Attachment IV Local Road Safety Plan — Hayward City Council, June 27, 2023

Local Road Safety Plan
June 2023

i
Introduction .................................................... 1 Safer Streets for Everyone .................................................. 1 Local Roads are the Key ...................................................... 2 Transitioning Traffic Safety Culture .................................... 2 What’s in the Plan ................................................................ 7 Hayward’s Safety Emphasis Areas ...................................... 9 Vision & Goals ............................................... 11 Plan Vision .......................................................................... 11 Plan Goals ........................................................................... 12 Committed to Safety .......................................................... 12 Plan Development ........................................ 13 The LRSP Drafting Process ................................................ 13 Working Together ............................................................... 14 Safety Steps Hayward Already Takes ................................ 16 Community Outreach ........................................................ 18 Existing Conditions ....................................... 25 Hayward Safety Today ....................................................... 25 About the Data ................................................................... 25 Knowing Where to Help ..................................................... 27 High Injury Network ........................................................... 34 Emphasis Areas .................................................................. 43 Recommendations ....................................... 46 Implementing Enforcement .............................................. 50 Prioritizing Safety & Equity ................................................ 51 Priority Locations ............................................................... 53 Engineering Countermeasures ......................................... 58 Project Ideas ....................................................................... 65 Implementation ........................................... 68 Evaluation ..................................................... 74 Performance Measures ..................................................... 75 Updating the Plan .............................................................. 78 Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox ...... 79
Appendix B: Project Concepts .................... 80
Appendix C: Prioritization Memo ............... 81
Appendix D: Funding ................................... 82 Federal Funding ................................................................. 83 State Funding ..................................................................... 86

ii
Figure 1: Safe System Approach Principles and Elements ... 3 Figure 2. Frequently Used Travel Modes ............................. 22 Figure 3. First-Ranked Priority Areas to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode Frequency ........................................ 23 Figure 4. First-Ranked Priority Locations to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode ........................................................... 24 Figure 5. Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action, 2017– 2021 ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 6. High Injury Network ............................................... 36 Figure 7. Top 20 Priority Intersections and Roadways with Test Scenario .......................................................................... 56 Figure 8. Disadvantaged Population Scores Used for Social Equity Input ............................................................................ 57 Table 1. Existing City Safety Efforts ...................................... 16 Table 2: Road Users and Crash Severity, 2017–2021 .......... 30 Table 3: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Primary
Collision Factor ...................................................................... 33 Table 4. High Injury Network Intersections ......................... 37 Table 5: Priority Roadway Segments .................................... 39 Table 6. Recommendations by Safe System Category and
Emphasis Area ....................................................................... 47 Table 7. Top 20 Priority Locations with Test Scenario ......... 54 Table 8. Intersection Safety Treatments .............................. 59 Table 9. Roadway Safety Treatments ................................... 61 Table 10. Pedestrian Safety Treatments .............................. 62 Table 11. Bicycle Safety Treatments ..................................... 64 Table 12. Three-Year and Five-Year Crash Averages by
Emphasis Area ....................................................................... 76 Table 13: Project and Program Implementation ................. 77 1 Safer Streets for Everyone
Everyone deserves to get home safely. To help Hayward
residents and visitors reach their destinations, this Local Road Safety Plan, or LRSP , identifies and analyzes safety on City-owned roadways and prioritizes improvements for
areas with the greatest safety challenges.

Local roads are a critical part of the Hayward community.

Despite being less traveled than State highways, local roads see a higher rate of fatal and severe injury crashes.1 LRSPs can help eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes on local roads by identifying where and why crashes happen.

1 Anderson et al. Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan, FHWA-SA-09-019, (2010).

PLAN VISION Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries.

2 Local Roads are the Key
An LRSP assesses and identifies locations and strategies to improve local road safety. LRSPs take an interdisciplinary approach to traffic safety and rely on interagency and
community collaboration to implement recommendations.

A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proven safety
countermeasure, LRSPs provide crosscutting efforts to
prioritize investments.2 FHWA provides more than $2 billion each year in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
funds for States to address road safety challenges on all public roads.

In California, to pursue HSIP grant funds (estimated at $210 million for Cycle 11 in 2022), a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document. This LRSP helps
Hayward qualify for HSIP funds and gets the city one step closer to eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on its roads.

Because every community has unique safety challenges,
this LRSP recommends a set of proven strategies and
countermeasures tailored to Hayward’s specific needs. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The City will
revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

2 FHWA maintains a list of Proven safety
countermeasures with documented
effectiveness in reducing roadway fatalities
and severe injuries (totaling 28 at present).

Transitioning Traffic
Safety Culture
Vision Zero—a movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries—and the Safe System
approach—a systems-based approach that can help put
Vision Zero into practice—are at the core of this LRSP and align with larger statewide and national efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes.

The Safe System Approach
A Safe System approach works toward eliminating roadway deaths based on six key principles (see Figure 1).
 Deaths and severe injuries are unacceptable.
 Humans make mistakes.
 Humans are vulnerable.
 Responsibility is shared.
 Safety is proactive.
 Redundancy is critical.

More information is available online at
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures.

3 Figure 1: Safe System Approach Principles and
Elements

A Safe System has five elements, or layers (see Figure 1):
 Safe Road Users—All road users, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit-riders, should be
able to travel safely.
 Safe Vehicles—Vehicles should be designed and
regulated to reduce the frequency and severity of
crashes.
 Safe Speeds—The faster a vehicle is travelling, the
greater its risk to human life. Safe speeds are speeds
that reduce impact forces, improve stopping time,
and improve visibility.
 Safe Roads—Road design can accommodate human
mistakes and improve injury tolerances through
strategies such as physically separating those
travelling different speeds or using signage to alert
drivers of hazards.
 Post-Crash Care—If a crash does occur, first
responders must assess, stabilize, and transport
those who were injured. Forensic investigation or
incident management teams are also important
parts of post-crash care.

4 The United States Department of Transportation adopted the Safe System approach as its core strategy in January 2022.3 The following month, Caltrans released Director’s Policy 36, which commits the state to the Safe System
approach to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California’s roadways by 2050 and safer
outcomes for all communities.4 These efforts build from the FHWA’s promotion of the Safe System approach as a
strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths.

A Safe System approach helps this LRSP identify ways that Hayward and its partners can create layers and
redundancies in its local road network.

3 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United States Department of Transportation, January 2022 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT- National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf
Together, Hayward and identified partners can
 Establish a vision, goals, and partnerships to help
implement the plan.
 Identify systemic engineering countermeasures and
use them proactively rather than reactively.
 Provide educational materials to communicate key
roadway safety information to residents and visitors.
 Review policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize safety.
 Overlap roadway stakeholder efforts to create a
culture of traffic safety.
 Identify potential funding and coordination sources for project implementation.
 Evaluate what is working to achieve established vision and goals on an on-going basis.

It is important to understand that the City only has direct control over some Safe System elements. For example, the City cannot directly affect safe vehicle design and
regulation. For a robust Safe System, state and federal policy—like legislation to allow automated speed
enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety
standards—will be essential to build a system that is truly safe.
4 California Department of Transportation Director’s Policy 36, February 15 2022 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-
programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf

5 Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a local, national, and international movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries.

The traditional approach to traffic safety views deaths and severe injuries as the cost of getting around. Now, instead of assuming crashes as inevitable, we understand that
death and severe injuries are preventable. By integrating layers of protection into its transportation system, a
community can protect all roadway users—even when they
make mistakes.

This plan has been designed with the ultimate goal of
eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on the City’s roadways by 2050. A Vision Zero-focused LRSP prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and equity in the planning and design process. One of the key elements of a Vision Zero approach is using data to drive analysis and strategy
selection. This LRSP brings together data from crash
history, roadway features, public engagement efforts, and demographic data to prioritize solutions and locations.

Such robust data will help Hayward to be proactive rather than reactive, working to stop fatal and severe injury
crashes before they happen.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support cities like Hayward pursue Vision Zero goals.

By affirming a commitment to Vision Zero, the City is
committing to working to prioritize street safety and
eliminate traffic deaths in Hayward. It is an
acknowledgment that traffic deaths are preventable and
that even one is too many. The commitment means
building a safer transportation system and creating and sustaining a culture where residents, workers, and visitors prioritize traffic safety to ensure mistakes that happen on our streets do not result in death or severe injury. This plan will be implemented through coordination with identified safety partners comprised of both city agencies and
external parties.

The City of Hayward is committed
to working to prioritize street
safety and eliminate traffic
deaths on our roadways.
6 SHSP CHALLENGE AREAS
 Aging Drivers (65 and older)
 Bicyclists
 Commercial Vehicles
 Distracted Driving
 Impaired Driving
 Intersections
 Lane Departures
 Motorcyclists
 Occupant Protection
 Pedestrians
 Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
 Work Zones
 Young Drivers (15–20 years old)
high priority challenge area
Aligning with the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan (SHSP)
The 2020–2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) sets out California’s vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury crashes on public roads (local roads and state highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) led
efforts to analyze crash data and collaborate with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most
potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge
areas, six were identified as high priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce death and severe injury.

Historically, the SHSP has used the five Es (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and
emerging technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021, state transportation officials shifted focus and adopted guiding principles that integrate social equity, take a Safe System approach, and encourage proven countermeasures
and emerging technologies. This plan is aligned with the SHSP guidance.

7 What’s in the Plan
Using historical crash data, this LRSP assesses Hayward’s existing roadway conditions and local context; identifies areas for improvement; and recommends actions and an
implementation plan for the City and its safety partners.

This LRSP is organized into five sections:

Vision & Goals—Affirms the City of Hayward’s larger
vision for transportation safety and sets goals for how to get there.

Plan Development—Describes the collaborative and
data-driven process for creating the plan.

Existing Conditions—Analyzes counts, locations, and
causal factors for crashes in Hayward.

Recommendations—Presents specific strategies and
proven countermeasures for Hayward and its partners
to implement.

Implementation—Prioritizes strategies and actions
and sets performance measures to evaluate the City’s
progress toward its goals.

Evaluation—Presents actions the City of Hayward can
take to measure implementation progress and success
on the road to zero traffic deaths.

ABOUT THE DATA
This plan analyzed publicly reported crash data
from 2017–2021 and used that data to determine
crash totals and trends. Although reported crash
data is imperfect and has reporting gaps,
particularly when assigning injury level, these data
are the best available for this type of analysis.

8 9
Hayward’s Safety Emphasis Areas
After assessing the city’s historical crash data trends, the LRSP project team identified seven emphasis areas. These areas guided the plan’s development and determined
which actions and implementation strategies would be
most effective at reducing deaths and severe injuries on local roads:

Pedestrian Safety
Citywide, 30 percent of the city’s fatal and
severe injury crashes involved pedestrians; 53
people were killed or severely injured while
walking on Hayward roads. When pedestrians
are hit in Hayward, they are most often hit
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by
drivers continuing straight rather than
turning. Tennyson Road, Mission Boulevard
and A Street have the highest incidence of
pedestrian crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
pedestrian crashes.

Bicyclist Safety
More than 90 percent of crashes that involve
bicyclists result in death or some level of
injury. Ten bicyclists (6 percent of citywide
fatal and severe injury crashes) were killed or
severely injured in crashes on Hayward roads.

Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and
severe injury bicyclist crashes.

Signalized and Unsignalized
Intersections
Citywide, 87 percent of reported crashes and
of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at
intersections. Hesperian Boulevard, Tennyson
Road and Foothill Boulevard have the most
high-injury intersections.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring at signalized and
unsignalized intersections.

10 Speeding and
Aggressive Driving
Unsafe speeds were associated with 20
percent of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury
crashes. Seventy (70) percent of total reported
unsafe speeding crashes involved two motor
vehicles, and 23 percent involved a single
motor vehicle and a fixed object, like a tree or
utility pole. Speeding is one of the most
frequently cited contributing factors to the
city’s fatal and severe injury hit-object and
head-on crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes due to unsafe speeding.

Broadside Crashes
Almost one quarter of Hayward’s reported
crashes were broadside, where the front of
one vehicle hits the side of another. Most
frequently, broadside crashes are associated
with drivers violating traffic signals and signs
or automobile right of way. Mission Boulevard,
Hesperian Boulevard and D Street see a high
number of these types of crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
broadside crashes occurring due to
automobile right of way and traffic signals and
signs related violations.

DUI Crashes
More than 35 percent of Hayward’s reported
crashes and nearly a quarter of its fatal and
severe injury crashes involved driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. In
about 65 percent of these crashes, the driver
hit another motor vehicle, and in 32 percent of
these crashes, the driver hit a fixed object.

Mission Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and
Tennyson Road see the highest number of DUI
crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring due to driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs using the
recommendations in this plan.

Roadway and
Lane Departure Crashes
About 37 percent of Hayward’s high-injury
network crashes involved a vehicle leaving its
roadway or lane as part of a head-on, hit-
object, or sideswipe crash. About half of these
crashes occurred in the dark or low lighting
conditions. Mission Boulevard, Hesperian
Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard see a high
number of these crash types.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
roadway/lane departure crashes.

11 Plan Vision
The City of Hayward has centered this LRSP around a Vision Zero approach, which aims to eliminate all fatal and severe injury crashes.

This LRSP has established the following vision to achieve Vision Zero:

Identify safety improvements, strategies,
and programs using the Safe System
approach to eliminate fatalities and severe
injuries.

12 Plan Goals
 Identify emphasis areas contributing to fatal and
severe injury crashes to prioritize investments in
countermeasures and strategies.
 Define priority locations for safety improvements for all modes of travel.
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety
improvements that can be applied systemically.
 Identify transportation safety programs and strategies using the Safe System Approach and work
collaboratively with agencies and safety partners
toward implementation.
 Monitor and evaluate emphasis areas and overall
safety performance of the City’s transportation
network.
 Identify locations that directly benefit the following populations or users: children, older adults (65 and
over), equity priority communities, disadvantaged
populations, and transit users (consistent with the
Guiding Vision of the City’s Racial Equity Action Plan
and the National Safety Council’s Road to Zero
Coalition).

Committed to Safety
To achieve its vision and goals, the City of Hayward is committed to eliminating roadway fatalities and severe
injuries by 2050 and incorporating the Safe System
approach in future roadway safety efforts. The City will use data and strategies in this LRSP to prioritize traffic safety and reduce crash risk on City roadways.

13 This plan was developed in collaboration with City staff and using crash data and best practices resources.

The LRSP Drafting Process
Identify | Analyze | Prioritize | Implement | Evaluate
Choose Proven Solutions
Implement Solutions
Identify Stakeholders
Collect Data
Analyze the Data to Identify Overrepresented Crash Types and High-risk Areas Source: FHWA, “Local Road Safety Plans,” (January 2021), https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/#. 14 Working Together
By nurturing longstanding partnerships with community
organizations and fostering new ones, Hayward can use
interagency cooperation and collaboration to work toward eliminating deaths and severe injuries on the local road network.

These agencies have been, or can be, valued safety
partners in implementing this LRSP:

Transportation Agencies
Transportation agencies and providers such as AC Transit, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Caltrans can help identify engineering solutions at locations of shared interest, and they can help share and promote education campaigns.

Alameda CTC plans, programs, and allocates federal, state, regional, and local funding for transportation
improvements. Alameda CTC plans guide transportation
development and funding decisions to ensure the county’s transportation system can sustain the region’s growing
population. Their partnership will be vital to implementing the improvements recommended in this plan.

RECOMMENDED

SAFETY PARTNERS
 AC Transit
 Alameda County Transportation Commission
 BART
 Bike East Bay
 Caltrans
 Community Resources for Independent Living
 Emergency Services Providers
 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
 Downtown Hayward Improvement Association
 Hayward Chamber of Commerce
 Hayward Fire
 Hayward Police Department
 Hayward Unified School District
 Senior Centers
 United Merchants Downtown Hayward
15 Community Groups, Local Organizations, & Care Homes
Community groups can give feedback on safety issues and help facilitate better communication about safety
campaigns and future projects between the public and the City. Health advocacy or active transportation groups like Bike East Bay, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD), and Community Resources for Independent Living
(CRIL) can help coordinate education classes through
schools or at City-sponsored events. As safety liaisons, these partners help build trust between government
agencies and the public. Senior centers can help organize educational programs for drivers, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.

Local Business Organizations
The Hayward Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Hayward
Improvement Association and United Merchants Downtown
Hayward can help build trust between the City and the
public. Local business associations can also help the City tailor its engagement processes to engage community
members and stakeholders more effectively.

Police, Fire, & Emergency Services
Partnerships with first responders help the City proactively improve emergency response services and assess
proposed safety countermeasures. Hayward Fire
Department can help vet safety improvement projects for compatibility with emergency response times during the
design review process. The Hayward Police Department
Traffic Bureau forms enforcement location priorities based on its review of crash history. This partnership can be used to coordinate on emphasis areas and high-risk locations for road users.

School Districts
Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) can be partners in educational programs that encourage students, their
families, and staff to engage in safe transportation
behaviors.

16 Safety Steps Hayward Already Takes
This LRSP relies on Hayward’s strong foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System and enhance traffic safety for all modes of transportation, see Table 1.

Table 1. Existing City Safety Efforts

PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
City of Hayward’s
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. The City partners with Hayward Unified School District, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and other community organizations.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
City of Hayward’s
Safe Routes for
Seniors (SR4S)
Program
SR4S Program helps identify areas in Hayward that need accessibility and walkability improvements. This is a collaborative program between the City, local senior housing facilities, senior centers, and community based organizations.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safety Awareness
Months
In May, the Hayward Police Department focuses on motorcyclist education and enforcement. In September, they focus on pedestrian safety. Funding for this program is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Safe Road Users
Shared Mobility
Feasibility Study
The city is currently developing a micromobility program that will provide alternative transportation options to all community members by creating safer streets and improving access to housing and regional transit hubs.

Consistent with City policy, the study’s feasibility analysis will have a racial equity lens to ensure equitable outcomes.

Safe Road Users
17 PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
Neighborhood
Traffic Calming
Program
This program helps City Staff, elected officials, and Hayward residents as they adjust to traffic calming policies and procedures. The program lists traffic calming strategies and prioritizes City investments.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2020 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan (BPMP)
The updated BPMP includes recommendations to guide Hayward’s approach to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The update inventories existing conditions; analyzes existing barriers to walking and biking; provides program, policy, and infrastructure recommendations; and presents a prioritization framework to identify a tiered list of projects for implementation. The updated plan also identifies local biking and walking high-injury networks, or HINs, based on historical collision data.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2040 General Plan The Mobility Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan includes goals and related policies that support transportation safety goals, including most directly:

Goal M-3: Provide complete streets that balance the diverse needs of users of the public right-of-way.

Goal M-5: Provide a universally accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated pedestrian system that promotes walking.

Goal M-6: Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all.

Goal M-11: Balance the safe and efficient movement of goods with local access and circulation needs.

18 Community Outreach
The City cannot improve roadway safety in Hayward
without help from the public. The Plan includes community members’ experiences and concerns, gathered by LRSP
project team hosted pop-events, an interactive webmap,
and online survey results.

Pop-up Events
To understand how the community thinks about and
prioritizes safety, the LRSP project team set up booths at the Hayward Block Party and the Hayward Farmers Market.

Through these events, the team connected individually with more than 70 community members and learned where
they feel unsafe while driving, walking, biking, and taking transit and where they would like to see Hayward prioritize safety improvements.
 Hayward Block Party— August 18, 2022
 Hayward Farmers Market—August 20, 2022
Community visitors to project booths at the Hayward Farmers Market 19 Interactive Webmap
The project team developed an interactive webmap for
community members to mark areas with safety concerns.

Respondents can flag areas on the high injury network with safety concerns in one of four categories: walking, bicycling, driving, or using public transit.

The City of Hayward welcomes continued
feedback on the webmap.

You can access the webmap by visiting
https://maps.kittelson.com/Hayward-LRSP

20 COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS
Community concerns shared on the webmap and in-person
events are organized thematically below.

Driving
 Drivers speed throughout the city.
 Addressing speeding around schools should be a
priority.
 Residents would like speed bumps or other traffic
calming measures.
 Residents see drivers run stop signs downtown and
feel unsafe driving.
 When drivers are in the wrong lane navigating to and
from freeways, they may make sudden lane changes
and put others in danger.

Walking
 Residents would like safer ways to cross the freeways.  There is a need for more crosswalks at schools and
new developments.
 Sidewalks around senior centers should be wider.

Biking
 Community members would like to have an updated
map of Hayward’s bike facilities to understand how to
get around safely.
 Many do not bike because of a lack of bicycle facilities.

Residents said they would bike if they felt safer biking in the city.

Lighting & Visibility
 Community members do not feel safe navigating the
streets at night due to poor visibility; more or better lighting would help.
 Trees block sightlines on some roads and make it
difficult to turn onto larger roadways.

21 Survey
The project team developed an online survey with both
English and Spanish versions. Respondents were asked
how and how often they use different travel modes
(including driving alone, walking, carpooling, taking
paratransit, riding a bike, and riding scooters). They also could rank city priorities for safety improvements and give feedback on where the first improvements should be
made.

A total of 52 people took the survey (48 in English and 4 in Spanish). When asked how frequently respondents used
different modes of travel, the majority responded that they most frequently drove alone and walked (see Figure 2).

Respondents said they would like the City to prioritize addressing vehicles running red lights, speeding, and
turning at two-way stop-controlled intersections (see Figure 3). Respondents who walk as their primary mode of
transportation frequently prioritized pedestrian and bicycle safety more than those who primarily drive.

Respondents indicated they would like to see Hayward
make safety improvements where crashes have been
reported, where people who choose to bike or walk are at risk, and where streets are the busiest (see Figure 4).

Respondents who stated that they walked frequently also showed a more of a priority for addressing safety where pedestrians and bicyclists were more at risk.

SURVEY RESULTS
52 Responses
Top Concerns:

Vehicles running red lights
Speeding
Turning at two-way stop-controlled intersections

22 HOW HAYWARD RESIDENTS GET AROUND
Figure 2. Frequently Used Travel Modes

Note: (n=52) “Frequent” means using the travel mode multiple times a week. Respondents could choose multiple modes of travel.

23 HAYWARD RESIDENTS’ SAFETY PRIORITIES
Figure 3. First-Ranked Priority Areas to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode Frequency

24 WHERE HAYWARD RESIDENTS THINK THE CITY SHOULD PRIORITIZE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4. First-Ranked Priority Locations to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode

25 Hayward Safety Today
This section presents a snapshot of crashes in Hayward to better understand where, when, and why crashes happen
and who was involved. This information helps maximize the City’s safety improvement efforts.

About the Data
Data for this analysis come from reported crashes available on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021.

Data from 2021 are provisional.

IN HAYWARD FROM 2017 THROUGH 2021, CRASHES KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED 110 drivers or passengers
53 pedestrians
10 bicyclists

26 Understanding Crash Severity
Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury experienced.

Fatal—A person dies due to injuries sustained in the crash.

Severe Injury—A person has major, visible injuries like broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.”
Moderate Injury—A person has significant and visible
injuries like bruises or minor lacerations. Moderate injury crashes are sometimes referred to as “other visible injury” crashes.

Minor Injury—A person has injuries that are not apparent from the outside. Examples include limps, neck pain, or confusion. Minor injury crashes are sometimes referred to as “complaint of pain” or “suspected injury” crashes.

Property Damage Only (PDO)—No injuries were
sustained.

In this analysis, fatal and severe injury crashes are
generally grouped together because the difference
between death and a severe injury can depend on
factors such as emergency response time or the
victim’s health rather than the crash type.

HOW HAYWARD IN 2020 COMPARED

TO OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES
Percentile rank among 61 similar sized cities—a higher
percentile means more crashes in that category.

Source: California Office of Traffic Safety; data compares Hayward to 61 other comparably-sized California cities. 27 Knowing Where to Help
Analyzing crash location and crash type helps the City
maximize its limited resources by putting the right safety improvement in the right place.

Where Crashes Happen

SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS
Most crashes in Hayward occur at intersections. In addition to being more frequent, intersection crashes are also more likely to be severe compared to segment crashes: 87
percent of intersection crashes have fatalities or severe injuries, compared to 13 percent of segment crashes.

Fatal and severe injury crashes at signalized intersections on the arterial network are associated with drivers failing to follow traffic control. These crashes are also associated with hit-object crashes, especially when unsafe speed was a
contributing factor. This suggests that arterial
characteristics—more lanes and more speeds—are
associated with crash frequency and severity on these
roadways.

Fatal and severe injury crashes at unsignalized intersections on the arterial network are associated with violations of the automobile right of way, indicating that drivers may
struggle to judge gaps in traffic when turning onto or off a street.

INTERSECTIONS ARE THE SITE OF
87% of fatal or severe injury crashes
93% of broadside crashes
90% of vehicle-pedestrian crashes
85% of head-on crashes
79% of hit object crashes
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Location

About 1/3 of fatal and severe injury crashes occur at an intersection and involve a pedestrian or bicyclist.
28 Vulnerable Road Users

PEOPLE WALKING, BIKING, AND RIDING

MOTORCYCLES
People walking, biking, riding a motorcycle, or any other form of rolling are all vulnerable road users. When traveling on foot, by bike, or by motorcycle, the human body has less protection from crash forces, especially if it comes into conflict with a motor vehicle. All three groups are
overrepresented in the city’s fatal and severe injury crashes (see Table 2).

In Hayward, pedestrians are most often struck while
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by drivers
continuing straight rather than turning (see
Figure 5). About half of all pedestrian crashes involved people not crossing in a crosswalk or being struck in the road or shoulder. When people do not have available
crossing opportunities or encounter sidewalk gaps, they are more likely to risk unsafe, midblock crossings or walk along the edges of roads.

From 2017 through 2021, there were 108 crashes that
involved bicyclists. More than 90 percent of these crashes resulted in fatalities or some type of injury. Most bicycle crashes are broadside crashes, and most bicyclists were traveling straight before being hit.

Pedestrians are involved in 8% of reported crashes but 30% of fatal and severe injury crashes.

Motorcyclists are involved in 4% of reported crashes but represent 18% of fatal and severe injury crashes. 29 Figure 5. Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action,
2017–2021

Source: SWITRS, TIMS
Note: “Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection” includes controlled and uncontrolled crosswalk locations. There were no reported pedestrian crashes with the following pedestrian actions: approaching/leaving school bus, crossing in crosswalk not at intersection, and not stated

30 Table 2: Road Users and Crash Severity, 2017–2021

ROAD USERS INVOLVED CRASH COUNT SHARE OF TOTAL REPORTED Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Share of Fatal and
Severe Injury Crashes
(% of Column)
Share of All Reported
Severity Levels
(% of Column)
Pedestrian 16 37 195 11 30% 8%
Bicyclist 2 8 89 9 6% 3%
Motorcyclist 6 27 83 18 18% 4%
Motor Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object 12 71 901 1727 46% 85%
Total Reported Crashes 35 142 1,266 1,764 100% 100%
Source: SWITRS
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the values in the table because some crashes involve more than one of the following: bicyclist, motorcyclist, and pedestrian.

31 When Crashes Happen

DUSK, DAWN, AND NIGHTTIME
There is a correlation between fatal and severe injury
crashes with both time of day and lighting conditions. Fatal and severe injury crashes more frequently occur at night or during twilight hours and during dusk/dawn conditions.

In Hayward, pedestrians are more frequently injured or
killed in dark or dusk/dawn conditions, and pedestrian
crashes are concentrated during the evening peak travel periods. A higher share of fatal and severe injury bicycle crashes occur in dark or dusk/dawn conditions.

Crash Types and Causal Factors
In Hayward, four crash types most frequently result in fatal or severe injuries; collectively, these four crash types account for 75 percent of all fatal and severe injury crashes in the city:
 Vehicle and pedestrian
 Broadside
 Hit-object
 Head-on

5 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to adhere to traffic control, such as running a stop sign or red signal.

Three primary collision factors (PCFs) are frequently cited for Hayward’s fatal and severe injury crashes; together, these three PCFs account for 44 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes (see Table 3):
 Unsafe speed
 Traffic signals and
signs violations5
 Driving or bicycling
under the influence
of alcohol or drugs

WHAT IS A PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR?
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor
(PCF) for each crash. Officers have several PCFs to
choose from when filing a report, and these PCFs
correspond to California Vehicle Code (CVC)
violations. Officer’s use their best judgment and
information available at the scene to select the single factor they deem most relevant to the crash.
58% of fatal and severe injury crashes occur between 6:00 PM and 12:00 AM. 32 SPEEDING
Driver speed is a contributing factor in many fatal and severe injury crashes, as unsafe speeds were associated with 20 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes,
particularly hit-object and head-on crashes.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
Vehicle and pedestrian crashes are most frequently
associated with vehicles violating pedestrian right-of-way and pedestrian violations (28 and 35 percent, respectively).

Broadside crashes are largely associated with traffic signal and sign violations or automobile right-of-way violations (33 percent and 25 percent, respectively).6

ALCOHOL & DRUGS
Alcohol and drug involvement is a common contributing
factor in fatal and severe injury crashes. Alcohol and drugs contribute to 36 percent of all of Hayward’s crashes and 23 percent of its fatal and severe injury crashes. More than 20 percent of head-on crashes are associated with alcohol and drug use.7

6 Traffic signs and signals is a PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to adhere to traffic control, such as running a stop sign or red signal indication). Automobile right of way is a PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic.
7 According to the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual (Revised 2003), “When the involved party, considered by the officer to be most at fault, is driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the PCF shall be [driving under the influence], regardless of any other violation.” Unsafe speeds are associated with 20% of fatal and severe injury crashes.

About 28% of vehicle and pedestrian crashes are associated with a vehicle violating the pedestrian right-of-way.

Alcohol and drugs contribute to 23% of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury crashes.

33 Table 3: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Primary Collision Factor

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR

CRASH TYPE
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
(n = 46)
Broadside
(% of Column)
(n = 36)
Hit Object
(% of Column)
(n = 26)
Head On
(% of Column)
(n = 25)
Automobile Right of Way 0% 25% 0% 5%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 7% 6% 28% 23% Improper Turning 2% 6% 8% 9%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 0% 3% 8% 9%
Pedestrian Right of Way 28% 0% 0% 9%
Pedestrian Violation 35% 0% 0% 5%
Traffic Signals and Signs 7% 33% 0% 14%
Unsafe Speed 2% 11% 40% 18%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 7% 3% 0% 0%
Other PCF or Unknown1 13% 14% 16% 9%
Total Reported Crashes 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS
1 Other PCFs include: Other improper driving, improper passing, unsafe lane change, wrong side of road, and other hazardous violation. These constitute less than five percent of all crash types and were consolidated for table legibility.

Note: Green shaded cells indicate the most frequent PCFs for a given crash type. Additionally, totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

34 High Injury Network
To better understand where crashes were happening, the
project team mapped Hayward’s intersections and
roadways according to crash frequency and severity from 2017 to 2021 (Figure 6). Crashes were weighted according to severity. Intersections and roadways were then
organized by their collective crash severity score to align with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
priorities. The map reveals the city’s high injury network (HIN), or the system of intersections and segments that see the highest share of fatal and severe injury crashes citywide (Table 4).

Roadway segments are organized into Tier 1 and Tier 2
high-injury locations, based on crash severity score. Tier 1 segments have the highest crash severity in Hayward
between 2017 and 2021; Tier 2 segments rank the second
highest in terms of crash severity (Table 5).

Of particular note is the share of the HIN within the
downtown area. The high concentration of roadways and
intersections within the downtown area represents a
potential focus area for the City. Separate studies have shown that one-way streets in this area carry significant regional commute (cut-through) traffic avoiding freeway congestion along I-580, SR 238, and I-880.8

8 Hayward Origin-Destination Study, 2017.

TIER 1
Most severe 6 centerline miles 25% of fatal and severe injury crashes 2% of total network Second most severe 41 centerline miles 50% of fatal and severe injury crashes 16% of total network TIER 2
47+ roadway miles

HAYWARD HIN
30 priority intersections
Accounts for 75% of all reported fatal and injury crashes 35 Higher-speed, cut-through traffic creates barriers for safely walking, biking, and connecting to transit stops in the area—particularly for lower-income Hayward residents or employees and for people without access to a car. This cut- through traffic also affects side-street businesses and divides the community.

To address these locations and issues, the City may
implement countermeasures addressing speed, as
indicated in Tables 7–10.

SCORING CRASH SEVERITY
(Number of Fatal Crashes × Fatal Weight) + (Number of Severe Injury Crashes × Severe Injury Weight) + (Number of Moderate Injury Crashes × Moderate Injury Weight) + (Number of Minor Injury Crashes × Minor Injury Weight) + Property Damage Only Crashes = Crash Severity Score HIN roadways and intersections are concentrated in the downtown area.

Despite being just 10% of the city’s centerline miles, arterials with posted speeds of at least 35 miles per hour make up 48% of the HIN.

36 Figure 6. High Injury Network

75% of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury crashes occur on just 14% of its roadway network.

37 Table 4. High Injury Network Intersections

RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE
TOTAL

NUMBER OF

CRASHES

FATAL/SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
1 Tennyson Rd & Baldwin St Unsignalized 119.2 7 3
2 Foothill Blvd/ Mission Blvd & Jackson St Signalized 110.5 27 4 3 Tennyson Rd & Calaroga Ave Signalized 90.0 18 3
4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized 79.9 8 3
5 Huntwood Ave & Montana Way Unsignalized 77.5 3 2
6 Hesperian Blvd & Sleepy Hollow Ave Signalized 77.3 10 3 7 Hesperian Blvd & Turner Ct Signalized 75.0 8 3
8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized 70.0 27 2
9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized 64.0 23 2
10 Industrial Pkwy & Ruus Rd Signalized 63.9 16 2
11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized 62.9 17 2
12 Mission Blvd & Orchard Ave/ Carlos Bee Blvd Signalized 62.9 22 2 13 CA-185 & B St Signalized 59.7 16 2
14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead Way/ Dixon St Signalized 57.5 15 2 15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized 57.3 9 2
16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized 56.0 12 2
17 A St & Hesperian Blvd Signalized 55.0 9 2
38 RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE
TOTAL

NUMBER OF

CRASHES

FATAL/SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
18 Hesperian Blvd & Longwood Ave/ Skywest Dr Signalized 53.2 8 2 19 Hesperian Blvd & Tripaldi Way/
Eden Shores Blvd Signalized 50.8 6 2
20 Tennyson Rd & Ruus Rd Signalized 50.6 15 2
21 Foothill Blvd & Grove Way Signalized 50.2 32 1
22 Hesperian Blvd & West St Signalized 49.4 4 2
23 Jackson St & Tarman Ave Unsignalized 49.3 12 1
24 Hesperian Blvd & Tahoe Ave Unsignalized 48.9 10 1
25 Jackson St & Alice St Unsignalized 48.8 10 1
26 Gading Rd & Huntwood Way Unsignalized 48.1 11 1
27 Santa Clara St & Jackson St Signalized 47.5 29 1
28 Foothill Blvd & Kimball Ave Unsignalized 46.6 8 1
29 Industrial Pkwy & Addison Way Unsignalized 46.0 6 1
30 Hesperian Blvd & Oliver Dr Unsignalized 44.6 8 1

39 Table 5: Priority Roadway Segments

RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

SEGMENT
LENGTH
(MILES)

MAXIMUM

0.5-MILE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE

ASSOCIATED
NUMBER

OF TOTAL

CRASHES

ASSOCIATED

NUMBER OF

FATAL AND
SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
Tier 1
1 Foothill Blvd, from A St to D St Arterial 0.5 253.48 78 6 2 Hesperian Blvd, from Winton Ave to Cathy Way Arterial 0.75 210.09 20 6 3 A St, from 2nd St to Hesperian Blvd Arterial 2.55 177.78 18 5 4 Tennyson Rd, from Pompano Ave to Ruus Rd Arterial 0.5 133.73 51 3 5 B St, from 2nd St to Filbert St Arterial 1.0 123.99 38 3 6 Mission Blvd, from D St to Palisade St Arterial 0.5 121.9 47 3 7 Calaroga Ave, from Ashbury Ln to Panama St Collector 0.5 117.61 20 3 Tier 2
8 Industrial Pkwy, from Whipple Rd to Mission
Blvd Arterial 2.02 114.37 20 3
9 Tennyson Rd, from Hesperian Blvd to Mission
Blvd Arterial 2.45 112.07 28 3
10 Hesperian Blvd, from Golf Course Rd to
Southland Dr; from Cathy Way to Arf Ave Arterial 2.75 110.77 21 3 11 Foothill Blvd, from Hazel Ave to A St Arterial 0.43 102.81 55 2 40 RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

SEGMENT
LENGTH
(MILES)

MAXIMUM

0.5-MILE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE

ASSOCIATED
NUMBER

OF TOTAL

CRASHES

ASSOCIATED

NUMBER OF

FATAL AND
SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
12 Sleepy Hollow Ave, from Jamaica Ln to Boca
Raton St Collector 0.75 102.34 9 3
13 Winton Ave, from Cabot Blvd to Soto Rd Arterial 3.18 101.94 46 2 14 D St, from Meek Ave to 6th St Arterial 1.48 96.41 48 2 15 Grand St, from A St to Meek Ave Collector 0.62 95.56 35 2 16 B St, from Myrtle St to 2nd St Arterial 1.00 92.58 40 2 17 Huntwood Ave, from Huntwood Way to Celia St;
from Folsom Ave to Zephyr Ave Arterial 2.75 90.55 28 2
18 Mission Blvd, from Grove Way to A St; from
Palisade St to Industrial Pkwy Arterial 3.37 88.34 29 2 19 Harder Rd, from Jackson St to Mission Blvd Arterial 1.18 83.85 26 2 20 Orchard Ave, from Soto Rd to Mission Blvd Arterial 0.50 80.46 29 2 21 Calaroga Ave, from Sunny Ln to Ashbury Ln Collector 0.26 80.19 17 2 22 Clawiter Rd, from Industrial Blvd to Enterprise
Ave Collector 0.5 78.59 15 2
23 Whipple Rd, from Dyer St to Amaral St Arterial 0.81 77.91 26 2 24 E St, from Main St to East Ave Collector 0.45 67.27 8 2 41 RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

SEGMENT
LENGTH
(MILES)

MAXIMUM

0.5-MILE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE

ASSOCIATED
NUMBER

OF TOTAL

CRASHES

ASSOCIATED

NUMBER OF

FATAL AND
SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
25 Vanderbilt St, from Garin Ave to Fairway St Collector 0.50 66.47 4 2 26 Hayward Blvd, from Call Ave to Farm Hill Dr Arterial 1.69 66.47 4 2 27 Jackson St, from Santa Clara St to Mission Blvd Arterial 1.48 62.62 40 1 28 Gading Rd, from W Harder Rd to Schafer Rd Arterial 0.58 58.07 27 1 29 Santa Clara St, from A St to Jackson Ave Arterial 1.41 55.20 27 1 30 Ruus Rd, from W Tennyson Rd to Industrial
Pkwy W Collector 1.03 54.91 20 1
31 Patrick Ave, from St Bede Ln to W Tennyson Rd Arterial 0.50 51.43 23 1 32 Whitman St, from Cody Rd to Peyton Dr Collector 0.75 50.66 15 1 33 Fletcher Ln, from Fletcher Towers to Walpert St Local 0.40 49.21 17 1 34 Meek Ave, from Filbert St to Jackson Ave Local 0.53 49.12 17 1 35 Hathaway Ave, from Blossom Way to W A St Arterial 0.47 47.45 23 1 36 Soto Rd, from Winton Ave to Orchard Ave Arterial 0.54 47.45 23 1 37 Carlos Bee Blvd, from Mission Blvd to Hayward
Blvd Arterial 0.64 46.85 20 1
38 Dixon St, from Tennyson Rd to Sohay Loop Collector 0.50 46.25 17 1 39 Industrial Blvd, from Clawiter Rd to Marina Dr Arterial 2.29 46.18 13 1 42 RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

SEGMENT
LENGTH
(MILES)

MAXIMUM

0.5-MILE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE

ASSOCIATED
NUMBER

OF TOTAL

CRASHES

ASSOCIATED

NUMBER OF

FATAL AND
SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
40 Fairway St, from Carroll Ave to Treeview St Collector 0.58 45.86 16 1 41 Kelly St, from B Street to Mansfield Way Arterial 0.32 44.11 17 1 42 Amador St, from Amador Village Court to
Jackson St Arterial 0.69 44.11 17 1
43 Silva Ave, from Meek Ave to Leighton St Collector 0.26 42.81 10 1 44 Huntwood Way, from Gading Rd to Huntwood
Ave Arterial 0.14 42.39 13 1
45 Hancock St, from E 10th St to E 16th St Local 0.32 40.86 10 1 46 Bolero Ave, from Hesperian Blvd to Calaroga
Ave Collector 0.33 39.84 10 1
47 Folsom Ave, from Harvey Ave to Huntwood Ave Collector 0.50 39.84 10 1 48 Catalpa Way, from Hesperian Blvd to Miami Ave Collector 0.45 39.11 11 1 Source: SWITRS, TIMS

43 Emphasis Areas
Using information from the safety analysis and Hayward’s HIN, the project team developed seven emphasis areas
(Figure 6 and Table 4). These emphasis areas help the City know what areas need the most attention. They guide LRSP recommendations and project prioritization, so the City can maximize its limited resources to be most effective in
improving traffic safety. These emphasis areas also help Hayward play its part in creating a Safe System for
California by aligning with six of California’s SHSP high priority areas: bicyclists, impaired driving, intersections, lane departures, pedestrians, and speed
management/aggressive driving.

According to the city’s crash patterns and high-injury
network, the following emphasis areas have the greatest potential to improve roadway safety throughout Hayward:
 Pedestrian Safety
 Bicyclist Safety
 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
 Unsafe Speeding and Aggressive Driving
 Broadside Crashes
 DUI Crashes
 Roadway and Lane Departure Crashes

44 Pedestrian Safety
Citywide, 30 percent of the city’s fatal and
severe injury crashes involved pedestrians; 53
people were killed or severely injured while
walking on Hayward roads. When pedestrians
are hit in Hayward, they are most often hit
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by
drivers continuing straight rather than
turning. Tennyson Road, Mission Boulevard
and A Street have the highest incidence of
pedestrian crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
pedestrian crashes.

Bicyclist Safety
More than 90 percent of crashes that involve
bicyclists result in death or some level of
injury. Ten bicyclists (6 percent of citywide
crashes) were killed or severely injured in
crashes on Hayward roads.

Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and
severe injury bicyclist crashes.

Signalized and
Unsignalized Intersections
Citywide, 87 percent of reported crashes and
of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at
intersections. Hesperian Boulevard, Tennyson
Road and Foothill Boulevard have the most
high-injury intersections.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring at signalized and
unsignalized intersections.

Speeding and
Aggressive Driving
Unsafe speeds were associated with 20
percent of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury
crashes. Seventy (70) percent of total reported
unsafe speeding crashes involved two motor
vehicles, and 23 percent involved a single
motor vehicle and a fixed object, like a tree or
utility pole. Speeding is one of the most
frequently cited contributing factors to the
city’s fatal and severe injury hit-object and
head-on crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes due to unsafe speeding.

45 Broadside Crashes
Almost one quarter of Hayward’s reported
crashes were broadside, where the front of
one vehicle hits the side of another. Most
frequently, broadside crashes are associated
with drivers violating traffic signals and signs
or automobile right of way. Mission Boulevard,
Hesperian Boulevard and D Street see a high
number of these types of crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
broadside crashes occurring due to
automobile right of way and traffic signals and
signs related violations.

Mission Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and
Tennyson Road see the highest number of DUI
crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring due to driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
roadway/lane departure crashes

46 The following recommendations will help the City spend its limited funds to build a Safe System for Hayward (Table 6).

Recommendations are based on the identified high injury network and cut across emphasis areas and include
engineering countermeasures and policies and program
strategies to help educate community members and
improve emergency response times (Figure 6 and Table 4).

Recommendations were also chosen to be consistent with
the City of Hayward 2020 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Countermeasures are engineering
infrastructure improvements that can be
implemented to reduce the risk of crashes.

Strategies are non-engineering
recommendations that can help address
the other portions of a Safe System and
build a culture of safety in Hayward.

47 Table 6. Recommendations by Safe System Category and Emphasis Area SAFE
SYSTEM

CATEGORY

RECOMMENDATION

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY INTERSECTION SAFETY UNSAFE SPEEDING AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY / LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES Consider signal systems that provide dynamic timing to
respond to real-time traffic patterns and help prevent
crashes.

X X
Consider using intelligent speed adaptation for city-owned vehicles.11 X X
Consider adoption of ignition interlock devices to prevent city-owned vehicles from starting if alcohol is detected in the driver's breath and the use the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program.12
X

11 Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) involves in-vehicle devices that know the speed limit through accurate speed limit mapping and vehicle location data. These devices provide a warning or trigger active controls to help prevent speeding above limits. 12 An alcohol ignition interlock prevents a vehicle from starting unless the driver provides a breath sample with a breath alcohol content (BrAC) lower than a pre-set level, usually .02. Interlocks typically are used as a condition of probation for DWI offenders to prevent them from driving while impaired by alcohol after their driver’s licenses have been reinstated. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS, see www.dadss.org/) program is a collaborative research partnership between the automotive industry and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess and develop alcohol-detection technologies that prevent vehicles from being driven when driver blood alcohol contents (BACs) exceed the illegal limit of .08 g/dL.

50 Implementing Enforcement
Even when engineering countermeasures and other safe
system-aligned approaches like those in Table 6 are
implemented, road users can fail to follow traffic laws resulting in crashes of varying severity. Traditionally, communities have relied on police enforcement to promote the rules of the road and reduce traffic crashes. However, most enforcement strategies have limited long-term
impacts on changing road user behavior. The most effective enforcement strategies tend to be those that are done
transparently, consistently, and in coordination with
education or outreach campaigns, such as enforcement in school zones during school hours.

National studies of police traffic stops have shown racial bias in who gets stopped and subsequently searched, with Black and Hispanic drivers more likely to be searched than people of other races and ethnicities.13 Because of these biases, enforcement strategies should be carefully weighed for the risk that they could erode community relations and undercut broader efforts for community health and safety.

13 Stanford Open Policing Project. Retrieved from:
https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings and Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J. et al. A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States.

Hum Behav 4, 736–745 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1

The following equity-focused initiatives may complement enforcement strategies:
 Encouraging strategies that educate and promote
learning about road user behavior
 Incorporating social equity and demographic
considerations into enforcement locations to avoid
targeting communities
 Pursuing tiered fines for moving violations based on the ability to pay
 Allocating enforcement revenue with dedicated funding for outreach and community engagement
 Increase access and expand referrals to driver diversion classes and a DUI intensive supervision program as an
alternative to traditional sanctions14

14 Sandra C. Lapham, Laura Ring Kapitula, Janet C’de Baca, Garnett P . McMillan.

Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat
offenders following an intensive court-based intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2006. Pages 162-169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.08.00

51 Prioritizing Safety & Equity
Prioritization Factors
To demonstrate which intersections and roadways Hayward may prioritize, the project team developed a prioritization spreadsheet that scores each roadway and intersection on the high injury network according to its crash severity, a location-based social equity indicator score, and how many of Hayward’s seven emphasis areas were applicable to that area (Figure 6 and Table 4). The prioritization spreadsheet allows for different relative weights for each of the three factors relative to one another.

The City could consider elevating the social equity, transit, and emphasis areas above the severity score for a few
reasons:

1. Severity scores had already been applied once as
part of the HIN identification process.

2. Elevating social equity allows Hayward to invest in
neighborhoods and locations that have historically
lacked investment and that face overlapping social,
economic, and safety challenges.

By focusing on emphasis areas, the City can be proactive.

Rather than simply reacting to an abundance of reported crashes, the City can use the weighted scores to apply
systemic safety improvements at locations with the
greatest opportunity for safety benefits.

EMPHASIS AREAS

PRIORITIZATION WEIGHTS
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist
Safety
Signalized and
Unsignalized
Intersections
Speeding and
Aggressive
Driving
Broadside
Crashes
DUI
Crashes
Roadway and
Lane Departure
Crashes

52 Equity Scoring
Social equity, which includes factors such as income level, age, race, etc., scores indicate geographic areas with a high percentage of residents with transportation challenges or burdens, including less access to services, goods,
employment, medical facilities, and education. Some
demographic characteristics can make a community more
likely to lack access to transportation services and therefore to basic needs.

To prioritize social equity, this LRSP developed and
calculated a transportation disadvantaged population (TDP) index score for each census block group in the city. Using the most recent five-year American Community Survey data (2016–2020), the TDP score reviewed each of Hayward’s
census block groups for the following people and groups (emphasis areas):
 Communities of color
 Populations with income less than double the federal
poverty rate
 Populations with limited English proficiency
 Zero-vehicle households
 Seniors over 75
 Youth under 10
 Populations with disabilities
 Single-parent families

15 Overburdened renters pay more than 30 percent of household income in housing costs.
 Overburdened renters15

These scores help the City of Hayward quantify
overlapping characteristics at the neighborhood level
today and plan for equitable implementation of safety
improvements in the future. The City now has a tool that allows location prioritization to include any individual factor listed above or an aggregate score (TDP) combining all nine factors. With this tool, the City can identify and prioritize locations based on social equity variables and match those locations and the communities they serve to different funding opportunities. For more about this tool’s application, see Appendix C.

53 Priority Locations
This LRSP developed a list of 20 priority locations using a test scenario. The scenario was run with severity score as 20 percent of the final score, social equity and transit proximity 40 percent, and emphasis areas 40 percent.

Improvements at these locations have the most potential to address challenges associated with crash severity,
transportation equity, and Hayward’s emphasis areas. This list of locations represents just one weighting priority.

Locations can be prioritized in different ways, depending on the intended outcome. For example, project identification for an HSIP grant would likely prioritize based on crash severity score more heavily. Alternatively, the City may wish to prioritize locations with just one of the social equity inputs, like locations with larger elderly populations. As a result of this plan, the City may use this prioritization tool to help prioritize locations based on different factors. Table 7 and Figure 7 show the resulting top locations with the test weights. Figure 8 shows the TDP index social equity scores that input into the prioritization.

54 Table 7. Top 20 Priority Locations with Test Scenario RANK ID# LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

ANNUALIZED
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE1
TDP
INDEX
SCORE

EMPHASIS
AREA
SUM

AGGREGATED
SCORE
1 R3 A St from 2nd St to Hesperian
Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 177.8 1.5 3 83.6
2 R6 Mission Blvd from D St to
Palisade St
Arterial
Roadway 121.9 1.3 5 81.1
3 R43 Silva Ave from Meek Ave to
Leighton St
Arterial
Roadway 42.8 1.5 4 78.8
4 I15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized
Intersection 57.3 1.5 5 75.0
5 I2 Foothill Blvd/Mission Blvd &
Jackson St
Signalized
Intersection 110.5 1.3 7 74.7
6 R18
Mission Blvd from Grove Way
to A St and from Palisade St to
Industrial Pkwy
Arterial
Roadway 88.3 1.8 2 73.3
7 R13 Winton Ave from Cabot Blvd to
Soto Rd
Arterial
Roadway 101.9 1.5 3 72.6
8 I16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized
Intersection 56.0 1.4 4 71.8
9 I8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized
Intersection 70.0 1.4 6 70.9
10 R11 Foothill Blvd from Hazel Ave to
A St
Arterial
Roadway 102.8 1.4 3 69.7
10 R24 E St from Main St to East Ave Arterial
Roadway 67.3 1.4 3 69.7
10 R1 Foothill Blvd from A St to D St Arterial
Roadway 253.5 1.4 3 69.7

55 RANK ID# LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

ANNUALIZED
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE1
TDP
INDEX
SCORE

EMPHASIS
AREA
SUM

AGGREGATED
SCORE
13 I30 Hesperian Blvd & Oliver Dr Signalized
Intersection 44.6 1.5 5 68.9
14 I11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized
Intersection 62.9 1.4 4 66.9
15 R10
Hesperian Blvd from Golf
Course Rd to Southland Dr;
and from Cathy Way to Arf Ave
Arterial
Roadway 110.8 1.5 2 66.6
16 I9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized
Intersection 64.0 1.5 5 66.4
17 I4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized
Intersection 79.9 1.4 5 66.1
18 R4 Tennyson Rd from Pompano
Ave to Ruus Rd
Arterial
Roadway 133.7 1.5 2 65.4
19 R5 B St from 2nd St to Filbert St Arterial
Roadway 124.0 1.5 2 64.8
20 I14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead
Way/Dixon St
Signalized
Intersection 57.5 1.8 3 64.1
1 Severity score is calculated based on Caltrans costs of crash outcomes and is normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only crashes (PDOs). The relative severity values are as follows: fatal and severe injury crashes are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections, 190.8 at unsignalized intersections, and 165.2 along roadways; moderate injuries are 10.7; and minor injuries are 6.1. For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, could represent the equivalent of 48 PDO crashes per year, 2 fatal and/or severe injury crashes over 5 years (119.9 × 2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score.

56 Figure 7. Top 20 Priority Intersections and Roadways with Test Scenario

57 Figure 8. Disadvantaged Population Scores Used for Social Equity Input

58 Engineering Countermeasures
This LRSP recommends engineering countermeasures
designed to maximize Hayward’s investments according to the city’s safety emphasis areas. More detail on these
countermeasures can be found in Appendix A.

For a full list of the Federal Highway Administration’s proven safety countermeasures, visit
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures.

Throughout this section, look
for this shield, which
denotes that a
recommendation is a proven
safety countermeasure.

PROVEN SAFETY

COUNTERMEASURES
A key component of this LRSP, proven safety
countermeasures are a set of tools and
strategies that are effective in reducing fatal and
severe injuries on roadways. These tools
address speed management, roadway
departure crashes, intersections, and pedestrian
and bicyclist safety. Some proven
countermeasures—like local road safety plans—
cut across categories.

59 Table 8. Intersection Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES K01 Modify lane geometry: reduce multiple
turn lanes to one turn lane $ 5 X X X X X
K02 Restrict right turns on red $ 3 X X X
K03 Refresh pavement markings $ 4 X X X X
K08 Implement protected intersection
elements $–$$$ 4 X X X X
K16 Restrict parking near intersections,
also called daylighting $ 5 X X X X X
NS01,
S01 Add intersection lighting $ 5 X X X X X
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement
markings $ 4 X X X X
NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection $–$$$ 3 X X X

60 COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES NS15,
S14
Create directional median openings to
allow (and restrict) left turns and U-
turns
$–$$ 2 X X
S02
Improve signal hardware, with
improvements such as larger lenses
and back-plates with retroreflective
borders
$ 3 X X X
S03
Adjust signal timing parameters (red-
and-yellow change intervals, bicycle
clearance times, etc.) to increase
clearance times
$ 4 X X X X
S07 Provide protected left-turn phase $ 4 X X X X
S08 Convert signal to mast arm from
pedestal-mounted $–$$$ 3 X X X
S11 Improve pavement friction using high
friction surface treatments $$ 2 X X
*ID refers to countermeasure ID number. IDs beginning with NS, R, or S may be found in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual. **$ — $50,000 or less; $$ — $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ — $100,000 or more

61 Table 9. Roadway Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/ LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES K09 Implement one-way to two-way
conversion $$-$$$ 5 X X X X X
R14
Reduce travel lanes and add a two-
way left-turn and bike lanes, also
called a road diet
$ 6 X X X X X X
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers $ 1 X
R30 Install centerline rumble strips and/or
stripes $-$$$ 1 X
R31 Install edgeline rumble strips and/or
stripes $-$$$ 1 X
* ID refers to countermeasure ID number. IDs beginning with NS, R, or S may be found in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual. ** $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more

62 Table 10. Pedestrian Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES K05 Install curb extension $–$$$ 3 X X X
K11 Install continuous raised medians
or hardened centerlines
$–$$ 5 X X X X X
K12 Reduce curb radius $–$$$ 3 X X X
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk
markings
$ 2 X X
K17 Install raised crosswalk $$ 3 X X X
NS19PB Install raised medians and/or
refuge islands
$–$$ 3 X X X
NS20PB,
S18PB
Install new pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations
$ 2 X X
NS23PB Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon
$$$ 2 X X

63 COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES S19PB Modify signal timing to provide a
pedestrian scramble signal phase
$ 1 X
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading pedestrian
interval (LPI) phase
$
X
* ID refers to countermeasure ID number. IDs beginning with NS, R, or S may be found in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual. ** $ — $50,000 or less; $$ — $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ — $100,000 or more

64 Table 11. Bicycle Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID* DESCRIPTION COST**

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BICYCLIST SAFETY UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY ARTERIALS BROADSIDE CRASHES DUI CRASHES ROADWAY/ LANE DEPARTURE CRASHES K10 Stripe bicycle lane extension through
intersection $ 3 X X X
K14 Modify signal phasing to implement
a leading bicycle interval phase $ 2 X X
K18
Stripe two-stage bicycle turn queue
box and adjust signal timing
accordingly
$ 1 X
R33PB Install separated bike lanes $–$$ 2 X X
S20PB Stripe advance stop bar and bicycle
box before crosswalk $ 4 X X X X
* ID refers to countermeasure ID number. IDs beginning with NS, R, or S may be found in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual. ** $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more

65 Project Ideas
This section offers two examples of ways that the City of Hayward can use targeted safety improvements to help
reduce fatal and severe injury crashes on its roadways.

Tennyson Road has a high number of high-injury
intersections, both signalized and unsignalized (Figure 6 and Table 4). To reduce risk of future fatal and severe injury crashes, the City can install treatments designed specifically for each intersection. These exhibits demonstrate applying the recommended countermeasures presented in Table 8–
Table 11 to create a safety project concept. For more on these concepts, see Appendix B.

66 EMPHASIS AREAS
Tennyson & Baldwin
Unsignalized Intersection
CRASHES, 2017–2021
 7 Total
 3 Fatal and Severe Injury: All Pedestrians
 4 Pedestrian Crashes
 1 Bicyclist Crash
 1 Hit Object Crash
 4 Night Crashes, 2 were Fatal and Severe Injury

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon [HAWK])
NS19PB Install raised medians/refuge islands (NS.I.)
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only)
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS15 Create directional median openings to allow
(and restrict) left turns and U-turns (NS.I.)
K10 Stripe bicycle lane through intersection
K12 Reduce curb radius
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk markings
K17 Install raised crosswalk

67 Tennyson & Calaroga
Signalized Intersection | A Top 20 Priority Location
CRASHES, 2017–2021
 18 Total
 3 Fatal and Severe Injury: 1 Motorcyclist, 1 Signal
Violation, 1 Broadside
 4 Signal Violation Crashes
 7 Broadside Crashes
 4 Night Crashes
 2 Aggressive Driving Crashes

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI)
K01 Modify lane geometry: consider eliminating one
right-turn lane
S08 Convert signal to mast arm from pedestal-
mounted
S11 Improve pavement friction using high friction
surface treatments
S01 Add intersection lighting
S02 Improve signal hardware with lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
K02 Restrict right turns on red
K03 Refresh pavement markings
K10 Stripe bicycle lane extension through
intersection
K12 Reduce curb radius
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk markings
K14 Modify signal phasing to implement a leading
bicycle interval phase
K17 Install raised crosswalk
S03 Adjust signal timing parameters (red-and-yellow
change intervals, bicycle clearance times, etc.) to
increase clearance times

EMPHASIS AREAS

68 This LRSP is a living document and should be updated every three to five years. The plan must be monitored for progress to ensure emphasis area issues are being
addressed and whether new strategies are needed.

Monitoring will help provide accountability and keep
various safety partners engaged throughout the
implementation phase of the plan.

By implementing roadway improvements alongside
changes in programming, policy, and funding, the City and its traffic safety partners can work together to improve road safety in Hayward. This section identifies a comprehensive set of action items that address emphasis areas to grow Hayward’s traffic safety culture.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goal and
grouped by time: near-term actions, which the City can
initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time. Appendix D includes funding sources to assist the City in identifying opportunities to fund recommendations. Several of the
funding sources include programmatic time to allow for the additional staff time necessary to implement this LRSP’s recommendations.

Each action item has been marked with its key partners, emphasis areas, Safe System elements, and performance
measures.

69 ACTION ITEM 1

PLAN GOALS
 Identify emphasis areas contributing to fatal and
severe injury collisions to prioritize investments
in countermeasures and strategies.
 Periodically monitor and evaluate emphasis
areas and overall safety performance of the
City’s transportation network.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Prioritize and implement strategies
and improvements aligned to the
identified emphasis areas.

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term & Ongoing
 Commit to zero fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.  Review and modify City design policies, guidelines,
and standards to improve safety implementation.
 Annually review crash data to evaluate progress on
emphasis areas and for fatal and severe injury crash
frequency at all locations.
 Total and per capita city fatal and
severe injury crashes, including by
emphasis area
 Before and after data on number
of violations observed per
emphasis area
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Update the LRSP every 3-5 years using the most
recent crash data and performance measures.
 Integrate LRSP emphasis area actions and priorities
into future General Plan, bike and ped plan, other
City planning efforts, and as input to Safe Routes to
Schools plans
 Citywide fatality and severe injury
rate compared to statewide goals
 Crash history along identified HIN,
including by emphasis area

PARTNERS
 City Public Works
& Utilities
 City Development
Services, Planning
Division
 Dublin Unified
School District
 Hayward PD

70 ACTION ITEM 2

PLAN GOALS
 Define priority locations for safety improvements
for all modes of travel.
 Identify locations that directly benefit the
following populations or users: children, older
adults (65 and older), equity priority communities,
disadvantaged populations, and transit users.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Prioritize locations on the HIN for
safety improvements (Figure 6 and
Table 4)

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term & Ongoing
 Pursue HSIP Cycle 11 and SS4A grant funding.
 Review all current and planned projects along the
identified HIN for potential safety improvements.
 Track implementation of on-going safety improvements
 Grant money awarded for
safety improvements
 Annual number of locations
with implemented safety
improvements
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Take a strategic approach to pursuing grant funding
opportunities by using the prioritization tool to identify and target top locations aligned with funding
opportunities and other City priorities.
 Review developments along or adjacent to the identified HIN for safety improvement opportunities.
 Proactively track grant opportunities and pursue safety project grants with each available funding cycle.
 Conduct periodic roadway safety assessments of
locations along the HIN for unsafe speed and
automobile right-of-way violations.
 Number of winning grant
applications submitted
 Funding secured for
improvements for all HIN
locations
 Number of collisions due to
unsafe speed and automobile
right-of-way violations
 Speed survey results
 Crash history along HIN,
including by emphasis area

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(Alameda CTC)
 Hayward Police
Department
 Emergency
Service Providers
 Caltrans

71 ACTION ITEM 3

PLAN GOAL
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety
improvements that can be applied systemically.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Implement systemic and cost-
effective countermeasures aligned
to the identified emphasis areas.

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds
 Post-Crash Care TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term & Ongoing
 Prioritize and implement systemic
countermeasures and strategies focused on
addressing the plan’s emphasis areas (Table 8–
Table 11).
 Implement systemic pedestrian and bicyclist safety
improvements at HIN locations using funding.
 Number of intersections and
roadway segments with
implemented safety improvements
 Annual number of pedestrian and
bicycle crashes occurring on the HIN
 Changes in emergency response
time over time
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Consider implementing identified low-cost,
systemic countermeasures identified in this plan as
part of projects (such as during development
review, repaving, and beginning of new projects)
 Integrate systemic safety improvements into
maintenance, capital improvement program, and
other project development processes
 Apply for grant funding to support systemic safety
implementation.
 Implement advance emergency vehicle signal
preemption, which allows emergency vehicles to
break a normal signal cycle and proceed through
an intersection.
 Coordinate with AC Transit and BART on potential
safety improvements in relation to bus service and
BART station access.
 Before and after data on the annual
number of fatalities and severe
injuries on HIN
 Number of locations with
implemented safety improvements
annually
 Before and after data on emergency
response time

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Emergency
Services Providers
 AC Transit
 BART

72 ACTION ITEM 4

PLAN GOAL
 Identify transportation safety programs and
strategies using the Safe System Approach and
work collaboratively with agencies and safety
partners toward implementation.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Work with identified safety partners
to implement the Safe System
recommendations in this plan.

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Speeds
 Safe Vehicles

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term & Ongoing
 Identify partners for public education and outreach
opportunities to raise awareness of identified
emphasis areas: pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety,
motorcyclist safety, and aggressive and impaired
driving.
 Share the LRSP and its goals and objectives with
safety partners.
 Establish a Safety Task Force that includes the
identified partners in this plan.
 Successful communication
established with partners to initiate
task force
 Regular communication with
identified partners, meetings with
agendas and action items
 Regular monthly meetings of the
Safety Task Force
 Safety Task Force activity and
participation (e.g., in City Council
meetings)

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Hayward Police
Department
 BART
 Bike East Bay
 Caltrans
 Community
Resources for
Independent
Living (CRIL)
 Emergency
Services Providers
 Hayward Area
Recreation and
Park District
(HARD)

73 TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Partner with task force members to promote and
expand educational campaigns for roadway safety,
including specific campaigns for walking and
biking.
 Develop safety messaging and campaigns to
reduce impaired driving.
 Conduct or coordinate to provide educational
trainings at schools on driving under the influence
and aggressive driving.
 Establish roadway safety messaging to share
through City media accounts throughout the year.
 Develop multilingual comprehensive roadway
safety education programs to develop a safety
culture in the City.
 Revisit and revise educational campaign
opportunities based on crash trends and patterns.

 Number of trainings conducted
 Number of students participating in
trainings
 Number of public information and
outreach events conducted
 Number of attendees in each
organized training

PARTNERS
(CONTINUED)
 Hayward
Chamber of
Commerce
 Hayward Fire
 Hayward Police
Department
 Hayward Unified
School District
 Senior Centers
 United Merchants
Downtown
Hayward

ACTION ITEM 4 (CONTINUED)

74 This section presents measures the City can use to evaluate implementation progress and the success of the plan
toward a goal of zero traffic deaths.

The City can use the following measures to evaluate goal progress and safety performance improvements:
 Total number of fatal and severe injury crashes on
City roads
 Number of fatal and severe injury crashes on City
roads by the following emphasis areas:
 Pedestrian Safety
 Bicyclist Safety
 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Safety
 Speeding and Aggressive Driving
 Broadside Crashes
 DUI Crashes
 Roadway and Lane Departure Crashes
 Children under 10
 Adults over 75
 Surrogate safety measures, including:
 Speed data at locations (particularly on the high
injury network) over time
 Speed limits, including any speed limit reductions
undertaken
 Number of recommended non-engineering activities
completed
 Engagement activities held, including location of
events and number of community members
engaged
 Number of projects improving safety, including the
location of projects and each project’s budget.

Summarize the projects and any grant funding
received to fund the projects. (These may be
standalone safety projects or other project types
with a safety element incorporated, e.g., a restriping
project that adds a separated bike lane.)

75 The performance measures related to the number of
crashes on City roads would be based on the latest three- and five-year annual average to normalize for random
fluctuations in crashes on a year-over-year basis.

The City is also committed to updating the LRSP every five- years as new crash data becomes available and safety
countermeasures are implemented on the roadway
network.

Performance Measures
The City will report two sets of measures to track
performance. The first set of measures are crash frequency statistics that will help the City measure the outcomes of the investments in roadway safety. The second set of
measures track progress in implementing projects and
programs.

For the first set of performance measures, the City will report three- and five-year averages of the number of
crashes and the number of fatal and severe crashes for
total crashes and emphasis area crashes (Table 12). The City will report both total reported crashes and fatal and severe crashes; however, the City’s goals are specifically to reduce fatal and severe crashes which are life-altering events. For the statistics, the City will report the relative change in the statistics compared to the five-year average reported in the LRSP (2023). See Table 12 as an example table to fill out as part of evaluation.

76 Table 12. Three-Year and Five-Year Crash Averages by Emphasis Area 2023 LRSP 5-YEAR LRSP UPDATE
Three-Year Average
(2019–2021)
Five-Year Average
(2017–2021)
Three-Year Average
(2024–2026)
Five-Year Average
(2022–2026)
Emphasis Areas Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Pedestrian Safety 92 25 177 40
Bicyclist Safety 39 7 68 8
Signalized &
Unsignalized
Intersections
329 33 654 52
Speeding and
Aggressive Driving 235 17 450 30
Broadside Crashes 268 24 472 34
DUI Crashes 120 8 199 15
Roadway and Lane
Departure Crashes 420 30 702 48
Crashes Involving
Adults over 65
Crashes Involving
Children under 10
Total Reported
Crashes* 1,600 104 2,823 173
* total reported crashes are all crashes that occurred within the City of Hayward and are not a sum of the total crashes across emphasis areas.

77 The second set of performance measures are designed to track project and program implementation (Table 13).

These may be refined based on coordination with safety
partners identified in the plan to understand how best to measure the efforts and set appropriate goals.

Table 13: Project and Program Implementation

EFFORTS TYPE NUMBER

COMPLETED
Roadway Safety
Improvement
Projects Completed
Engineering
Non-Engineering
Programs
Completed
E.g., Education or
Data
Improvement

Report
Effectiveness of
Completed Projects
Reporting /
Transparency

For roadway safety improvement projects, the City will
describe the set of improvements, locations where the
projects were implemented, expected benefits (i.e.,
potential crash reduction or nature of reduced crash risk) based on the countermeasures incorporated.

In addition to this table, the City will report:
 The number and type of non-engineering efforts.
 Name of the program(s).
 A description of the program(s) and implementation.
 The number of people reached with the key messages
or educational materials.
 Efforts taken to promote social equity in programs.

78 Table 7. Intersection Safety Treatments
Countermeasures
ID Description
Brief Description Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Intersection
Safety
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist Safety
Unsafe Speed
on City Arterials
Broadside
Collisions
DUI Collisions
Roadway/
Lane Departure
Collisions
K01
Modify lane geometry: reduce
multiple turn lanes to one turn
lane
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.
n/a X X X X X
K02 Restrict right turns on red
The purpose of this treatment is to eliminate conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians and/or bicyclists during a concurrent walk
(or bike signal) phase. Motorists are advised of this restriction with the posting of “No Turn on Red” signs (MUTCD R10-11 series), which may be static or dynamic. Dynamic signs can be used to restrict turns during certain times of day or during certain signal phases; for example, vehicle right turns may be restricted during a bike signal phase.

0.971 X X X
K03 Refresh pavement markings
Installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections can enhance the visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them. These markings provide approaching motorists with additional
information at these locations.
25% X X X X
K08 Implement protected intersection
elements
Protected intersections maintain a physical separation between motorists and bicyclists up to the intersection. They are designed to slow turning motorist speeds to induce yielding and to improve the sight line between motorists and bicyclists to reduce conflicts between turning motorists and through moving bicyclists. n/a X X X X
K16
Restrict parking near
intersections, also called
daylighting
When vehicles are parked too close to pedestrian and bicycle crossings, they can limit the sightlines between oncoming motorists and pedestrians or bicyclists needing to cross the street which can increase crash risk. Removing parking space(s) on an intersection approach can improve the visibility between pedestrians and bicyclists with approaching motorists.

0.70 X X X X X
NS01,
S01 Add intersection lighting
Providing lighting at an intersection 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.
40% X X X X X

Upgrade intersection pavement
markings
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing
appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at
intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
25% X X X X
NS11

Improve sight distance to
intersection
Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield-controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions from the sight triangles at stop or yield-controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.
20% X X X
NS15,
S14
Create directional median
openings to allow (and restrict)
left-turns and U-turns
Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. This will address crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes.
50% X X
S02
Improve signal hardware such
as larger lenses and back-plates
with retroreflective borders
Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. 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.
15% X X X
S03 Adjust signal timing parameters
to increase clearance times (red-
and-yellow change intervals,
bicycle clearance times, etc.)
Signalization improvements may include adding phases,
lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher- risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations.

This countermeasure should be used at locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections.
15% X X X X

Countermeasures
ID Description
Brief Description Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Intersection
Safety
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist Safety
Unsafe Speed
on City Arterials
Broadside
Collisions
DUI Collisions
Roadway/
Lane Departure
Collisions
S08 Convert signal to mast arm from
pedestal-mounted
This countermeasure provides better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. It should be used at 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.
30% X X X
1: Harkey et al 2008

Table 8. Roadway Safety Treatments
Countermeasures
ID Description
Brief Description Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Intersection
Safety
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist Safety
Unsafe Speed
on City Arterials
Broadside
Collisions
DUI Collisions
Roadway/
Lane Departure
Collisions
K09 Implement one-way to two-
way conversion
A one-way to two-way conversion will generally manage traffic patterns, improve access, and change the character of a neighborhood from being a “pass-through” to a ”destination” for motorists. Converting a one-way street to a two-way street can also help reduce motor vehicle speeds and vehicle miles traveled and provide improved conditions and access for bicyclists.
n/a X X X X X
R14
Reduce travel lanes and add
a two way left-turn and bike
lanes, also called a road diet
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. This countermeasure should be used at areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes.
35% X X X X X X
R27 Install delineators, reflectors
and/or object markers
The purpose of this countermeasure is to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. 15% X
R30 Install centerline rumble
strips and/or stripes
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions. 20% X
R31 Install edgeline rumble strips
and/or stripes
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. 15% X
S21PB

Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI)
phase
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. This countermeasure should be used at intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
60% X

Table 9. Pedestrian Safety Treatments
Countermeasures
ID Description
Brief Description Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Intersection
Safety
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist Safety
Unsafe Speed
on City Arterials
Broadside
Collisions
DUI Collisions
Roadway/
Lane Departure
Collisions
K05 Install curb extension
Curb extensions decrease the width of a roadway through the physical extension of a curb line or sidewalk. Curb extensions may enhance pedestrian safety in several ways, such as by making pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists more visible to each other; by keeping motor vehicles from parking too close to crossings and blocking sight lines; by reducing crossing distance; and by narrowing radii at intersections, which may slow-turning traffic. Curb extensions also tend to allow for better placement of curb ramps and prevent ramps from being blocked by vehicles that park at the corner.
n/a X X X
K11
Install continuous raised
medians or hardened
centerlines
Continuous raised medians or hardened centerlines are roadway design treatments designed to provide access management and to separate opposing directions of motor vehicle travel at intersections and midblock locations. They can be extended across an intersection or a driveway, creating a continuous median to provide access management restricting motorist turning or crossing movements.

0.54 (all
crashes)

0.69 (vehicle-
pedestrian
crashes for
raised medians)

X X X X X
K12 Reduce curb radius
Curb radius reductions are a strategy to reduce turning speeds for vehicles by forcing sharper turns; they also create larger waiting areas for crossing pedestrians. All curb radius geometries should be designed to prevent turning vehicles from tracking over the curb which could injure people waiting on the corner.
n/a X X X
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk
markings
High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. High-visibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at non- intersection locations.

0.52 X X
K17 Install raised crosswalk
Adding a raised pedestrian crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic.

The raised crosswalk encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
35% X X X
NS19PB

Install raised medians and/or
refuge islands
Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. This will address crashes at intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history.
45% X X X

Install new pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations
The purpose of this countermeasure is to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing and should be installed at intersections with no marked crossing where pedestrians are known to be crossing locations that involve significant vehicular traffic.
25% X X
NS23PB

Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon
Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. 55% X X
S19PB

Modify signal timing to
provide a pedestrian
scramble signal phase
Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.
40% X

Table 10. Bicycle Safety Treatments
Countermeasures
ID Description
Brief Description Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Intersection
Safety
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist Safety
Unsafe Speed
on City Arterials
Broadside
Collisions
DUI Collisions
Roadway/
Lane Departure
Collisions
K10 Stripe bicycle lane extension
through intersection
Bicycle lane extension pavement markings through intersections are intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection and create a safer bicycling environment. They also help to alert motorists to the presence of bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. n/a

X X X
K14
Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading bicycle
interval phase
Leading bicycle intervals (LBIs) provide bicyclists a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LBIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give bicyclists an advanced green signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are allowed to proceed through the intersection. This extra time provides through-bicyclists with an opportunity to establish their presence in, or to clear an intersection before motorists start turning.
n/a
X X
K18
Stripe two-stage bicycle turn
queue box and adjust signal
timing accordingly
A two-stage left-turn queue box designates an area outside of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. It may be used for left or right turns. They may be useful at locations where bicyclists would have to merge across multiple lanes of traffic, would have to wait in a shared travel lane with motorists to turn, or at locations with separated bike lanes or sidepaths where it is not possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection.
n/a
X
R33PB

Install separated bike lanes
Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public.

Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area.
45%
X X
S11 Improve pavement friction
using high friction surface
treatments
This countermeasure 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. 55% X
S20PB

Stripe advance stop bar and
bicycle box before crosswalk
Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians.
15% X X X X

79 C:\Users\local_sliu\Temp\AcPublish_2392\Tennyson-Baldwin.dwg Aug 30, 2022 - 12:07pm - sliu Layout Tab: Tennyson_Calaroga Tennyson Rd & Calaroga AveHayward, CA
City of Hayward HSIP Cycle 11
N

TENNYSON RD

CALAROGA AVE
Approximate ROW
C:\Users\local_sliu\Temp\AcPublish_29464\Tennyson-Baldwin.dwg Aug 16, 2022 - 5:11pm - sliu Layout Tab: Tennyson_Baldwin_B I1: Tennyson Rd & Baldwin StHayward, CAB
Hayward LRSP August 2022
Exhibit

80 Technical Memorandum

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is working with the City of Hayward (City) to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The scope of work for this project includes identifying up to 20 priority locations to identify potential improvements and developing project concepts for up to five of those locations. This technical memorandum (memo) documents Kittelson’s process for identifying priority locations to identify potential improvements and proposes a list of 20 locations based on the prioritization methodology.

Information is organized as follows:
◼ Background
• Crash Severity/Network Screening
• Emphasis Areas
◼ Social Equity Evaluation
◼ Applying Prioritization

Background
The previous task of this project and associated collision analysis memo produced the following results, which were used as inputs for prioritizing locations:
◼ High-injury locations (roadways and segments): Kittelson screened the City’s roadway network to find the top severity-weighted crash locations, using an equivalent property damage only (EPDO) severity weighting method. Among all intersections with collision history over the 2017-2021 period, we identified 48 high-injury roadway segments (with maximum observed half-mile annualized severity scores ranging from 39.1 to 253.48) and 29 high-injury intersections (with maximum observed annualized severity scores ranging from 44.6 to 119.2) that collectively account for 75% of the City’s reported fatal and serious injury collisions.
◼ Emphasis areas: Emphasis areas represent common crash, infrastructure, or behavior characteristics that are overrepresented among the City’s fatal and serious collision history. Focusing on emphasis areas would provide the greatest potential safety improvement for the City. The following emphasis areas were identified:
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
July 22, 20221 Project# 27444
To: Kathy Garcia, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
From: Mike Alston
CC: Obaid Khan, P.E.

RE: Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization
July 22, 2022 Page 2
Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization Introduction and Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Intersection safety
• Pedestrian safety
• Bicyclist safety
• Unsafe speed on arterials
• Broadside collisions
• Driving under the influence
• Roadway/lane departure collisions

Using available collisions history, each location was identified as pertaining to each emphasis area or not – so that each location can has a score from 0 (meaning no relevant emphasis areas apply) to seven (meaning that all relevant emphasis areas apply). Priority locations were identified as aligning with emphasis areas using the rules described in Table 1.

Table 1: Emphasis Area Application at Locations
Emphasis Area Intersections Roadways
Intersection safety Applicable Not applicable
Pedestrian safety Multiple pedestrian collisions,
or
at least one F+SI pedestrian
collision
Multiple pedestrian collisions per
half-mile,
or
at least one F+SI pedestrian
collision per half-mile
Bicyclist safety Multiple bicyclist collisions,
or
at least one F+SI bicyclist collision
Multiple bicyclist collisions per
half-mile,
or
at least one F+SI bicyclist collision
per half-mile
Unsafe speed on arterials At least half of collisions include “aggressive driving” PCFs,
or
at least one F+SI collision with the
same PCF
At least half of collisions include
“aggressive driving” PCFs,
or
at least one F+SI collision with the
same PCF per half-mile
Broadside collisions At least half of collisions are
broadsides,
or
at least one broadside F+SI
collision
At least half of collisions are
broadsides,
or
at least one broadside F+SI
collision per half-mile
Driving under the influence At least half of collisions involve impaired driving,
or
at least one F+SI collision
involving impaired driving
At least half of collisions involve
impaired driving,
or
at least one F+SI collision
involving impaired driving per
half-mile
Roadway/lane departures At least half of collisions are hit object or head on,
or
at least one hit object or head
on F+SI collision
At least half of collisions are hit
object or head on,
or
at least one hit object or head
on F+SI collision per half-mile
Note: F+SI – Fatal and severe injury
July 22, 2022 Page 3
Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization Introduction and Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Social Equity Evaluation
In the context of transportation, a social equity ranking identifies geographic areas with a high percentage of residents who experience challenges achieving basic access to services, goods, employment, and/or education. For example, some demographic characteristics that would cause an area to appear higher (i.e., more disadvantaged) with respect to social equity include a higher-than-average percentage of low- income people, people with a disability, and zero-vehicle households. Kittelson calculated a Transportation Disadvantaged Population (TDP) index score for each Census block group in the City.

The TDP index uses the variables listed below at the Census block group level using the most recent available five-year American Community Survey data (2016-2020):
◼ Communities of Color
◼ Low Income (<200% of Poverty) Population
◼ Limited English Proficiency Population
◼ Zero-vehicle Households
◼ Seniors Over 75
◼ Youth Under 10
◼ Population with a Disability
◼ Single-Parent Families
◼ Overburdened Renters

The equation used to develop the intersection or segment location’s TDP index score is shown below:

𝑇𝐷𝑃 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = (𝐸𝑙𝑑 + 𝑌𝑡ℎ + 𝑁𝐻 + 𝑃𝑜𝑣 + (𝐻𝐻(𝑉𝑒ℎ + 𝐹𝑎𝑚 + 𝑅𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝐿𝐸𝑃) + 𝐷𝑖𝑠) 𝑃𝑜𝑝
where:
◼ Eld = # of residents over 75
◼ Yth = # of residents under 10
◼ NH = # of residents who identify as non-white or Hispanic (communities of color) ◼ LEP = # of households identified as speak English “not well” or “not at all”1 ◼ Pov = # of residents with income under 200% of poverty level ◼ HH = Average California household size
◼ Veh = # of households with 0 vehicles1
◼ Fam = # of single-parent families1
◼ Rent = Overburdened renters
◼ Dis = # of residents with a disability
◼ Pop = Total population

Scoring is continuous, with scores initially ranging from zero to a maximum possible score of eight based on the sum of indices. (Two categories, seniors over 75 and youth under 10 are mutually exclusive). A score of eight would indicate that every resident within the block group meets eight of the nine indicators. Each score will then be divided by the maximum score to obtain its index value relative to maximum.

This approach presents the City with an equity-focused input that prioritizes locations based on neighborhoods that stand to benefit the most from transportation investment. A higher score represents a more disadvantaged population from a transportation perspective. Scores ranged from 0.63 to 3.37 out of a maximum possible score of 8. We then assigned each intersection and corridor the highest TDP index score of the surrounding Census block group (see scores in Figure 1).2

1 Data at the household level is multiplied by the average household size for each block group. 2 If a site lies in multiple block groups, we assigned it the highest score among those block groups.

B St
E Lewelling Blvd
2nd St
MissionBlvd
Santa ClaraSt
Soto Rd
Whipple Rd
Jackson St
RuusRd
MeeklandAve
W A St
E Castro Valley Blvd
W Winton Ave
Hathaway Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Center
St
Patrick
Ave
Kelly St
Grant Ave
FoothillBlvd
Huntw
ood
Ave
Gading
Rd
Grove Way
Hesperian Blvd
Dublin Canyon Rd
MaudAve
Hayward Blvd
CampusDr
Central Ave
FairviewAve
A St
Industrial Blvd
Lewelling
Blvd
"þ92
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
238 §¨¦
580
Hayward LRSP
¯
Figure
1 BART Stations
City Limits
TDP Index (Score - Higher is More
Disadvantaged)
0 - 20th Percentiile (0 - 0.57)
21-40th Percentile (0.58 - 0.74)
41-60th Percentile (0.75 - 0.98)
61-80th Percentile (0.99 - 1.2)
81-100th Percentile (1.21 - 1.8)
H:\27\27444 - Hayward LRSP\gis\Task 5\27444_Hayward LRSP_TDP scores.mxd - malston - 2:50 PM 7/22/2022 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Data Source: SWITRS, 2022
Transportation Disadvantaged Population (TDP) Index Scores Hayward LRSP
0 1 Miles
July 22, 2022 Page 5
Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization Introduction and Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Applying Prioritization
To combine all factors, Kittelson identified the following scores for each roadway and intersection:
◼ Severity Score Index: Kittelson normalized severity scores by dividing each intersection’s severity score and each roadway’s maximum half-mile severity score by the maximum observed score for all locations. Normalized scores ranged from 0.15 to 1.0.
◼ TDP Index score and transit presence: Kittelson normalized each location’s TDP index by dividing its score by the maximum observed score for all locations, giving each location a score from 0 to 1. That score was given 75% weight and a flag for locations that are along a bus route or within one-quarter mile of a BART station (1=yes, 0=no) was given 25% to compute a normalized TDP and transit score.

Normalized scores ranged from 0.2 to 1.0. (For example, if a location had a normalized TDP index score of 0.6 and was along a transit line, its combined score would be 0.6 * 0.75 + 1 * 0.25 = 0.7) ◼ Emphasis Area score: Kittelson summed the number of emphasis areas applicable to each location (a maximum available of seven) and normalized the scores by dividing by the maximum observed (seven). Normalized scores ranged from 0 to 1.0.

For each location, each normalized score was assigned the weights shown in Table 2, resulting in scores theoretically ranging from 0 to 100.

Table 2: Prioritization Weights
Inputs
Severity Score Social Equity and
Transit
Emphasis Areas
Weighting 20% 40% 40%

The weights are chosen to elevate social equity, transit presence (as incorporated in the social equity and transit score), and emphasis areas above severity score for the following reasons:
◼ Severity scores have already been applied given that the list of all possible intersections and roadways has been narrowed to the 29 intersections and 48 roadway segments with the highest collision frequency and severity.
◼ Elevating emphasis areas over severity allows the City to prioritize locations that match high-leverage safety opportunities and apply similar, systemic treatments for improvement, rather than simply reacting to an abundance of reported crashes.
◼ Elevating social equity in the prioritization allows the City to identify opportunities to invest in safety in neighborhoods and locations that have historically lacked investment and that face overlapping challenges.

The resulting top locations are shown in Table 3 and in , which includes 11 roadways (all arterials) and nine intersections (all signalized). Appendix A presents the table in more detail.

July 22, 2022 Page 6
Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization Introduction and Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3: Top 20 Priority Locations
Rank ID# Location Location
Type
Annualized
Crash
Severity
Score1
TDP Index
Score
Emphasis
Area Sum
Aggregated
Score
1 R3 A St from 2nd St to Hesperian
Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 177.78 1.5 6 82.5
2 I2 Foothill Blvd/ Mission Blvd &
Jackson St
Signalized
Intersection 110.5 1.3 7 82.2
3 I16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized
Intersection 56 1.4 7 81.9
4 R18
Mission Blvd From Grove Way to
A St and From Palisade St to
Industrial Pkwy
Arterial
Roadway 88.34 1.8 6 81.3
5 R10
Hesperian Blvd From Golf Course
Rd to Southland Dr; and From
Cathy Way to Arf Ave
Arterial
Roadway 110.77 1.5 6 78.5
6 I15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized
Intersection 57.3 1.5 6 78.1
7 R8 Industrial Pkwy From Whipple Rd
to Mission Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 114.37 1.8 5 77.6
8 R13 Winton Ave From Cabot Blvd to
Soto Rd
Arterial
Roadway 101.94 1.5 6 77.3
9 I8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized
Intersection 70 1.4 7 76.7
10 R9 Tennyson Rd From Hesperian Blvd
to Mission Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 112.07 1.7 5 75.3
11 R19 Harder Rd From, Jackson St to
Mission Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 83.85 1.4 6 74.3
12 R17
Huntwood Ave From Huntwood
Way to Celia St and From Folsom
Ave to Zephyr Ave
Arterial
Roadway 90.55 1.7 5 73.6
13 I11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized
Intersection 62.9 1.4 5 71.7
14 R14 D St From Meek Ave to 6th St Arterial
Roadway 96.41 1.5 5 70.8
15 I9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized
Intersection 64 1.5 6 70.8
16 I3 Tennyson Rd & Calaroga Ave Signalized
Intersection 90 1.5 5 70.4
17 I13 CA-185 & B St Signalized
Intersection 59.7 1.3 5 70.2
18 I14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead
Way/ Dixon St
Signalized
Intersection 57.5 1.8 5 70.2
19 R1 Foothill Blvd from A St to D St Arterial
Roadway 253.48 1.4 3 70.1
20 R6 Mission Blvd from D St to Palisade
St
Arterial
Roadway 121.9 1.3 5 69.8
1: Severity score is calculated based on Caltrans costs of collision outcomes and is normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only collisions (PDOs). The relative severity values are as follows: fatal/severe injury collisions are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections, 190.8 at unsignalized intersections, and 165.2 along roadways; moderate injuries are 10.7; and minor injuries are 6.1.

For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, for example, could represents the equivalent of 48 PDO collisions per year, two fatal/severe injury collisions over 5 years (119.9*2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score. !!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
I2
I3
I8
I9
I11
I13
I14
I15
I16
B St
E Lewelling Blvd
2nd St
Mission Blvd
Santa ClaraSt
Soto Rd
Whipple Rd
Jackson St
RuusRd
MeeklandAve
W A St
E Castro Valley Blvd
W Winton Ave
Hathaway Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Center
St
Patrick
Ave
Kelly St
Grant Ave
FoothillBlvd
Huntw
ood
Ave
Gading
Rd
Grove Way
Hesperian Blvd
Dublin Canyon Rd
MaudAve
Hayward Blvd
CampusDr
Central Ave
FairviewAve
ASt
Industrial Blvd
Lewelling
Blvd
"þ92
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
238 §¨¦
580
R9
R6
R1
R3
R18
R8
R9
R19
R10
R14
R10 R17
R18R13
Hayward LRSP
¯
Figure
2 Top 20 Locations
!! Priority Intersections
Priority Roadways
BART Stations
City Limits
H:\27\27444 - Hayward LRSP\gis\Task 5\27444_Hayward LRSP_prioritization scores.mxd - malston - 2:50 PM 7/22/2022 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Data Source: SWITRS, 2022
Top 20 Locations
Hayward LRSP
0 1 Miles
July 22, 2022 Page 8
Hayward LRSP – Location Prioritization Introduction and Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix A
Expanded Priority Location Table
Factor Weight: 20% 40% 40%
Crash Sev.

Score Rank
Weighted
Rank # Location Loc Type Total Crash
Count
F+SI Crash
Count
Crash
Sev.

Score
TDP
Index
Score
Emphasis
Area Sum
Severity
Score
Index
TDP Score
Index +
Transit
Presence
Emphasis Area
Index
Aggregat
ed Score
(0 - 100)
3 1 R3 A St from 2nd St to Hesperian Blvd Arterial 18 5 177.8 1.47 6 0.70 0.85 0.86 82.5 12 2 I2 Foothill Blvd/ Mission Blvd & Jackson St Signalized 27 4 110.5 1.33 7 0.93 0.59 1.00 82.2 44 3 I16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized 12 2 56.0 1.38 7 0.47 0.81 1.00 81.9 21 4 R18
Mission Blvd From Grove Way to A St and From
Palisade St to Industrial Pkwy Arterial 29 2 88.3 1.80 6 0.35 1.00 0.86 81.3 11 5 R10
Hesperian Blvd From Golf Course Rd to
Southland Dr; and From Cathy Way to Arf Ave Arterial 21 3 110.8 1.54 6 0.44 0.89 0.86 78.5 43 6 I15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized 9 2 57.3 1.47 6 0.48 0.85 0.86 78.1 9 7 R8
Industrial Pkwy From Whipple Rd to Mission
Blvd Arterial 20 3 114.4 1.80 5 0.45 1.00 0.71 77.6
15 8 R13 Winton Ave From Cabot Blvd to Soto Rd Arterial 46 2 101.9 1.52 6 0.40 0.87 0.86 77.3 31 9 I8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized 27 2 70.0 1.41 7 0.59 0.62 1.00 76.7 10 10 R9
Tennyson Rd From Hesperian Blvd to Mission
Blvd Arterial 28 3 112.1 1.68 5 0.44 0.95 0.71 75.3
22 11 R19 Harder Rd From, Jackson St to Mission Blvd Arterial 26 2 83.9 1.43 6 0.33 0.84 0.86 74.3 19 12 R17
Huntwood Ave From Huntwood Way to Celia St
and From Folsom Ave to Zephyr Ave Arterial 28 2 90.6 1.68 5 0.36 0.95 0.71 73.6 37 13 I11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized 17 2 62.9 1.38 5 0.53 0.81 0.71 71.7 16 14 R14 D St From Meek Ave to 6th St Arterial 48 2 96.4 1.50 5 0.38 0.87 0.71 70.8 35 15 I9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized 23 2 64.0 1.45 6 0.54 0.64 0.86 70.8 20 16 I3 Tennyson Rd & Calaroga Ave Signalized 18 3 90.0 1.51 5 0.76 0.67 0.71 70.4 40 17 I13 CA-185 & B St Signalized 16 2 59.7 1.33 5 0.50 0.79 0.71 70.2 42 18 I14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead Way/ Dixon St Signalized 15 2 57.5 1.80 5 0.48 0.80 0.71 70.2 1 19 R1 Foothill Blvd from A St to D St Arterial 78 6 253.5 1.41 3 1.00 0.82 0.43 70.1 6 20 R6 Mission Blvd from D St to Palisade St Arterial 47 3 121.9 1.33 5 0.48 0.79 0.71 69.8 45 21 R29 Santa Clara St From A St to Jackson Ave Arterial 27 1 55.2 1.30 6 0.22 0.78 0.86 69.7 25 22 I4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized 8 3 79.9 1.44 5 0.67 0.64 0.71 67.6 5 23 R5 B St from 2nd St to Filbert St Arterial 38 3 124.0 1.47 4 0.49 0.85 0.57 66.8 27 24 R23 Whipple Rd From Dyer St to Amaral St Arterial 26 2 77.9 1.02 6 0.31 0.65 0.86 66.5 29 25 I6 Hesperian Blvd & Sleepy Hollow Ave Signalized 10 3 77.3 1.02 6 0.65 0.45 0.86 65.4 75 26 R46
Bolero Ave From Hesperian Blvd to Calaroga
Ave Collector 10 1 39.8 1.54 6 0.16 0.69 0.86 64.9
13 27 R11 Foothill Blvd From Hazel Ave to A St Arterial 55 2 102.8 1.41 4 0.41 0.82 0.57 63.9 69 28 I30 Hesperian Blvd & Oliver Dr Unsignalized 8 1 44.6 1.54 5 0.37 0.69 0.71 63.5 7 29 I1 Tennyson Rd & Baldwin St Unsignalized 7 3 119.2 1.45 3 1.00 0.64 0.43 62.9 52 30 I20 Tennyson Rd & Ruus Rd Signalized 15 2 50.6 1.45 5 0.42 0.64 0.71 62.8 39 31 R27 Jackson St From Santa Clara St to Mission Blvd Arterial 40 1 62.6 1.50 4 0.25 0.87 0.57 62.4 53 32 I21 Foothill Blvd & Grove Way Signalized 32 1 50.2 1.38 5 0.42 0.61 0.71 61.5 72 33 R43 Silva Ave From Meek Ave to Leighton St Collector 10 1 42.8 1.50 4 0.17 0.87 0.57 60.9 37 34 I12 Mission Blvd & Orchard Ave/ Carlos Bee Blvd Signalized 22 2 62.9 1.21 5 0.53 0.54 0.71 60.6 30 35 I7 Hesperian Blvd & Turner Ct Signalized 8 3 75.0 0.72 6 0.63 0.32 0.86 59.7 17 36 R15 Grand St From A St to Meek Ave Collector 35 2 95.6 1.50 3 0.38 0.87 0.43 59.3 2 37 R2 Hesperian Blvd from Winton Ave to Cathy Way Arterial 20 6 210.1 0.94 3 0.83 0.62 0.43 58.4 60 38 I27 Santa Clara St & Jackson St Signalized 29 1 47.5 1.20 5 0.40 0.53 0.71 57.8 59 39 I25 Jackson St & Alice St Unsignalized 10 1 48.8 1.50 4 0.41 0.67 0.57 57.7 48 40 I18 Hesperian Blvd & Longwood Ave/ Skywest Dr Signalized 8 2 53.2 1.13 5 0.45 0.50 0.71 57.6 33 41 R26 Hayward Blvd From Call Ave to Farm Hill Dr Arterial 4 2 66.5 1.21 4 0.26 0.74 0.57 57.6 46 42 I17 A St & Hesperian Blvd Signalized 9 2 55.0 1.43 4 0.46 0.63 0.57 57.4 28 43 I5 Huntwood Ave & Montana Way Unsignalized 3 2 77.5 1.20 4 0.65 0.53 0.57 57.2 4 44 R4 Tennyson Rd from Pompano Ave to Ruus Rd Arterial 51 3 133.7 1.50 2 0.53 0.87 0.29 56.6 66 45 R39 Industrial Blvd From Clawiter Rd to Marina Dr Arterial 13 1 46.2 1.20 4 0.18 0.73 0.57 55.9 70 46 R42
Amador St from Amador Village Court to
Jackson St Arterial 17 1 44.1 1.21 4 0.17 0.74 0.57 55.8 57 47 R34 Meek Ave From Filbert St to Jackson Ave Local 17 1 49.1 1.50 3 0.19 0.87 0.43 55.7 61 48 R36 Soto Rd From Winton Ave to Orchard Ave Arterial 23 1 47.5 1.50 3 0.19 0.87 0.43 55.5 32 49 R24 E St From Main St to East Ave Collector 8 2 67.3 1.41 3 0.27 0.82 0.43 55.4 61 50 R35 Hathaway Ave From Blossom Way to W A St Arterial 23 1 47.5 1.30 5 0.19 0.58 0.71 55.4 Factor Weight: 20% 40% 40%
Crash Sev.

Score Rank
Weighted
Rank # Location Loc Type Total Crash
Count
F+SI Crash
Count
Crash
Sev.

Score
TDP
Index
Score
Emphasis
Area Sum
Severity
Score
Index
TDP Score
Index +
Transit
Presence
Emphasis Area
Index
Aggregat
ed Score
(0 - 100)
64 51 I28 Foothill Blvd & Kimball Ave Unsignalized 8 1 46.6 1.38 4 0.39 0.61 0.57 55.2 41 52 R28 Gading Rd From W Harder Rd to Schafer Rd Arterial 27 1 58.1 1.21 5 0.23 0.54 0.71 54.6 49 53 R31 Patrick Ave From St Bede Ln to W Tennyson Rd Arterial 23 1 51.4 1.09 4 0.20 0.68 0.57 54.3 74 54 R45 Hancock St From E 10th St to E 16th St Local 10 1 40.9 1.20 5 0.16 0.53 0.71 53.1 56 55 R33 Fletcher Ln From Fletcher Towers to Walpert St Local 17 1 49.2 1.07 5 0.19 0.48 0.71 51.5 50 56 I19 Hesperian Blvd & Tripaldi Way/Eden Shores
Blvd Signalized 6 2 50.8 1.04 4 0.43 0.46 0.57 49.9
68 57 R40 Fairway St From Carroll Ave to Treeview St Collector 16 1 45.9 0.98 5 0.18 0.44 0.71 49.7 58 58 I24 Hesperian Blvd & Tahoe Ave Unsignalized 10 1 48.9 1.04 4 0.41 0.46 0.57 49.5 51 59 R32 Whitman St From Cody Rd to Peyton Dr Collector 15 1 50.7 1.43 2 0.20 0.84 0.29 48.9 36 60 I10 Industrial Pkwy & Ruus Rd Signalized 16 2 63.9 0.80 4 0.54 0.36 0.57 47.8 54 61 I22 Hesperian Blvd & West St Signalized 4 2 49.4 0.94 4 0.41 0.42 0.57 47.8 8 62 R7 Calaroga Ave from Ashbury Ln to Panama St Collector 20 3 117.6 1.51 2 0.46 0.67 0.29 47.5 55 63 I23 Jackson St & Tarman Ave Unsignalized 12 1 49.3 1.20 3 0.41 0.53 0.43 46.7 47 64 R30
Ruus Rd From W Tennyson Rd to Industrial Pkwy
W Collector 20 1 54.9 1.45 1 0.22 0.84 0.14 43.8
65 65 R38 Dixon St From Tennyson Rd to Sohay Loop Collector 17 1 46.3 1.80 0 0.18 1.00 0.00 43.6 26 66 R22
Clawiter Rd From Industrial Blvd to Enterprise
Ave Collector 15 2 78.6 0.98 2 0.31 0.64 0.29 43.1
23 67 R20 Orchard Ave From Soto Rd to Mission Blvd Arterial 29 2 80.5 1.21 2 0.32 0.54 0.29 39.2 75 68 R47 Folsom Ave From Harvey Ave to Huntwood Ave Collector 10 1 39.8 0.92 2 0.16 0.61 0.29 38.8 77 69 R48 Catalpa Way From Hesperian Blvd to Miami Ave Collector 11 1 39.1 1.04 3 0.15 0.46 0.43 38.7 70 70 R41 Kelly St From B Street to Mansfield Way Arterial 17 1 44.1 0.96 3 0.17 0.43 0.43 37.7 67 71 I29 Industrial Pkwy & Addison Way Unsignalized 6 1 46.0 0.59 3 0.39 0.26 0.43 35.4 14 72 R12
Sleepy Hollow Ave From Jamaica Ln to Boca
Raton St Collector 9 3 102.3 1.51 0 0.40 0.67 0.00 34.8 24 73 R21 Calaroga Ave From Sunny Ln to Ashbury Ln Collector 17 2 80.2 1.51 0 0.32 0.67 0.00 33.1 73 74 R44
Huntwood Way From Gading Rd to Huntwood
Ave Arterial 13 1 42.4 1.20 0 0.17 0.73 0.00 32.7
63 75 R37
Carlos Bee Blvd From Mission Blvd to Hayward
Blvd Arterial 20 1 46.9 1.21 1 0.18 0.54 0.14 30.9
33 76 R25 Vanderbilt St From Garin Ave to Fairway St Collector 4 2 66.5 0.61 2 0.26 0.27 0.29 27.6 18 77 R16 B St From Myrtle St to 2nd St Arterial 40 2 92.6 0.00 0 0.37 0.20 0.00 15.3

81 82
Both Federal and State agencies offer funding for regional and local transportation projects, policies, and programs. Because the City of Hayward has limited internal funding, this LRSP will increase the City’s ability to secure funding to implement much- needed safety strategies.

Federal Funding
Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program provides flexible funding for State and local governments’ transportation projects and programs to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments.

CMAQ money supports transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in areas designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be in nonattainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards.

See MTC’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program for how CMAQ funding is distributed within the nine-county Bay Area. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals. https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigation-and-air-quality-cmaq Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program
FHWA
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program (STP) into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The STBG provides flexible funding address State and local transportation needs. Funding may be used to preserve and improve conditions and performance on the following: Federal- aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on qualifying public roads; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital

83 projects, including intercity bus terminals. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
National Park Service
The LWCF matches grants for states and local governments to acquire and develop public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The LWCF has provided more than $16.7 billion to state and local governments to acquire new federal recreation lands. Projects can include open space acquisition, small city and neighborhood park development, and trail or greenway construction.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program National Park Service
The RTCA program supports community-led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. The National Park Service helps community groups, nonprofits, Tribes, and State and local governments design trails and parks, conserve and improve river access, protect special places, and create recreation opportunities. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm

OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS
Because the continued existence of these grant programs is at the discretion of Congress, research the current state of funding before considering these sources.

84 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
The RAISE Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, the eligibility requirements of RAISE allow project sponsors at the state and local levels to obtain funding for multimodal, multi- jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional department of transportation programs. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant
USDOT
The INFRA Grants program funds transportation projects that focus on rebuilding existing infrastructure. To be eligible, projects must be on the National Highway System; a railway/highway grade separation project; a freight project that is rail or intermodal; or improve freight movement within an intermodal facility. Most governmental bodies (e.g., unit of local government, port authority, groups of jurisdictions) are eligible applicants. Minimum awards for large projects are $25 million and $5 million for small projects.
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grants-program Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act (IIJA)
USDOT
The bipartisan IIJA provides the basis for FHWA programs and activities through September 30, 2026. The IIJA makes a once-in- a-generation investment of $350 billion in highway programs and includes the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. New programs under the law focus on rehabilitating bridges in critical need of repair, reducing carbon emissions, increasing system resilience, removing barriers to connecting communities, and improving mobility and access to economic opportunity. Many of the new programs include eligibility for local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribes, and other public authorities.

85 One program, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program, has appropriated $5 billion over the next five years, with up to $1 billion available in fiscal year 2022. Funding is available for the following activities:
 Comprehensive safety action plans
 Planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan (like this LRSP)  Projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan (like this LRSP) For a list of funding-eligible activities, visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/. For more on SS4A, visit https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.

State Funding
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a long-term transportation reform and funding package. The bill includes new revenues that address a variety of transportation projects, such as road safety improvements, street repair, transit, and roadway and bridge construction. SB 1 provides more than $5 billion annually to transportation projects throughout California.
http://rebuildingca.ca .gov/
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Caltrans
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the core federal-aid programs in the federal surface transportation act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST). HSIP aims to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads—including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land—by funding eligible projects such as crosswalk markings, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, guard rails, pedestrian refuge islands, slurry seal, and other pavement markings.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program

86 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety
OTS strives to eliminate traffic deaths and injuries by granting funds to local and state public agencies for programs that enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, and provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries, and economic losses from crashes.
https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grants
California Transportation Commission (CTC)
The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single discretionary grant program that focuses on making California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP aims to encourage active transportation by increasing the proportion of trips made by bicycle or on foot; increasing non-motorized user safety; reducing greenhouse gases; enhancing public health; and ensuring that disadvantaged communities share fully in program benefits. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program State -Local Partnership Program (LPP)
CTC
Created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 through SB1, the Local Partnership Program (LPP) annually appropriates $200 million from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. Funds are awarded for road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. LPP also funds local and regional agency projects that improve aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, and health and safety.

Consistent with the intent behind SB1, the CTC intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the State’s highest transportation needs and the need to fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program

87 Sustainable Transportation Grant Program
Caltrans
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to support the Caltrans mission: provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. Eligible planning projects must have a transportation nexus and ideally demonstrate that they directly benefit the multimodal transportation system. Sustainable Communities Grants will also improve public health, social equity, environmental justice, the environment, and provide other important community benefits.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/regional-planning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
Caltrans
SHOPP is the “fix-it-first” program from the State Highway System (SHS). SHOPP funds repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the SHS. Although SHOPP is intended for projects on statutorily designated State-owned roads, highways (including the interstate system), and bridges, it can be used for associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and State gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate that is produced by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program- shopp
State Transportation Improvement Progra m (STIP)
CTC
The STIP is a biennial, five-year plan adopted by the CTC for future allocations of certain State transportation funds for State highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. State law requires the CTC to update the STIP biennially, on even-numbered years, with each new STIP adding two new years to prior programming commitments.

CTC staff recommendations are based on the combined programming capacity for the Public Transportation Account (PTA)

88 and State Highway Account (SHA) as identified in the fund estimate adopted by the CTC. To be included in the STIP that is adopted by the CTC, projects must first be nominated by the MTC in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), or by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state- transportation-improvement-program
Recreatio nal Trails Program (RTP)
California Department of Parks and Recreation
RTP annually provides federal funds for recreational trails and trail-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the FHWA and at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Eligible non-motorized projects include acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails and recreational trail corridors; and development or rehabilitation of trails, trailside, and trailhead facilities. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program California Strategic Growth Council
The AHSC program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through projects that implement land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development and that support related and coordinated public policy objectives. The AHSC program includes transportation focuses related to reducing air pollution, improving conditions in disadvantaged communities, supporting or improving public health, improving connectivity and access to jobs, increasing options for mobility, and increasing transit ridership. Funding for the AHSC Program is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive cap-and-trade auction proceeds. https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/

89 Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program
California Strategic Growth Council
Established by Assembly Bill 2722, the TCC program funds development and implementation of neighborhood-level transformative climate community plans that include multiple coordinated greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities. The TCC Program helps realize the State’s vision of vibrant communities and landscapes and demonstrates how meaningful community engagement coupled with strategic investments in transportation, housing, food, energy, natural resources, and waste can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, advance social and health equity, and enhance economic opportunity and community resilience. The TCC Program funds both implementation and planning grants. While the program can fund a variety of projects, transportation-related projects can include developing active transportation and public transit projects; supporting transit ridership programs and transit passes for low-income riders; expanding first/last mile connections; building safe and accessible biking and walking routes; and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active transportation modes.
https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program California Natural Resources Agency
The EEM program authorizes the California State Legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. EEM projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program does not generally fund commute-related trails or similar bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. However, EEM does fund recreational and nature trails as part of storm water management or green infrastructure projects. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/environmental-enhancement-mitigation

90 Urban Greening Grant Program
California Natural Resources Agency
Part of the California State Senate Bill 859, the Urban Greening Program is funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits. To maximize economic, environmental, and public benefits, priority is given to projects in disadvantaged communities. The Urban Greening Program funds projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicle miles traveled while transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective at creating healthy and vibrant communities. These projects will establish and enhance parks and open space by using natural solutions to improve air and water quality, reducing energy consumption, and creating more walkable and bikeable trails.
https://files.resources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
Environmental Justice (EJ) Small Grants Program
California Environmental Protection Agency
EJ Small Grants provide funding to help eligible non-profit community organizations and federally-recognized Tribal governments address environmental justice issues in areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and hazards. EJ Small Grants are awarded on a competitive basis with a maximum amount $50,000 per grant. EJ Small Grants can be used for a variety of environmental purposes and to augment community engagement, health, trainings, and programmatic opportunities in underserved communities.
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/funding/

Hayward City CouncilJune 27, 2023

Hayward City Council
June 27, 2023