seventh St 10 6 54 0 0 3 3 4 6 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 Douty St & Seventh St 9 5 44 0 0 2 3 4 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 Douty St & Fargo Ave 9 2 19 0 0 0 2 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 11th Ave & Seventh St 8 6 52 0 0 3 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 11th Ave & Cortner St 8 6 43 0 0 1 5 2 2 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 2 0 10th Ave & Lacey Blvd/Seventh St 7 4 37 0 0 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 Douty St & Grangeville Blvd 5 2 20 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 10th Ave & Fargo Ave 5 1 15 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
12th Ave & Glendale Ave 11 5 37 0 0 0 5 6 3 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 5 0 Sixth St & Phillips St 10 6 50 0 0 2 4 4 6 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 2 0 Douty St & Third St 10 4 40 0 0 2 2 6 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 11th Ave & Sixth St 9 3 29 0 0 1 2 6 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 2 1 Douty St & Center St 9 2 24 0 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 Park Ave & Ivy St 6 3 21 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 Fargo Ave & Glacier Wy 5 3 25 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 11th Ave & Pepper Dr 3 3 27 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 10th Ave & Second St 2 1 7 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Locations chosen by Stakeholder's Working Group

HIGH-RISK INTERSECTIONS

FACILITY Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Total Crashes
Fatal & Injury Crashes
Equivalent Property
Damage Only
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Rear-End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head On
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Grangeville Blvd 10th Ave 11th Ave 22 8 699 0 4 0 4 14 5 6 6 1 0 0 1 3 3 12 0 2 4 1 11th Ave Fourth St Lacey Blvd 19 15 427 0 2 3 10 4 4 7 0 0 2 0 3 6 2 12 0 1 5 0 Grangeville Blvd 11th Ave 12th Ave 13 13 93 0 0 3 10 0 3 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 4 2 Hanford-Armona Rd 11th Ave 12th Ave 11 11 717 0 4 3 4 0 3 5 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 4 5 0 Hanford-Armona Rd 10th Ave 11th Ave 10 10 84 0 0 5 5 0 1 4 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 6 0

HIGH-RISK ROADWAY SEGMENTS

HANFORD Local Roadway Safety Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C
CALTRANS LRSM 2022

3/30/2018 Local Roadway Safety - (Version 1.4)
Version 1.6
April 2022

Document History
Version 1.0: 4/20/2012
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call- for-projects.

Version 1.1: 4/26/2013
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans update d Appendix B: “Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors” to better clarify text in “Where to use”, “Why it works”, and “General Q ualities” for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual.

No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1 Version 1.2: 03/10/2015
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G.

Version 1.3: 04/29/2016
Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B.

Version 1.4: 06/08/2018
3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document.
6/8/18 - Countermeasure S22 (“Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)”) is added.

Version 1.5: April 2020
Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble , Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced
Left-Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D.

Version 1.6: April 2022
For Cycle 11 Call-for-projects, Countermeasure S04 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high -speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NS05mr (Convert intersection to mini -roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. T he crash costs in Appendix D were updated.

Future Updates:

In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | i

Table of Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction and Purpose...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities .................................................. 3

1.2 Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety..................................................................................... 4

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem...............................................................................................5

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification......................................................................... 6

1.6 Implementation Approaches ........................................................................................................ 7

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies.................................................................................10

1.8 Summary of information in this Document................................................................................11

2. Identifying Safety Issues......................................................................................................................15

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases ................................................................................................16

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)...........................................................................18

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports.................................................................................................19

2.4 Observational Information..........................................................................................................19

2.5 Public Notifications .....................................................................................................................20

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices.........................................................................................................20

2.7 Exposure Data .............................................................................................................................21

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits.................................................................................22

3. Safety Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................23

3.1 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................................23

3.2 Qualitative Analysis.....................................................................................................................25

4. Countermeasure Selection ..................................................................................................................28

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors ..........29

4.2 List of Countermeasures .............................................................................................................30

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects .............................................................................36

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements...............................................36

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements ...................................................38

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio ...............................................................................................................38

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements ..........................39

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements..............................................................................40

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures........................................................................40

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................40

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations ............................................................41

7. Evaluation of Improvements ...............................................................................................................42 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process ................................................................................................43 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures .....................................................................................44 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ...............................................................................47 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) ............................................................................................. 47 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number .................. 47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) ..................................................................... 48 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems....................................................................................................... 49 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | ii

50 55
60 65
70 75
S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) ....................................... 49 S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists).............................................................................

S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)....................................................................................................

S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted).................................................................................................. 50 S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) .......................................................................... 51 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.).................................................................................................... 51 S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................. 52 S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) ................................................................................................................ 52 S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches................................................................................................ 53 S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) ...................................... 53 S15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)......................................................................................................... 54 S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads .......................................................................................................... 55 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................................................. 56 S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble............................................................................................................................................... 56 S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)..................................................................................... 57 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) ......................................................... 57 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized........................................................................58 NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) .............................................................

NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) ...........................................................................................................

NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ......................................................

NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) .............................................................................................................................. 58 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) ........................................................................... 58 NS03, Install signals ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 NS04, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop)....................................................................................... 59 NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini-roundabout.......................................................................................................... 60 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs...................... 61 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................................... 62 NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) .............................................................................................. 62 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches..................................................................................................... 63 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)............................................................................. 63 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) .......................................................................... 64 NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches........................................................................................... 64 NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) ................................. 65 NS16, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) ................................................................................................... 66 NS17, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.).................................................................................................................................... 67 NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) ............................................................................................ 67 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) .............................................................................................................. 68 NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)........................................... 68 NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) ................. 69 NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)........................................................................................... 69 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................71 R01, Add Segment Lighting................................................................................................................................................. 71 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.......................................................................... 71 R03, Install Median Barrier................................................................................................................................................. 72 R04, Install Guardrail .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 R05, Install impact attenuators .......................................................................................................................................... 73 R06, Flatten side slopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 73 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail ................................................................................................................. 74 R08, Install raised median .................................................................................................................................................. 74 R09, Install median (flush) .................................................................................................................................................

R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 75 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | iii

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 76 R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 76 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 77 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) ........................................................ 77 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 78 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 78 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) ........................................................................................................ 79 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 80 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 80 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 81 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 81 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 82 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 83 R24, Install curve advance warning signs.......................................................................................................................... 83 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 84 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 84 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 85 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 86 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 87 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 87 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 88 R32PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 88 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 89 R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 89 R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) .............................................................. 90 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 91 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 91 R38, Install Animal Fencing ................................................................................................................................................ 92 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”...................................................................................93 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations.....................................................................................97 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ..............................98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................99 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................100 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | iv

Foreword
Why was this manual developed?
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance’s goal in developing this manual is to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects.

This goal is complicated by California’s wide variety of local agencies, roadway types, and project types, including: rural vs. urban, low-volume vs. high-volume, and intersection vs. roadway segment vs. network-wide. This variety makes it difficult to administer a single program and provide one set of guidelines that meets the needs of all California’s local roadway owners and users. Many of California’s local agencies are also challenged by the lack of a basic safety analysis framework and analysis tools specifically designed for local roadway managers with widely varying responsibilities and safety training.

Currently, there is a vast range of safety documents, program guidance, and analysis tools with a wide variety of complexity and applications. Without clear and simple safety guidance for locals, many agencies take a ‘reactive’ approach to safety, even when research has shown ‘proactive’ safety analysis of roadways is more effective in making system-wide safety improvements.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety provides national leadership in identifying, developing, and delivering safety programs and products to local governments to improve highway safety on local and rural roads.1 In 2010, FHWA published a set of three manuals designed specifically for rural road owners; Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Road Safety Information Analysis.
2 These manuals present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the nation. These manuals, in conjunction with Caltrans’ ongoing short-term research and development contract with the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a unique opportunity for Caltrans to pursue development of this document as a mirror of FHWA’s new Manuals for Local Rural Road Owners. Much of the wording, formatting and references from these FHWA manuals have been directly incorporated into this manual for California’s local road owners. Individual references to the FHWA manuals have not been included; instead these documents are intended to be referenced on a wholesale basis.

With FHWA’s and SafeTREC’s support and expertise, Caltrans was able to expedite the completion of this manual and can now offer California’s local agencies a new tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information in one manual.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 1

1. Introduction and Purpose
The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety-specific highway training.

The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls-for-projects.

It’s expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans’ calls-for-projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency’s roadway network.

The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a “proactive safety analysis” approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the “Roadway Safety Management Process.” While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans’ statewide calls-for-projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans’ statewide calls-for- projects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections.

This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 2

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California’s local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi-lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies’ accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable.

Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them “flying blind” with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects.

1.2 Safe System Approach
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C §148), is a core federal-aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the “safe system approach”:

Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)).

FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 3

to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal-aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal-aid funding.

The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non-motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non-motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users.

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal-aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non-motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs but in MAP-21 and FAST, it is now a ‘special rule’ under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition.

Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 4

Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E’s of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety- programs/shsp.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response.

The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds.

For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local- assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem
Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $6 billion, while only $100 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds.

These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 5

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification
Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a ‘proactive’ approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues.

At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in ‘reaction’ to tragic events.

The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies:

Reactive Approach
For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to:
• Recent crashes triggering safety investigations
• Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations • Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements • New funding becoming available
Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety.

Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 6

similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on ‘past’ crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes.

This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results.

1.6 Implementation Approaches
When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include:
• Systemic Approach
• Spot Location Approach
• Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual.

Systemic Approach
The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on ‘system-wide’ crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term “Systemic” used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term “Systematic” in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses “Systemic” to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.

Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 7

existing left-turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left-turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city’s unprotected left-turn phases can be protected with one safety project. • Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate-to-high B/C ratios on their own. • Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. • Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio.

Drawbacks of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Justifying improvements can be difficult. Because this approach does not always address locations with a history of crashes and active stakeholders, it can be difficult to justify the improvements. The Systemic Approach will rarely include a recommendation for a large-scale safety improvement at a single location. Since large-scale projects usually garner attention from decision makers, the media, elected officials, and the general public, safety practitioners often need to make additional efforts to explain the Systemic Approach and its benefits to those groups. Safety practitioners can utilize the high B/C ratios of these systemic projects to convey their benefits compared to high-profile, single location projects with lower B/C ratios.

Spot Location Approach
The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 8

understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy or cheap.

Benefits of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Focus on demonstrated needs. The Spot Location Approach focuses directly on locations with a history of crashes and specifically addresses those crashes. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand-alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. • Justifying improvements can be easy. Because this approach addresses locations with a history of crashes, it is usually easy to justify improvements. For urban areas, reconfiguring/ reconstructing an entire intersection can be a good example of an effective Spot Location Approach. Large urban intersections can have extremely high crash concentrations, making major changes to the intersection the only way to significantly reduce future crashes. With these types of scenarios, even the highest cost countermeasures can be cost effective. • If low-cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low-cost improvements at one location at a time. Ongoing maintenance and development projects offer great opportunities for these low-cost improvements to be constructed with no additional expense to local agencies.

Drawbacks of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Assumption that the past equals the future. This approach assumes locations with a history of crashes will continue to experience the same number and type of crashes in the future. When agencies do not account for the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean), moderate to high cost projects can be erroneously justified. Practitioners can mitigate this by using 5 years of crash data when analyzing their roadways. In addition, significant changes to land use or roadway characteristics in or around proposed projects can either increase or decrease the expected number of future crashes.
• Minimal overall benefit to the roadway network. Some local agencies use this approach with medium and high cost improvements at locations which do not represent their worst high crash concentration locations. The result can be projects with low B/C ratios and overall safety benefits that are not as high as if they utilized a Systemic Approach. This drawback can be minimized by safety practitioners who analyze their entire roadway network, propose spot location fixes only at their highest crash locations, and utilize lower cost countermeasures wherever appropriate.

The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 9

reducing future crashes or at those locations that have had low-cost countermeasures previously installed systemically but, after an assessment, continue to show a higher-than-average crash rate.

Comprehensive Approach
The Comprehensive Approach introduces the concept of the “5 E’s of Safety”: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the “5 E’s of Safety” is often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. For instance, some roadway segments will be identified for which targeted enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure. Some of the most common violations are speeding, failure-to-yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can also be effectively utilized as short-term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented.

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies
Caltrans, FHWA and Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) “challenge” local agencies to initially commit one or more days to understanding and applying the concepts and tools outlined in this manual. Experienced safety practitioners working in agencies currently using a proactive approach can quickly review the topics in the manual and consider/test some of the new tools (e.g., TIMS) identified within it. In contrast, novice safety practitioners may need several days to better understand the underlying concepts in this manual to be able to complete the basic elements of a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. In these situations, the room for knowledge growth, internal process improvements, and expected safety benefits will be even greater, which should more than offset the additional time invested.

By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies’ unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 10

1.8 Summary of information in this Document
This document provides information on effectively identifying California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, ultimately leading to the effective implementation of safety projects that improve safety on local roadways. The document is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for roadway design and improvement or the only guide local agencies utilize for their safety analysis of their roadways.

Caltrans also expects this document will directly support its efforts in selecting local agency safety projects. The expectation is that as local agencies throughout the state utilize the proactive safety analysis approach outlined in this document, their applications for HSIP, and ATP projects will include lower cost improvements at locations with the highest safety needs. This will improve Caltrans’ data- driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and maximize the safety benefits across California.

The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 11

Figure 1
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer -Locally preferred methods -HSM methodology 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 12

The above flowchart illustrates how each of the individual sections of this document work together to make up a proactive safety analysis approach. These sections are briefly outlined below:

Section 2 of this manual provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used.

Section 3 summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.

Section 4 provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown to improve safety on local roads. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). The interrelationship between CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are defined and used interchangeably throughout this document.

Section 5 defines a methodology for calculating a B/C ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness at this point in the safety analysis, including: refining the project’s costs and/or changing the mix of countermeasures and locations.

Section 6 identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.

Section 7 presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well as those that should be limited or discontinued.

Appendix A presents a flowchart of the HSIP call-for-projects process. This flowchart demonstrates how this document interacts with these Caltrans calls-for-projects.

Appendix B contains Detailed Tables of countermeasures discussed in Section 4. This table includes detailed information about each countermeasure, including: where to use, why it works, general qualities (time, cost and effectiveness), crash type(s) addressed, crash reduction factor, and specific values for use in Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects.

Appendix C includes a summary of “recommended actions” involved in a proactive safety analysis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 13

Appendix D contains the formulas used to calculate the B/C ratio of safety projects.

Appendix E presents TIMS tutorials that are available to assist local agencies in completing Caltrans call- for-projects application requirements and attachments. The tutorials include examples for Spot Location projects and systemic projects.

Appendix F presents a list of the abbreviations used in this document.

Appendix G presents a list of references.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 14

2. Identifying Safety Issues
This document encourages local agency safety practitioners to proactively analyze their roadway networks with the intention of yielding the best overall safety benefits. When utilizing a proactive safety analysis approach, practitioners need to consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.

There are a number of information sources that can be accessed to get a clearer picture of the roadway safety issues on the roadway network. These can be formal or informal sources, including:

Formal sources:
• State and local crash databases
• SafeTREC’s TIMS website (or locally preferred mapping software) • Law enforcement crash reports and citations
• Field assessments
Informal sources:
• Observational information from road maintenance crews, law enforcement, and first responders • Citizen notification of safety concerns
Examining crash history will help practitioners identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, and also identify locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes. In addition to location identification, this data can provide information regarding crash causation that ultimately provides insight into identifying potentially effective countermeasures.

Emphasis on data-driven decisions is indicative of reliability and efficiency. The more reliable the data, the more likely the decisions regarding safety improvements will be effective. However, detailed, reliable crash data are not available in all areas. Under this circumstance, the practitioner should use the best available information and engineering judgment to make the best decisions. In an effort to mitigate these situations, UC Berkeley SafeTREC has developed the TIMS website, which includes GIS mapping tools to access fatal and injury crashes statewide. This site is now available to all California local agencies. See Section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

It is generally accepted that at least 3 years, or preferably 5 years, of crash data be used for an analysis; additional years of crash data can provide better information. For low volume roadways and/or when only severe crashes are analyzed, more years of crash data may be necessary for an effective evaluation.

Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as “regression to the mean” and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 15

a location in response to one or two tragic crashes. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) includes more details on regression to the mean and methods to reduce the random nature of crashes.

There are some circumstances where additional years of crash data may not always be advantageous.

First, it’s important for practitioners to recognize that as more years of crash data are used, they need to consider changes in traffic patterns, physical infrastructure, land use, and demographics that may affect their projection of future crashes. Second, if practitioners only focus on many years of past crash data, they could miss emerging safety issues and crash trends. For these reasons, if practitioners sense one or more factors affecting crashes have changed or may be changing, they should consider looking at the crash data for the specific area on a yearly or 3-year moving average to expose any changes and crash trends that are occurring.

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases
California has a central repository for storing crash data called SWITRS, which stands for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. SWITRS is a comprehensive data source for doing roadway safety analysis that includes almost all public roads in the database except tribal roads which are currently not included. SWITRS information is available to California’s local agencies, although many agencies have had difficulty identifying, extracting and utilizing their crash records from SWITRS. All California local agencies, especially those that currently have difficulty accessing and mapping crash data, are encouraged to utilize the SafeTREC TIMS website to access and map SWITRS data.

This document focuses on the SafeTREC TIMS website as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. At the same time, this document also acknowledges that TIMS currently does not offer some of the features currently available in some of the commercially available crash analysis software packages. For this reason, local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor supplied crash analysis software. See section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geo- coding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 16

Recommended Action: Obtain at least 5 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This data will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.

As practitioners gather formal and informal information relating to the safety of their roadway network, they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. (These spreadsheets/pin-maps should capture much of the data gathered in each of Sections 2.1 through 2.8). A spreadsheet and/or pin-map can serve as a database to help an agency identify locations and crash characteristics representing their greatest safety issues and guide them in identifying appropriate countermeasures.

The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should be reformatted to include data to meet their needs. Agencies should consider printing their spreadsheets on ‘legal’ or ’11 x 17’ paper for easy review of their data.

General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location &
Date
Source/Type
of
information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of
Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
1) Feb 7, 2010 Input from law
enforcement
Clearance Intervals
need adjustment
V1-WB V2-SB
Side-swipe
21:30 Dry, Night,
Free-flowing
R. Jones
2/26/10
Increase all-
red interval
Completed
2/26/10
1) Mar 9, 2010 Citizen
Complaint
Ped Crossing unsafe
due to RT turns
N/A N/A N/A R. Jones
3/12/10
No RT on Red
(Need study)
2) Intersection “Y”
2)
3) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
PM 6.4 to 6.8
Sep 29, 2011
Maintenance
data
Extensive skid marks.

Speed of Travel?
General WB:

ROR
N/A Dry
Free-flowing
J. Smith
10/1/11
High Friction
Overlay
Preparing
HSIP App.

PM 7.1
Jan 5, 2011
Input from law
enforcement
Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith
1/5/11
Informed
Maintenance
New sign
1/5/11
An example of a pin-map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 17

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a powerful website with tools for California’s local agencies to gather data for their safety analyses. Their Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website provides safety practitioners with California crash data (SWITRS, i.e. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and collision mapping and analysis tools. California local agencies are encouraged to utilize TIMS at:
https://tims.berkeley.edu/
Site Features:
• Applications to query map and download geo-referenced SWITRS data. • Summary tables based on data included in SWITRS individual crash reports. These summary tables can be generated based on specified data fields or spatial limits. • Virtual field review by connecting the crash location to Google maps and Google Street View, allowing the examination of the existing roadway infrastructure and dimensions. • A ‘Help Tab’ that provides step-by-step instructions.

Please note that SafeTREC is not able to incorporate all SWITRS crashes into TIMS due to poor crash location descriptions in the crash reports. Currently, TIMS includes the majority of California fatal and injury crashes but does not include Property Damage Only collisions.

Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 18

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Both State and local law enforcement officials can be an important source of roadway crash data. The actual law enforcement crash reports can be valuable in identifying the location and contributing circumstances to roadway crashes (e.g., did the highway hardware and features operate as intended:
end treatment worked, no barrier in the passenger compartment, pavement not slippery when wet, signs visible, signal timing, etc.). The following variables can and should be extracted and compiled from the crash reports:
• Location • Lighting conditions
• Date and time • Sequence of events and most harmful
• Crash type events
• Crash severity • Contributing circumstances
• Weather conditions • Driver Variables: age of driver, DUIs, use of seat belt, etc.

Similar to the crash database, the information in the crash reports can be used to assist in the identification of potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure safety treatments and the deployment approach.

Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.

2.4 Observational Information
Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 19

Information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can help support all three methods of implementation approaches: Spot Location treatments, systemic deployments, and the Comprehensive Approach. Often, traffic violations such as speeding and impaired driving lend themselves to education and enforcement solutions to address these behaviors and supplement the intended infrastructure countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Add information received from law enforcement, road maintenance crew, and Emergency Medical Service observations to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet and/or pin-maps. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.

2.5 Public Notifications
Occasionally, when unsafe situations are observed, local citizens may notify the local government by email, letter, telephone, or at a public meeting. Information identifying safety issues on local roads may also come from community or regional newspapers, newsletters, correspondence, and from local homeowner and neighborhood associations. These sources can serve as indicators that a safety issue may exist and may warrant further review and analysis to determine the extent of the issues. Citizen reports can be tracked along with official crash data; however, safety practitioners should not regard these reports as factual, unless proven by other methods. Local safety databases should only contain objective and verifiable data.

Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Add information received from public notifications to tracking spreadsheets and/or pin-maps once confirmed.

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices
It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments:
• Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete)
• Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat)
• Lane information (number, width)
• Shoulder information (width, type)
• Median (type, width)
• Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 20

• Roadside safety hardware (e.g., guardrail, crash cushions, drainage structures) The TIMS site, described in Section 2.2, can provide safety practitioners with much of this roadway data virtually by using Google Maps and Google Street View. By utilizing TIMS (and/or private for-profit vendors), safety practitioners can save hours and even days of driving during the initial steps in the safety analysis of their network. Once agencies start to define individual safety projects for funding and future construction, actual field reviews are needed to ensure a complete understanding of the project location and context.

As local practitioners gather information about their existing roadway infrastructure, they need to determine whether it complies with the minimum standards for signs, breakaway supports, signals, pavement markings, protective barriers, etc. Practitioners should use the most current California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), which provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
6 In addition to ensuring compliance with the MUTCD, geometric standards for sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation should also be evaluated.

Roadway information can be combined with crash data to help local practitioners identify appropriate locations and treatments to improve safety. For example, if a local rural segment is experiencing a high number of horizontal curve-related crashes, analysis of the inventory of roadway elements could reveal that the roadway does not have sufficient signage installed in advance of many of those curves to give motorists warning of the pending change in roadway geometry.

Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.

2.7 Exposure Data
The number of crashes can sometimes provide misleading information about the most appropriate locations for treatment. Introducing exposure data helps to create a more effective comparison of locations. Exposure data provides a common metric to the crash data so roadway segments and intersections can be compared more appropriately, helping local agencies prioritize their potential safety improvements.

The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non-motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 21

two roadway segments have the same number of crashes but different traffic volumes, the segment with fewer vehicles (i.e., less exposure) will have a higher crash rate, meaning that vehicles were more likely to experience a crash along that roadway segment. In situations where traffic volume is not available, segment length or population can serve as an effective exposure element for comparison.

Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Local road practitioners should always consider conducting field assessments in conjunction with their collection of crash data to help identify problem locations. An assessment can be as informal as driving, walking or virtually viewing the road network looking for evidence of roadway crashes. Ideally, informal field assessments are to be performed by multidisciplinary teams that include a traffic safety expert, law enforcement personnel, and others. The team can visit several sites and document evidence of crashes or deficiencies on the roadway or roadside, including: damaged trees or fences, skid marks, ruts on the shoulder, car parts on the shoulder, and/or pavement drop-offs. This information, along with observations of actual driver-behavior, can be used to develop recommendations for improvement.

Field reviews can also be more formalized such as in conducting a Road Safety Audit (RSA). A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team examines and reports on existing or potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. Agencies considering RSAs for the first time are encouraged to consider requesting support from FHWA. For more information on FHWA’s free RSA support, go to their website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.

Informal field assessments and more formal RSAs provide an opportunity for local safety practitioners to gather and summarize all of the information sources discussed in Section 2. They can also be used to identify potential project delivery obstacles. The field assessments/RSAs should identify major environmental, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational issues that need to be considered when applying countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It’s recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 22

3. Safety Data Analysis
Proactive safety analysis will assist in making informed decisions on the type, deployment levels, and locations for safety countermeasures. This builds on the previous discussions on information sources that identify safety issues. ‘Safety Data Analysis’ is one of the most critical steps in an agency’s overall proactive safety analysis approach. Ideally, agencies regularly analyze the safety data for their entire roadway networks to identify and prioritize the locations with the most severe safety issues. This step is often skipped by agencies reacting to a recent tragic crash and the corresponding public outcry, which may leave their most critical safety locations undetected.

As agencies analyze their safety data, they will need to select the implementation approach that most effectively address the safety issues identified; Systemic Approach, Spot Location Approach, Comprehensive Approach, or a combination of these approaches. For example, if a high number of crashes are occurring at a particular curve or along a short segment of roadway, a spot treatment may be appropriate. However, systemic treatment of multiple locations experiencing similar crash types may be necessary and most beneficial for reducing overall fatalities and injuries. These implementation approaches were described in Section 1.5. With all of the approaches, safety practitioners should be looking for patterns in the crash data and not just the total number of crashes. These patterns include:
types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, time of day, etc. Identifying and analyzing the patterns in the crash data will help ensure the most appropriate countermeasure is selected and the safety problems are effectively addressed.

3.1 Quantitative Analysis
Crash data analysis is used to determine the extent of the roadway safety issues, the priority for application of scarce resources, and the selection of appropriate countermeasures. The two main quantitative analysis methods for roadway crashes are crash frequency and crash rate.

Crash Frequency
Crash frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. A practitioner can determine crash volumes using methods discussed in Section 2, including: State crash database (SWITRS), TIMS, local agency crash databases, law enforcement crash reports, pin-maps, etc.

The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency:
• Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations.
o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 23

• Spatially display the sites on a pin-map or a GIS software package. o For small or rural agencies with lower volume roadways, network-wide pin-maps may be all that is needed to identify the highest priority locations. • Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles, types of crashes, and pedestrians involved in the crashes.

As stated earlier, this manual acknowledges many local agency safety practitioners may have their preferred methods for completing these analyses. For those agencies that do not and for those willing to try something new, Caltrans recommends using the TIMS website along with the processes outlined in this document to complete these analyses.

Once the crash frequency information is collected and displayed, the practitioner can complete a methodical analysis by geographic area, route, or a cluster analysis to determine which locations have experienced a high or moderate level of crashes. The resulting crash information can be further analyzed for recurring patterns or events. As agencies consider their locations with high levels of crashes, they should understand the overall random nature of crashes and the concept of “regression to the mean”, as discussed in Section 2. Otherwise, if the natural variations in crash occurrence are not accounted for, a site might be selected for study when the number of crashes is randomly high, or overlooked when the number of crashes is randomly low.

Crash Rate
Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often-used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections:
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 24

The crash rate for crashes on a roadway is calculated as:

R = (C x 100,000,000) / (V x 365 x N x L)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the road segment expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle -miles of travel, C = Total number of crashes in the study period
V = Traffic volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
The crash rate for crashes at an intersection is calculated as:

R = (1,000,000 x C) / (365 x N x V)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) C= Total number of intersection-related crashes in the study period N = Number of years of data
V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily
Similar to Crash Frequency, there are numerous methods for local safety practitioners to utilize Crash Rate in their safety data analysis and each will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples:
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments with the highest crashes in relationship to roadway length, traffic volumes, and/or population density.
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate.

Even though crash frequency and crash rate are helpful for local agency safety practitioners to effectively rank their most critical locations for improvements, the lack of reliable statewide traffic volumes for all roadway types precludes Caltrans from using the crash rate methodology in their statewide project scoring and ranking processes for the HSIP (discussed in more detail in Section 5).

Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of the roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies. Safety practitioners should look for patterns in the crash data, including: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, roadway characteristics, time of day, intersection control, etc.

3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CA- MUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 25

paths crossing the roadway or a high number of utility poles/fixed objects adjacent to the edge of travel way). All of these characteristics should to be accounted for in an agency’s proactive safety analysis.

Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards
It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual 7, FHWA’s “Green
Book” policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9, and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations.

Field Assessments
While the qualitative analysis of compliance issues should continually occur on a network-wide basis, a qualitative analysis should also occur for each of the locations and corridors identified as a result of a ‘Quantitative Analysis’. The consideration of roadway infrastructure characteristics in conjunction with crash frequency or crash rate gives a more complete picture of overall safety and should be used in an agency’s identification and prioritization process for locations needing safety improvements. The qualitative assessment of HCCLs can be completed through the examination of maps and photographs, but the importance of in-field assessments by multi-disciplinary teams should not be underestimated. In some cases, field reviews of all potential project locations may not be practical, so safety practitioners are encouraged to utilize internet-mapping tools to view maps and photographs and virtually visit these sites from their offices.

Actual field visits or RSAs can be done at the highest priority locations before or during the countermeasure selection process. In many cases, field assessments are often the only way for practitioners to identify potential countermeasure implementation and project delivery obstacles.

Without in-field assessments, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints can be overlooked, including: sensitive environmental resources (widening may not be feasible next to wetlands), roadway users (rumble strips may not be feasible on roadways with high bicycle volumes and narrow shoulders), or nearby roadway stakeholders (flashing beacons may be problematic for adjacent residents.) Assessments can provide critical information for local practitioners as they prioritize their crash locations and select countermeasures with the greatest potential for cost effective deployment.

Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency’s proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 26

infrastructure characteristics that relate to both compliance issues and high crash frequencies/rates. As part of field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Rather than reviewing all crash sites individually, agencies may find the use of Internet mapping tools offers significant time savings. For agencies without a preferred virtual field review method, the SafeTREC TIMS website automatically links the SWITRS crash locations to Google Maps and Google Street View.

Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 27

4. Countermeasure Selection
Once locations and crash problems are identified as illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, the safety practitioners will need to select the set of proposed safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Individual elements of standard safety improvements are referred to as countermeasures and most countermeasures have corresponding Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).

When applied correctly, CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes. CMFs are multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). NOTE: Given that CRF values can be more intuitive when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes; this document shows CRF values in the countermeasure tables. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout the text of this section and in other sections of this document.

In an effort to stretch the limited highway safety funding, local transportation agencies are encouraged to identify and implement the optimal combination of countermeasures to achieve the greatest benefits. Combined with crash cost data and project cost information, CRFs can help safety practitioners compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures and then choose the most appropriate application for their proposed safety improvement projects.

As agencies consider the overall scope/cost of their projects, they also need to consider the number of locations to which each countermeasure may be applied in order to maximize the B/C ratio and the overall effectiveness of their limited safety funding. For HCCLs with varying causes, the Spot Location Approach may be the most appropriate. In contrast, the Systemic Approach should be considered where a high proportion of similar crash types tend to occur at locations that share common geometric or operational elements. In these situations, installing the same low-cost safety countermeasure at multiple locations can increase the cost effectiveness of the safety improvement, allowing an increased number of treatments to be applied.

It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it’s expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 28

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors
Selecting an appropriate countermeasure and corresponding CMF is similar to choosing the right tool for a job. In some cases, a countermeasure and CMF may not be perfect, but will still work well enough to get the job done by providing a reasonable estimation of the countermeasure's effect. In other cases, using an improper countermeasure or CMF may do more harm than good. Applying a CMF that does not fit a specific situation may give a false sense of the countermeasure's safety effectiveness and may result in an increased safety problem.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is leading a concerted effort to develop information on CMFs and makes it available to State and local agencies to assist with highway safety planning. The CMF Clearinghouse, a free online database introduced in 2009 and accessible at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, details the varying quality and reliability of CMFs available to transportation professionals.

FHWA has identified three main considerations to assure appropriate selection of CMFs for a given countermeasure: the availability of relevant CMFs, the applicability of available CMFs, and the quality of applicable CMFs. The following sections detail these considerations and describe how Caltrans recommended CRF and service life values meet these criteria.

Availability: The availability of a CMF that applies to a specific situation depends on whether research has been conducted to determine the safety effects of a particular countermeasure or combination of countermeasures, and whether researchers have documented it. The CMF Clearinghouse contains more than 2,900 CMFs and receives quarterly updates to include the latest research.

At this point, Caltrans has established a small subset of 82 countermeasures and a single CRF for each of these countermeasures that must be used when submitting applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for- projects. This methodology allows for a statewide data-driven process that facilitates a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. (The reason for limiting the number of countermeasures is further explained below under “applicability”).

Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2-lane vs. 6- lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non-signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 29

The mix of countermeasures and CRFs included in this document is intended to meet Caltrans’ goal for a data-driven award process for local agencies to follow that allows for a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value intended for use in statewide calls- for-projects is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for ‘all’ project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies.

Quality: Often a search of the CMF Clearing House results in multiple CMFs for the same countermeasure. A practitioner needs to examine the quality of each CMF. The quality of a CMF can vary greatly depending on several factors associated with the process of developing the CMF. The primary factors that determine the quality of a CMF are the study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. The CMF Clearinghouse provides a star rating for each based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the highest quality. The most reliable CMFs in the HSM are indicated with a bold font.

Wherever possible, the CRFs included in this document are based on research that has a CMF Clearinghouse star rating of 3 or more. For countermeasures that do not have corresponding research of a star rating of 3 or more but were deemed important to provide flexibility to local practitioners, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to establish CRFs based on the best available research.

4.2 List of Countermeasures
The list of countermeasures discussed in this section is not an all-inclusive list, and only includes those available in the Caltrans’ HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. Only thoroughly researched countermeasures with a readiness to be applied by local agencies on a statewide basis are utilized. In addition, the California Local HSIP program places further restrictions on the eligibility of some countermeasures to meet the most critical needs on California local roadways. Practitioners are encouraged to utilize the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse for a more comprehensive list as they establish their local agency specific set of proposed improvements and prioritize their projects.

The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non-motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 30

Only Crash Types, CRFs, Expected Lives, and HSIP Funding Eligibility of the countermeasures for use in Caltrans local HSIP program are provided in this section. Fields in the countermeasure tables are:
• Crash Types - “All”, “P & B” (Pedestrian and Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”. • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Funding Eligibility – the maximum HSIP reimbursement ratio for HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. o Eighty-one (81) countermeasures: 90%
o One (1) countermeasure: 50% (CM No. S03: Improve signal timing, as this CM will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.) • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” or “Low”.

The list of countermeasures presented in this section is intended to be a quick-reference summary.

Appendix B of this manual provides more details on each of these countermeasures including Where to use, Why it works, General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness), and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse (Crash Types Addressed and range of Crash Reduction Factor).

Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 31

Table 2. Countermeasures for Non-Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expecte
d Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05mr* Control Convert intersection to mini-roundabout All 30% 20 90% Medium NS06 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS07 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS09 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS13 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS14 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u- turns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
NS16 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS18 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS19PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS20PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS21PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS22PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS23PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low *CM NS05mr is a new countermeasure added for HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 33

Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High
S03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High S04* Signal Mod. Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches All 40% 10 90% High S05 Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
S06 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
S07 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High S08 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium S09 Operation/
Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S10 Operation/
Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium S11 Operation/
Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium S12 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium S13PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low S14 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
S15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S16 Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low S17PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High S18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S19PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High S20PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High S21PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High *CM S04 has been deleted in HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 32

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod.

Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 34

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued)
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R22 Operation/ Warning
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High
R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R35PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38 Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 35

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects
Practitioners need to consider the expected B/C ratio of their proposed projects. This is an important step in a proactive safety analysis process because it provides two key pieces of information: First, it defines the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects; and second, it gives the safety practitioner a means to help prioritize their safety projects both inside the agency’s traffic safety section and against other proposed operational and maintenance projects competing for funding.

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Sections 2 through 4 provide the practitioner all the information needed to calculate the expected ‘Benefit’ of the proposed safety projects. The resulting expected benefit value is derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding CMFs to the expected crashes. It is of critical importance for the practitioner to understand that misapplication of a CMF will lead to misinformed decisions. Four main factors need to be considered when applying countermeasures and CMFs to calculate the expected benefit value: (1) how to estimate the number of expected crashes without treatment, (2) how to apply CMFs by type and severity, (3) how to apply multiple CMFs if multiple treatments are to be included in the same project, and (4) how to apply a benefit value by crash severity. The following text explains how these factors affect the expected benefit value in more detail.

Estimating expected crashes without treatment: Before applying CMFs, local safety practitioners first need to select countermeasures and CMFs. The CMF is applied to the expected safety performance (expected crashes) without any treatment in order to estimate the expected crashes with the treatment.

The reduction in expected crashes multiplied by the expected costs per each crash gives the practitioner the expected benefit.

As mentioned earlier in this manual, the random nature of roadway crashes suggests that over time the number of crashes at any particular locations will change. This concept is known as “regression to the mean” and it gives rise to the concern that a site might be selected for study when the crashes are at a randomly high fluctuation, or overlooked from study when the site is at a randomly low fluctuation. The HSM presents several methods for estimating the expected safety performance of a roadway or intersection including the Empirical Bayes method, which combines observed information from the site of interest with information from similar sites to estimate the expected crashes without treatment.

Another common way to minimize the impact of regression to the mean is to increase the number of years of crash data being analyzed.

For statewide calls-for-projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 5 years of “observed crashes” in estimating “expected crashes.”
Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 36

practitioners to choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project. In many circumstances, estimating the change in crashes by type and severity is useful; however, local safety practitioners only can use this approach when CMFs exist for the specific crash types and severities in question. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect may be over-or underestimated. (For example: past research relating to installing a channelized left turn lane, has estimated CMFs as high as 68% for Right-Angle crashes of all severities and as low as 11% for Rear-End crashes with severities of only fatal and injury).

Applying multiple CMFs: In real-world scenarios, transportation agencies commonly install more than one countermeasure per project as part of their safety improvement program. This leads to the question, "What is the safety effect of the combined countermeasures?" The calculation methods that Transportation agencies use include: applying the CMF for the single countermeasure expected to achieve the greatest reduction, applying CMFs separately by crash type and summing them to get a project-level effect, and applying CMFs based on a review of crash patterns, etc. Regardless of the specific method employed, “engineering judgment” is required when combining multiple CMFs and it is important for local agencies to apply their method consistently throughout their analysis to ensure a fair comparison of projects.

One common practice is to assume that CMFs are multiplicative when they are applied to the same set of crash data. In other words, each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit when implemented in combination with other countermeasures. The multiplicative method is a common, generally accepted method and is presented in the HSM and in the CMF Clearinghouse. This method is also used in the HSIP calls-for-projects.

To allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site. The CMFs are multiplicative if there are multiple countermeasures, i.e. each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit based on the remainder of the crashes after the effect of the prior countermeasures, not the original number of the crashes.

More information on these requirements and procedures are provided in the documents (Application Form Instructions, etc.) for each call-for-projects.

Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. In other words, the expected “benefit” value for a project is actually the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 37

When calculating the “benefit” to be used in calculating an improvement’s B/C ratio, it is important for the practitioner to consider whether a total benefit value for the “life” of the improvement is needed or if the benefit value should be annualized (i.e., benefit per year). Whichever method is used to calculate the overall cost of the improvements must also be used for calculating the benefit.

Caltrans has currently chosen to use published Cost-of-Crash values from the first edition of the HSM and increase the values by 4% annually. These values may be updated in the future, when updated cost- of-crash values are published by FHWA or another national source. The specific values for each of the crash severities and the formulas uses to calculate the total benefit are shown in Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Prepare Total Benefit estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements After calculating the expected benefit of the proposed safety projects, the next step for the practitioner is to develop an estimate of the Total Project Costs. These costs need to include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. The most common approach to estimating construction costs is through an “Engineer’s Cost Estimate.” A Template for Detailed Engineer’s Estimate and Cost Breakdown by Countermeasures is included in the HSIP funding application website. When calculating the administration costs for a project, the complexity of the improvements must be accounted for: Low-cost countermeasures, typically used in the Systemic Approach, often have minimal environmental and right-of-way impacts and require minimal design effort. In contrast, many medium to high cost improvements tend to have greater impacts to the environment and right-of-way and require significant design efforts. It’s crucial to account for these differences to accurately determine the true B/C ratio of the projects and prioritize them correctly.

When an agency is initially evaluating several potential locations and countermeasures as part of their proactive safety analysis or in preparing for Caltrans call-for-projects, they should consider first using rough ‘ballpark’ cost estimates using previous projects that had similar scope, if possible. Ballpark cost estimates can allow the practitioner to quickly establish B/C ratios for all of their potential projects and identify the projects with high cost effectiveness and with a reasonable chance of receiving HSIP funding in a Caltrans call-for-projects.

Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio
In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project’s overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 38

methods and input-factors available for calculating a project’s B/C ratio and practitioners may want to consider other methods as defined in the HSM.

Based on Caltrans’ need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for- projects, Caltrans requires the B/C ratio for all applications to be completed using the same process.

Applicants must utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. Additional details and formulas included in the calculation are included in this document as Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements
By implementing a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, agencies will likely identify more potential safety projects than they can fund and deliver. It will be important for an agency to prioritize their projects internally before funding is sought. It is not uncommon for projects to have a B/C ratio as low as 0.1 or as high as 100. Once the relative cost effectiveness of an agency’s potential projects has been established, the projects with low to mid-ranged B/C ratios should be reassessed. Projects with very low initial B/C ratios may be dropped while projects with low to mid ranged B/C ratios may be redefined by changing the limits of the proposed improvements to focus on higher crash locations or incorporating lower-cost countermeasures. This reiterative process is illustrated in Figure 1 in Section 1 of this document.

At the conclusion of this step, the local agency should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. Ideally, there will be a variety of low cost safety projects and potentially a few higher cost roadway reconstruction projects. How each local agency prioritizes their list of safety improvements will vary, but projects with the highest B/C ratios should generally have a high overall priority. It should be understood that available funding will play a key role in local agency prioritization (e.g., higher-cost projects may have to wait for funding to become available while low-cost improvements with lower B/C ratios can be constructed with in-house maintenance crews), but in the goal of maximizing overall safety benefits, the role of politics and public influence should be minimized.

Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 39

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
Funding strategies for implementing safety projects need to vary as widely as local agency’s roadway types, project costs, and proposed improvements. At this point in the proactive safety analysis process, local agencies should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. There are likely a wide range of ‘approaches’ to fund each of these projects.

This section of the document discusses some of the most common approaches.

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment. Other low-cost projects (e.g., overlays, sealcoats, drainage, signing, and striping projects) may be more important to incorporate into larger maintenance projects. It is common for agencies to have 1-, 5-, and 10-year plans for making these standard maintenance improvements. With upfront planning and coordination between agency staff, the low- cost safety projects identified through the proactive safety analysis can be incorporated with minimal costs to an agency’s maintenance program. Maximizing the cost effectiveness of the program may even allow the transportation managers to justify increasing the funding for their overall roadway maintenance program.

In addition to their maintenance program, transportation managers should also strategically seek out planned capital improvement and development projects that can incorporate low and medium cost countermeasures identified in their safety analysis. Local agencies may also find opportunities to partner with private enterprises and insurance companies to fund special safety projects that further both organizations’ strategic goals.

Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources
In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance’s web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 40

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations In general, roadway safety projects don’t garner the same level of attention from decision makers, media, elected officials, and the general public, that large operational and development-driven projects do. As a result, local safety practitioners and project sponsors often find their projects have difficulty in competing for the agencies’ limited project delivery resources. Establishing and implementing a comprehensive safety analysis process can assist safety practitioners in delivering their safety programs in many ways, including:
• Credibility and awareness to individual projects and delivery schedules. • Increased stakeholders tracking and delivery of a project when low-cost improvements are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and capital projects. • An increased focus on low-cost countermeasures typically corresponds to projects with less environmental, right-of-way and other impacts; resulting in projects that have streamlined project delivery processes and short construction schedules.

Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 41

7. Evaluation of Improvements
Evaluation of the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation should be used to guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. Field reviews should also be conducted shortly after the project is completed to insure the project is operating as intended.

A record of crash history and countermeasure installation forms the foundation for assessing how well the implemented strategies have performed. An important database to maintain is a current list of installed countermeasures with documented “when/where/why” information. Periodic assessments will provide the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether each countermeasure contributed to an increase in safety, whether the countermeasure could or should be installed at other locations, and which factors may have contributed to each countermeasure’s success.

In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. The time period varies, but whenever possible, 3 to 5 years is recommended to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean). The information required may consist of public input and complaints, police reports, observations from maintenance crews, and local and State crash data.

It is important to keep the list of safety installations up-to-date since it will serve as a record of countermeasure deployment history (see table below for an example). By using this type of system, assessment dates can be scheduled to review the crashes and other pertinent information on segments where roadway countermeasures have been installed. Making “after” assessments will inform the practitioner on the effectiveness of past improvements and can provide data to help justify the value of continuing and expanding the local agency’s safety program in the future.

Location Type of Countermeasure
Installed
Date
Installed
Crashes Before
(Duration and
Severity)
Crashes After
(Duration and
Severity)
Comments
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 42

Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process
Countermeasure Selection:
-Address the crash
problem/pattern with cost
effectiveness
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer
Finish preparing application and
submit to Caltrans electronically,
with applicable attachments.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 43

Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures
The intent of the information contained in this appendix is to provide local agency safety practitioners with a list of effective countermeasures that are appropriate remedies to many common safety issues.

The tables in Section 4.2 present a quick summary of the specific values that the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance uses to assess and select projects for its calls- for-projects. In addition to the same information as in Section 4.2, this appendix also includes notes for Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects and “General information” regarding where the countermeasure should be used, why it works, the general qualities that can be used to suggest the potential complexity of installation, and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse on the type of crashes where the countermeasure is best used and a range of their expected overall effectiveness.

The countermeasures have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories.

Caltrans gives careful consideration to the fair application of its calls-for-projects process. Starting in 2012, the award of safety funding has been solely based on a determined benefit-to-cost ratio for each project. The fixed set of countermeasures and CRFs included in these tables are intended to allow for all projects to be evaluated consistently and fairly throughout the project selection process. However, at this time, there are no CRFs/CMFs available for several safety improvements, such as: "dynamic/variable speed regulatory signs", "non-motorized signs and markings (regulatory and warning)", "Square-up (reduce curve radius) turn lanes" and non-infrastructure elements. These safety improvement items can be included in project applications, but they will not be included into the B/C ratio calculations, unless the safety improvements meet the intent of other separate countermeasures included in the attached lists. Caltrans is interested in adding these countermeasures (and many others) to these tables once CRFs/CMFs have been established. Caltrans will continue to periodically update this list of allowable countermeasures and CRFs as new safety research data becomes available. With this in mind, Caltrans is interested in feedback and suggestions from local agency safety practitioners on the overall countermeasure list as well as specific details of individual countermeasures, including locally developed safety effectiveness information.

Caltrans used the following references to assist its team in developing the information shown in the following tables. Safety Practitioners are encouraged to utilize these references for a more expansive list of countermeasures and CRFs / CMFs.

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 44

Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Tools to Diagnose and Solve the Problem https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/
FHWA Local and Rural Road / Training, Tools, Guidance and Countermeasures for Locals https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/
For each countermeasure (CM):
(Title) CM No., CM Name
• CM No. is
o S01 through S21PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized, o NS01 through NS23PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Unsignalized, or o R01 through R38 for Roadway Countermeasures.

For HSIP Calls-for-projects:
• Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%.
• Crash Types Addressed - “All”, “Pedestrian and Bicycle”, “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”.
• CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for-projects.
•
General Information:
• Where to use – Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works – A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features.
• General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) – This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. ‘Time’ refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so ‘cost’ represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall ‘effectiveness’ is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner.
• FHWA CMF Clearinghouse
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 45

o Crash Types Addressed – In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
o Crash Reduction Factor – The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1 – CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 46

B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized
S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% "night" crashes 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).

Why it works:

Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost which results in a moderate to high cost.

Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 20-74% S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7".

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 47

S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 50% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new signal timing. For projects coordination signals along a corridor, the crashes related to side -street movements should not be applied. This CM does not apply to projects that only 'study' the signal network and do not make physical timing changes, including corridor operational studies and improvements to Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs).

In Caltrans calls for projects, this CM has a HSIP reimbursement ratio of 50%, considering that it will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.

General information
Where to use:

Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations.

Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.

Why it works:

Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In general, these low-cost improvements to multiple signalized intersections can be implemented in a short time. Typically these low cost improvements are funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, some projects requiring new interconnect infrastructure can have moderate to high costs making them more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual project.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41% S04, Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for high speed approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new detection and signal timing.

General information
Where to use:

More rural/remote areas that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes. The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system enhances safety at signalized intersections by modifying traffic control signal timing to reduce the number of drivers that may have difficulty deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. This may reduce rear-end crashes associated with unsafe stopping and angle crashes due to illegally continuing into the intersection during the red phase.

Why it works:

Clearance times provide safe, orderly transitions in ROW assignment between conflicting streams of traffic. An Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system has several benefits relative to traditional multiple detector systems, which have upstream detection for vehicles in the dilemma zone but do not take the speed or size of individual vehicles into account. These benefits include: Reducing the frequency of red-light violations; Reducing the frequency of crashes associated with the traffic signal phase change (for example, rear-end and angle crashes); Reducing delay and stop frequency on the major road and a reduction in overall intersection delay.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Installation costs should be low and the time to implement short. Additional modifications to the traffic signal controller may also necessary. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Video detection equipment is now available for this purpose, making installation and maintenance more efficient.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 39% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 48

S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Emergency Vehicle - only 70% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "E.V." crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pre-emption system.

General information
Where to use:

Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles Why it works:

Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash.

When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for installation of a signal preemption system will vary from medium to high, based upon the number of signalized intersections at which preemption will be installed and the number of emergency vehicles to be outfitted with the technology.

The number of detectors, a requirement for new signal controllers, and the intricacy of the preemption system could increase costs. This CM is considered systemic as it is usually implemented on a corridor-basis.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Emergency Vehicle - only CRF: 70% S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left-turn lanes allow separation of left-turn and through-traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Left- turn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left-turn. The combination of left-turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left-turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation time may vary from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly installed simply by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. Installing a protected left turn lane and phase where none exists results in a high Crash Reduction Factor and is often highly effective.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 17 - 58 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 49

S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn phases. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn (unless the single left is unprotected and the proposed double left will be protected).

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non-motorized road users. A properly timed protected left-turn phase can also help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles. Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

If the existing traffic signal only requires a minor modification to allow for a protected left-turn phase, then the cost would also be low. The time to implement this countermeasure is short because there is no actual construction that has to take place. In- house signal maintainers can perform this operation once the proper signal phasing is determined so the cost is low. In addition, the countermeasure is tried and proven to be effective. Has the potential of being applied on a systemic/systemati c approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Sideswipe, Broadside CRF: 16 - 99% S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the converted signal heads that are relocated from median and/or outside shoulder pedestals to signal heads on master arms over the travel-lanes. Projects using CM "S7" should not also apply "S2" in the B/C calc.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Dependent on the scope of the project. Costs are generally moderate for this type of project. There is usually no right-of-way costs, minimal roadway reconstruction costs, and a shorter project development timeline. At the same time, new mast arms can be expensive. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to moderate costs, some locations may result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 12 - 74% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 50

S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 10% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and influence areas of the new pavement markers and/or markings.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection.

Driver confusion can exist in regard to choosing the proper turn path or where through-lanes do not line up. This is especially relevant at intersections where the overall pavement area of the intersection is large, and multiple turning lanes are involved or other unfamiliar elements are presented to the driver.

Why it works:

Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs of implementing this strategy will vary based on the scope and number of applications. Applying raised pavement markers is relatively low cost but can be variable and determined largely by the material used for pavement markings (paint, thermoplastic, epoxy, RPMs etc.). When using this type delineators, an issue of concern is the cost-to-service-life of the material. (Note: When HSIP safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.) When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, All CRF: 10 - 33% S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new flashing beacons.

General information
Where to use:

At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.

Why it works:

Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. This combined with a relatively high CRF, can result in high B/Cs for locations with a history of crashes and lead to a high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 51

S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts.

Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control.

Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.

Why it works:

Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive CMs would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. The result is This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Raised medians can often be installed directly over the existing pavement. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 21 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 52