LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 23
TABLE 4-12 ROADWAY USER BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)
ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN PDO TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 5 (42%) 12 (24%) 149 (64%) 499 (83%) 366 (99.7%) 1,031 (81%) Motorcycles 1 (8%) 17 (34%) 25 (11%) 20 (3%) - 63 (5%)
Bicycles - 8 (16%) 27 (12%) 23 (4%) 1 (0.3%) 59 (5%)
Pedestrians 6 (50%) 13 (26%) 33 (14%) 60 (10%) - 112 (9%) Total Crashes 12 (1%) 50 (4%) 234 (18%) 602 (48%) 367 (29%) 1,256 FIGURE 4-7 ROADWAY USER BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)
Figure 4-8 summarizes the proportion of roadway user type for fatal and severe injury collisions.
Although motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians make up a small percentage of the total crashes (5%, 5%, and 9% respectively), they are over-represented in the number of fatal and severe injury collisions (29%, 13%, and 31% respectively) which indicates that they are more vulnerable roadway users. Fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians are higher than the percentages of motorcycle and bicycle crashes. This may be attributed to motorcycles and bicycles being more visible to vehicles than pedestrians due to their higher profile on local roadways.
42%
24%
64%
83%
99.7% 8%
34%
11%
3%
16%
12%
4%
0.3%
50%
26%
14% 10%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Percentage of Crashes
Crash Severity
Automobiles Motorcycles Bicycles Pedestrians
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 24
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Number of Crashes
Time Period
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO FIGURE 4-8 ROADWAY USER BY FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY CRASHES (2015-2019)
4.9 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes between 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM were evaluated to identify nighttime crash patterns. A total of 442 of the 1,265 collisions occurred during the time period and Figure 4-9 shows a summary of the total crashes and severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and severe injury) generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
FIGURE 4-9 NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS BY CRASH SEVERITY
31%
13%
29%
27%
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Automobiles
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 25
4.10 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) analysis was conducted per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors relative to property damage only collisions per the crash costs used in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Analyzer and Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners (LRSM). The weighting factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury collisions versus nonsevere injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:
EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weight x Number of Complaint of Pain Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only crashes EPDO scoring was conducted for signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and roadway segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highest crash frequency and severity. Table 4-13 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an individual collision by location type and severity.
Figure 4-10 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections, nonsignalized intersections, and roadway segments.
TABLE 4-13 CRASH WEIGHT BY CRASH SEVERITY AND CRASH LOCATION CRASH
LOCATION
CRASH WEIGHT
FATAL AND
SEVERE INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE INJURY
COMPLAINT OF
PAIN INJURY
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
Signalized
Intersection 123.7 $1.46m
Unsignalized 10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800
Intersection 195.8 $2.31m
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 26
4.10.1 Priority Signalized Intersections
Figure 4-11 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 161.3 to 480
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 87.0 to 161.2
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 54.0 to 86.9
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 31.1 to 53.9
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 31.0
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 27
FIGURE 4-10 CITYWIDE EPDO SCORING
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 28
FIGURE 4-11 CITYWIDE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS EPDO SCORING
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 29
The top two quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4-14 and graphically on Figure 4-12. Most of the locations are along arterial corridors with fewer top quintile intersections on lower-order roadways.
TABLE 4-14 TOP QUINTILE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS BY EPDO SCORE
RANK SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
1 Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr 480
2 Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr 443.4
3 Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr 361.6
4 El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave 314.8
5 Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr 299
6 University Ave & Baltimore Dr 292.8
7 El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr 196.6
8 Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr 194.2
9 Spring St & Palm Ave 193.7
10 Spring St & Allison Ave 186.1
11 University Ave & Massachusetts Ave 183
12 University Ave & Harbinson Ave/Marian St 161.2
13 University Ave & La Mesa Blvd 157.6
14 University Ave & Yale Ave 140.8
15 Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct 138.3
16 Murray Dr & Wakarusa St 137.8
17 Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Entr #1 136.3
18 Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr 131.7
19 University Ave & Allison Ave 126.6
20 Spring St & University Ave 116.9
21 La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd 101.7
22 Spring St & I-8 EB On Ramp 90.6
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 30
FIGURE 4-12 PRIORITY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Top 20th Percentile Signalized Intersections Top 40th Percentile Signalized Intersections
1. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
2. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
3. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr
4. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave
5. Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr
6. University Ave & Baltimore Dr
7. El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr
8. Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr
9. Spring St & Palm Ave
10. Spring St & Allison Ave
11. University Ave & Massachusetts Ave
12. University Ave & Harbinson Ave/Marian St
13. University Ave & La Mesa Blvd
14. University Ave & Yale Ave
15. Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct
16. Murray Dr & Wakarusa St
17. Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Entr #1
18. Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr
19. University Ave & Allison Ave
20. Spring St & University Ave
21. La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd
22. Spring St & I-8 EB On Ramp
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 31
4.10.2 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 4-13 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 16.9 to 595.5
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 7.2 to 16.8
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 4.1 to 7.1
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 4.0
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4-15 and graphically on Figure 4-14. The majority of priority unsignalized intersections are on arterial corridors with fewer top quintile intersections located on lower-order roadways.
TABLE 4-15 TOP QUINTILE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS BY EPDO SCORE
RANK UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
1 Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd 595.5
2 Jackson Dr & Nentra St 387.5
3 El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave 275.2
4 Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr 215.6
5 Grossmont Blvd & Wood St 215.1
6 Parkway Dr & Buckland St 214.1
7 La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave 214.1
8 Jackson Dr & Dallas St 209.5
9 Lemon Grove Ave & High St 200.9
10 High St & Costa Bella Dr 200.9
11 Jackson Dr & Madison Ave 200.9
12 Parkway Dr & Guessman Ave 198.3
13 Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St 197.3
14 Marengo Ave & Vincetta Dr 191.2
15 Pomona Ave & W Point Ave 191.2
16 Massachusetts Ave & N Pearson St 191.2
17 Pennsylvania Ln & Colorado Ave 190.2
18 Murray Dr & Nokomis St 190.2
19 Hercules St & Timken St 190.2
20 Culowee St & Clarview Way 190.2
21 La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr 190.2
22 Bancroft Dr & Spice St 190.2
23 Baltimore Dr & Lake Park Way 43.7
24 Amaya Dr & Water St 40.7
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 32
RANK UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
25 Spring St & Finley Ave 36.6
26 Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave 36.1
27 Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr 34.6
28 Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr 34.5
29 Massachusetts Ave & Hoffman Ave 31
30 Palm Ave & Echo Dr 30.5
31 70th St & Colony Rd 29
32 E Center Dr & Health Center Cir 23.9
33 70th St & Bruce Ct 23.9
34 Normal Ave & Schoolridge Ln 23.9
35 Massachusetts Ave & S Pearson St 22.9
36 La Mesa Blvd & Acacia Ave 22.9
37 University Ave & Culowee St 22.9
38 Dallas St & Dalhart Ave 22.4
39 Tower St & Toni Ln 21.4
40 University Ave & Palm Ave 21.4
41 Spring St & Gateside Way/Spring Gardens Rd 21.3
42 Alvarado Rd & Guava Ave 20.3
43 70th St & Adams Ave 18.3
44 Campina Dr & Bari Ct 17.8
45 Massachusetts Ave & Carmenita Rd 17.8
46 Yale Ave & Orien Ave 17.8
47 Normal Ave & Olive Ave 17.8
48 Lemon Ave & Garfield St 17.8
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 33
FIGURE 4-13 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS EPDO SCORING
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 34
FIGURE 4-14 PRIORITY UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Top 20th Percentile Unsignalized Intersections
1. Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd
2. Jackson Dr & Nentra St
3. El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave
4. Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr
5. Grossmont Blvd & Wood St
6. Parkway Dr & Buckland St
7. La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave
8. Jackson Dr & Dallas St
9. Lemon Grove Ave & High St
10. High St & Costa Bella Dr
11. Jackson Dr & Madison Ave
12. Parkway Dr & Guessman Ave
13. Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St
14. Marengo Ave & Vincetta Dr
15. Pomona Ave & W Point Ave
16. Massachusetts Ave & N Pearson St
17. Pennsylvania Ln & Colorado Ave
18. Murray Dr & Nokomis St
19. Hercules St & Timken St
20. Culowee St & Clarview Way
21. La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr
22. Bancroft Dr & Spice St
23. Baltimore Dr & Lake Park Way
24. Amaya Dr & Water St
25. Spring St & Finley Ave
26. Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave
27. Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr
28. Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr
29. Massachusetts Ave & Hoffman Ave
30. Palm Ave & Echo Dr
31. 70th St & Colony Rd
32. E Center Dr & Health Center Cir
33. 70th St & Bruce Ct
34. Normal Ave & Schoolridge Ln
35. Massachusetts Ave & S Pearson St
36. La Mesa Blvd & Acacia Ave
37. University Ave & Culowee St
38. Dallas St & Dalhart Ave
39. Tower St & Toni Ln
40. University Ave & Palm Ave
41. Spring St & Gateside Way/Spring Gardens Rd
42. Alvarado Rd & Guava Ave
43. 70th St & Adams Ave
44. Campina Dr & Bari Ct
45. Massachusetts Ave & Carmenita Rd
46. Yale Ave & Orien Ave
47. Normal Ave & Olive Ave
48. Lemon Ave & Garfield St
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 35
4.10.3 Priority Roadway Segments
Figure 4-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 35.2 to 346.2
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 16.9 to 35.1
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 10.8 to 16.8
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 10.7
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top two quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4- 16 and graphically on Figure 4-16. The majority of the priority roadway segments are arterial corridors with fewer lower-order roadways.
TABLE 4-16 TOP QUINTILE ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY EPDO SCORE
RANK ROADWAY CORRIDOR SEGMENT EPDO SCORE
1 La Mesa Blvd Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps 346.2
2 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd Saranac St to Kiowa Dr 268.5 3 El Cajon Blvd 73rd St to Parks Ave 260.8
4 Alvarado Rd 70th St to Comanche/Fletcher Pkwy 229.3
5 La Mesa Blvd Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd 193.7
6 Spring St Lemon Ave to High St 192.2
7 Spring St High St to Palm Ave 176.9
8 Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd High St to Spring St 165.7
9 Laird St Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr 164.7
10 Baltimore Dr Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr 144.9
11 El Cajon Blvd Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr 81.9
12 Parkway Dr Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr 53.4
13 El Cajon Blvd Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd 46.3
14 Jackson Dr & Lemon Ave La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr 41.2 15 University Ave Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd 37.6
16 Murray Dr Grossmont Center Entr #1 to Grossmont Center Dr 35.1 17 Lake Murray Blvd Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain Blvd/Aztec Dr 34.6 18 Fletcher Pkwy Baltimore Dr to Marengo Ave 34.6
19 University Ave Harbison Ave/Marian St to Massachusetts Ave 34 20 Baltimore Dr Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd 33.6
21 Fletcher Pkwy Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr 30.5
22 Fletcher Pkwy Bus Ct to Albertson's Dwy Entrance 27.5 23 Center Dr Grossmont Center Entr #6 to Grossmont Center Dr 25.4 24 70th St Tower St to University Ave 23.9
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 36
RANK ROADWAY CORRIDOR SEGMENT EPDO SCORE
25 Lake Murray Blvd El Paso St to Dallas St 21.4
26 La Mesa Blvd University Ave to Normal Ave 21.4
27 High St Waite Dr to Valley View Cir 21.4
28 Mariposa St/Merritt Blvd Upland St to Campo Rd 21.4
29 Boulevard Dr Lois St to Massachusetts Ave 19.8
30 Wellesley St Parkway Dr to Baltimore Dr 17.8
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 37
FIGURE 4-15 ROADWAY SEGMENTS EPDO SCORING
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 38
FIGURE 4-16 PRIORITY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Top 20th Percentile Roadway Segments Top 40th Percentile Roadway Segments
1. La Mesa Blvd: Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps
2. 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd: Saranac St to Kiowa Dr
3. El Cajon Blvd: 73rd St to Parks Ave
4. Alvarado Rd: 70th St to Comanche Dr/Fletcher Pkwy
5. La Mesa Blvd: Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd
6. Spring St: Lemon Ave to High St
7. Spring St: High St to Palm Ave
8. Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd: High St to Spring St
9. Laird St: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr
10. Baltimore Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr
11. El Cajon Blvd: Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr
12. Parkway Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr
13. El Cajon Blvd: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd
14. Jackson Dr / Lemon Ave: La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr
15. University Ave: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd
16. Murray Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #1 to Grossmont Center Dr
17. Lake Murray Blvd: Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain Blvd/Aztec Dr
18. Fletcher Pkwy: Baltimore Dr to Marengo Ave
19. University Ave: Harbison Ave/Marian St to Massachusetts Ave
20. Baltimore Dr: Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd
21. Fletcher Pkwy: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr
22. Fletcher Pkwy: Bus Ct to Albertson's Dwy Entrance
23. Center Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #6 to Grossmont Center Dr
24. 70th St: Tower St to University Ave
25. Lake Murray Blvd: El Paso St to Dallas St
26. La Mesa Blvd: University Ave to Normal Ave
27. High St: Waite Dr to Valley View Cir
28. Mariposa St/Merritt Blvd: Upland St to Campo Rd
29. Boulevard Dr: Lois St to Massachusetts Ave
30. Wellesley St: Parkway Dr to Baltimore Dr
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 39
4.11 Roadway Characteristics Screening
Roadway characteristic data was obtained for the priority locations determined for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments based on EPDO scoring. Data was collected based on a combination of information provided by the City of La Mesa, an online field assessment of aerial imagery, and field visits. The physical roadway characteristics data that was collected and reviewed is summarized below.
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Intersection control
• Number of approaches
• Presence of marked crosswalks
• Left-turn and right-turn lane configurations
• Intersection geometry complexity (offset approaches, medians, etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway surface
• Roadway geometry complexity (horizontal / vertical curves, etc.) • Number of lanes
• Posted speed limit
• Bike lanes
• Shoulder width
• Median type and width
• Number of unsignalized and signalized traffic control devices • Roadway safety hardware (guardrail, fence, etc.)
The roadway characteristics data was screened with the results of the crash data analysis to identify commonality which, for the purpose of the La Mesa LRSP, was defined as a potential connection or contributing factor for crashes and does not prove causality. The presence of commonality indicates a potential for higher risk crashes among locations with similar physical characteristics. This analysis enables the City to proactively identify locations that may have higher risk for crashes resulting in fatal or severe injuries but are not reflected in the crash data analyzed.
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 40
Potential risk factors for intersections and roadway segments based on trends consistent across priority locations is summarized below.
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Lack of raised medians and exclusive turn lanes
• Side street stop control
• Intersection geometry complexity (at-grade rail crossings, offset approaches, etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway geometry complexity (horizontal curves, vertical curves, etc.) • Lack of dedicated bike lanes
• Narrow shoulder width
• Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways without raised medians • Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways with long segments of contiguous two-way left turn lanes
• Significant number of driveways and cross streets.
The roadway characteristic data tables are provided in Appendix C. 5 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
This section presents a countermeasure toolbox that supports local needs, based on guidance from the FHWA’s 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, the California SHSP, and the Caltrans LRSM. The LRSP identifies countermeasures that could be implemented based on the roadway safety needs identified during collision analysis.
Countermeasures were organized based on the 5E’s of traffic safety from the California SHSP:
• Engineering: implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments • Enforcement: enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors • Education: education of all roadway users on safe behaviors • Emergency Response: improvement of emergency response times and actions • Emerging Technologies: application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 41
In order to supplement local City resources, this LRSP focuses on developing a toolbox of engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Future LRSP updates will include increased development of the countermeasure toolbox for nonengineering countermeasures and strategies.
5.1 Engineering
Engineering safety countermeasures were selected based on the results of the crash data analysis and roadway network screening. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the City’s Traffic Calming Toolbox from the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Several of these traffic calming measures are applicable for HSIP funding. Table 5-2 through 5-4 provide a summary of engineering countermeasures for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments consistent with the 2020 Caltrans LRSM (v1.5). A brief summary of each countermeasure is provided based on the LRSM for signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (NS), and roadway segments (R) including countermeasure number, type, name, crash types addressed, crash reduction factor (CRF), HSIP grant funding eligibility, and systemic approach opportunity.
TABLE 5-1 CITY OF LA MESA TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
LOCAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Education Lateral Shift
Police Presence Chicane
Radar Trailer Semi-Diverter
Police Enforcement Partial-Diverter
Speed Limit Signs Forced Turn Channelization
Speed Limit Pavement Legends Intersection Bulb-Out
Warning Signs Curb Radius Reductions
Turn Restriction Signs Realigned Intersection
Special Signs Roundabout
High Visibility Crosswalks Diagonal Diverter
Narrowing Lanes (Striping) Textured Pavement
Entry Treatment Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle Raised Intersection
Center Island Narrowing Neighborhood Signs
Median Barrier Speed Humps
Mid-Block Choker Speed Tables
Note: Traffic calming measures were developed as part of the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
Local traffic calming measures highlighted in bold are applicable for HSIP funding.
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 42
TABLE 5-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE CRF
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I) Night 40% 100% Medium S03 Signal
Mod.
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 50% Very High
S05 Signal
Mod.
Install emergency vehicle
pre-emption systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 100% High
S08 Signal
Mod.
Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 100% Medium
S16 Geometric
Mod.
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal) All Varies 100% Low
S17PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads P & B 25% 100% Very High
Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM. CRF = Crash Reduction Factor TABLE 5-3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE CRF
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 100% Low
NS05 Control
Convert intersection to roundabout
(from stop or yield control on
minor road)
All Varies 100% Low
NS06 Operation
/Warning
Install/upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 100% Very High
NS07 Operation
/Warning
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (NS.I.) All 25% 100% Very High
NS11 Operation
/Warning
Improve sight distance to
intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 100% High
NS20
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new signs
and markings only)
P & B 25% 100% High
NS21
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
P & B 35% 100% Medium
NS22
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 100% Medium
Note: Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM.CRF = Crash Reduction Factor
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 43
TABLE 5-4 ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE CRF
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 100% Medium R04
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Guardrail All 25% 100% High
R05
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install impact attenuators All 25% 100% High
R14 Geometric
Mod.
Road Diet (Reduce travel
lanes from 4 to 3 and add a
two way left-turn and bike
lanes)
All 30% 90% Medium
R23 Operation/Wa
rning
Install chevron signs on
horizontal curves All 40% 100% Very High
R24 Operation/Wa
rning
Install curve advance warning
signs All 25% 100% Very High
R28 Operation/Wa
rning
Install edge-lines and
centerlines All 25% 100% Very High
R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 90% Medium
R35PB Ped and Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)
P & B 35% 90% Medium
Note: Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM. CRF = Crash Reduction Factor Appendix D provides detailed information for each engineering countermeasure including:
• Countermeasure description
• Example image
• Description of where to use the countermeasure
• Description of why the countermeasure works
• Caltrans HSIP countermeasure reference
• Funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor (CRF)
• Expected design life
• Planning-level cost estimate
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 44
5.2 Enforcement
The following enforcement strategies and programs have been presented to reduce high-risk behaviors and reflect feedback received from the La Mesa Police Department. • California OTS Grants:
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records. Priority program areas related to enforcement include:
o Alcohol Impaired Driving
o Distracted Driving
o Drug-Impaired Driving
o Police Traffic Services
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Enforcement-related campaigns include:
o Distracted Driving
o Drunk Driving
o Law Enforcement Appreciation
o Seat Belts
o Speed Prevention
Figure 5-1 illustrates the primary collision factors for crashes citywide that occurred during the study period. The most common collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), improper turning (17%), automobile right-of-way violations (15%), and driving under the influence (12%).
Targeted hotspot enforcement for these PCF’s is recommended.
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 45
FIGURE 5-1 CITYWIDE PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (2015-2019)
5.3 Education
The City of La Mesa has several programs in place that provide the public with roadway safety information and training including:
o La Mesa Safe Routes to School
o La Mesa Walks!
o Active Bike Safety Workshops
o Community Bicycle Rodeo
Additional education strategies that the City may consider including in the future are:
• Local Public Safety Campaigns
Public safety campaigns provide opportunities to partner with local schools, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and emergency responders to promote awareness and education to communities to improve safety.
o Community Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Training
o The Neighbors Together Program
o Walk / Bike Assessments
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation 1 3
6 7
13 23
28 34
34 48
60 78
108
153
187
219
263
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Brakes
Impeding Traffic
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Unsafe Lane Change
Following Too Closely
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown / Not Stated
Other
Traffic Signals and Signs
DUI
Automobile ROW
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 46
(USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Education-related campaigns include:
o Bicycle Safety
o Child Safety
o Motorcycle Safety
o Older Drivers
o Pedestrian Safety
o Seat Belts
o School Bus Safety
o Teen Safety
o Vehicle Safety
5.4 Emergency Response
The following emergency response strategies and programs can improve safety and emergency response times and reflect feedback received from the Heartland Fire and Rescue. • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
This program helps train members of the community to be better prepared to respond to emergency situations. The program entails disaster preparedness, small fire suppression, basic disaster medical operations, and light search and rescue operations. • Caltrans LRSM Countermeasure S5: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
This countermeasure is eligible for 100% grant funding through the Caltrans HSIP and is used for installing and/or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption systems at signalized intersections to address crashes involving emergency vehicles. This countermeasure can be utilized for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line-of-sight between traffic signals and emergency response vehicles and for global positioning system (GPS) systems which can transmit emergency vehicle speed, direction, and turn signal status to traffic signals to provide more efficient clearance of intersections along the route, improve response times, and eliminate traffic operations issues on coordinated corridors due to use of illegal emitters.
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 47
• California OTS Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. Priority program areas related to emergency response include:
o Motorcycle Safety
o Occupant Protection
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Emergency response-related campaigns include:
o First Responder Safety
o Vehicle Safety
o Child Safety
o Seat Belts
5.5 Emerging Technologies
The California SHSP identifies emerging technologies as the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond to collisions. Emerging technology strategies includes exploring technology advancements that are new or underutilized to potentially reduce frequency or severity of collisions. Emerging technologies can be applied to roadways, vehicles, and / or users.
The City of La Mesa is exploring emerging technologies such as smart intersections and intelligent transportation systems to improve roadway safety. Other examples of emerging technologies to consider include autonomous and connected vehicles, future vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication that will connect all roadway users with the intent to eliminate human error and collisions, the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements to safety devices in vehicles, mobile applications, improvements to emergency response from drones and roadway videos.
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 48
The SHSP identifies 6 general categories for emerging technologies in transportation safety:
• Alerting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can alert drivers at risk, can reduce the risk by monitoring speed or blinds spots, and alert drivers to the situation with a visual or audible alert so that drivers can act accordingly
• Assisting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can assist a driver at risk when a collision is imminent. An example of this is lane keeping assist, which helps drivers stay in the designated lane by alerting them through a visual, audible, or tactile warning when they begin to depart from the lane.
• Protecting Vehicle Occupants: Technology upgrades by vehicle manufacturers to improve safety features in seatbelts, airbags, and vehicle structure features are an important factor in injury severity and fatality during collisions • Communicating with Drivers and the Environment: Communication between drivers and their environment is a support to alerting drivers to risk and then assisting them. This can fall in several categories, Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) such a blind spot detection, Vehicleto-Infrastructure (V2I) such as a roadway conditions warning alerting drivers to a collision ahead, and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) such as a forward collision warning alerting a driver to a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead
• Vehicle Performing as Designed: It is important that once vehicles enter the roadway they perform as designed for their full lifespan. This can be done through vehicle upkeep, maintenance and vehicle record keeping. A supporting technology for vehicle upkeep is many cars have an oil change indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need to do an oil change after so many miles
• Mobile Technology and Applications: Examples include driving apps which restrict texting and mobile application use may reduce distracted driving and TNC applications may reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 49
6 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Five (5) priority projects were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ration (BCR) analysis. To supplement local funds in implementing roadway safety projects, the priority projects identified are eligible for HSIP grant funding. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the five priority projects prioritized by BCR.
TABLE 6-1 PRIORITY PROJECTS
PROJECT
#
PROJECT LOCATION LRSM
COUNTERMEASURE BCR
1 Citywide Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
1. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave
2. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
3. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
4. Jackson Dr & El Paso St
5. Lake Murray Blvd & Dallas St
6. Fletcher Pkwy & Dallas St
7. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr
8. Grossmont Center Dr & Grossmont Center Dr Entrance #3
9. Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr
10. Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Dr
11. Murray Dr & Wakarusa St
12. Massachusetts Ave & Waite Dr
S05: Install emergency
vehicle pre-emption
systems
11.71 2
Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval
1. Spring St & I-8 EB On-Ramp
2. Spring St & University Ave
3. Spring St & Allison Ave
4. Spring St & La Mesa Blvd
5. Spring St & Lemon Ave
6. Spring St & High St
7. Spring St & Gateside Rd / Palm Ave
S21PB: Modify signal
phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
9.37 3
Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing
S6 Project Locations
1. Massachusetts Ave & Waite Dr
S7 Project Locations
1. Baltimore Pkwy & Parkway Dr
2. Jackson Dr & El Paso St
3. 70th St & Tower St
4. Lake Murray Blvd& El Paso St
S06: Install left-turn lane
and add turn phase
(signal has no left-turn
lane or phase before)
S07: Provide protected
left turn phase (left turn
lane already exists)
9.17 4 Various existing guardrail locations throughout the City of La Mesa SA – Guardrail Upgrades NA 5 Various roadways throughout the City of La Mesa SA - Edgelines NA
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 50
Appendix E provides detailed priority project summaries including:
• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Collision Factor • Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right-of-Way (ROW), and Construction (CON) phases
• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
• BCR Analysis
7 IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION
The process for implementing the La Mesa LRSP, evaluating the application of the countermeasure toolbox and priority projects, and recommendations for future LRSP report updates are described in the following section.
7.1 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP demonstrates the City of La Mesa’s commitment to proactively addressing safety needs. Priority projects will be implemented based on current City needs, local resources, and available HSIP and other roadway safety infrastructure and non-infrastructure grant funding opportunities. Private development should also contribute to implementation of safety countermeasures, where appropriate. Implementation will include a combination of a systemic approach, spot location approach for priority EPDO locations, and a comprehensive approach that addresses the 5E’s of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. When applicable, it is recommended to incorporate safety countermeasures with new development projects.
7.2 Evaluation
Following the implementation of priority projects and application of countermeasures, the City will evaluate the success of LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM for Evaluation of Improvements. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, crash history, and field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, safety partners and City maintenance crews should be included in the evaluation.
Effective monitoring of the success of a project should take place after a project has been
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 51
implemented for 3 to 5 years to ensure sufficient crash data for before / after studies and to reduce the effect of the random nature of roadway crashes. The before / after studies should compare crash data and community feedback on the safety countermeasure being evaluated.
This will help the City monitor the progress of this document’s implementation and determine if strategies are effective or if other safety improvements may be necessary and appropriate.
The evaluation should also track whether the City’s LRSP goals are being met.
7.3 Future LRSP Updates
The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and must be updated every five (5) years at a minimum for the City to maintain compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. It is recommended that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years to maintain alignment with the standard Caltrans HSIP call-for-projects and LRSM updates. This will ensure the most competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) for any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue.
This will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations. Between LRSP updates, City staff should continue to monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities. Future updates should also revisit the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP.
8 CONCLUSION
The City’s vision for road safety is to create a safe and sustainable transportation system for all users, reduce fatal and serious injuries, and improve people’s lives by creating a culture that promotes and implements strategies that advance the La Mesa zero-death vision. The LRSP goals to support the vision include:
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe injuries crashes to zero by 2025 • Create a safe travel experience for all roadway users • Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements where safety is a concern • Decrease the number of roadway collisions
• Implement proven safety countermeasures systemically to reduce fatal and severe crashes • Expand and support existing programs that focus on educating the community on safety and implementing traffic calming features
• Continue coordination with safety partner
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 52
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) performance was measured per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the crash costs used in the HSIP Analyzer and Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners. EPDO scores were calculated for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments and the top quintiles were determined for priority locations.
Top 10 Priority Signalized Intersections
1. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
2. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
3. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr
4. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave
5. Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr
6. University Ave & Baltimore Dr
7. El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr
8. Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr
9. Spring St & Palm Ave
10. Spring St & Allison Ave
Top 10 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
1. Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd
2. Jackson Dr & Nentra St
3. El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave
4. Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr
5. Grossmont Blvd & Wood St
6. Parkway Dr & Buckland St
7. La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave
8. Jackson Dr & Dallas St
9. Lemon Grove Ave & High St
10. High St & Costa Bella Dr
Top 10 Priority Roadway Segments
1. La Mesa Blvd: Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps
2. 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd: Saranac St to Kiowa Dr
3. El Cajon Blvd: 73rd St to Parks Ave
4. Alvarado Rd: 70th St to Comanche/Fletcher Pkwy
5. La Mesa Blvd: Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd
6. Spring St: Lemon Ave to High St
7. Spring St: High St to Palm Ave
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 53
8. Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd: High St to Spring St
9. Laird St: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr
10. Baltimore Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr
A countermeasure toolbox was developed for implementation of citywide systemic improvements and EPDO priority locations for the 5E’s of traffic safety which include:
• Engineering: implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments • Enforcement: enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors • Education: education of all roadway users on safe behaviors • Emergency Response: improvement of emergency response times and actions • Emerging Technologies: application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users
To maximize City resources, this LRSP focused on identifying engineering countermeasures from the LRSM for HSIP-eligible improvements for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Future updates to the LRSP will establish countermeasures and strategies for the other E’s of traffic safety.
Signalized Intersection Countermeasures:
S01: Add intersection lighting (Signalized =>S.I.)
S03: Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures:
NS01: Add intersection lighting (NS.1)
NS02: Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) NS03: Install signals
NS05: Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road)
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 54
NS06: Install / upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning / regulatory signs
NS07: Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I)
NS11: Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS20: Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) NS21PB: Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Roadway Segment Countermeasures:
R01: Add segment lighting
R04: Install guardrail
R05: Install impact attenuators
R14: Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) R23: Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
R24: Install curve advance warning signs
R28: Install edge-lines and centerlines
R32PB: Install bike lanes
R34PB: Install sidewalk / pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) R35PB: Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) The City evaluated potential safety projects based on a comparison of local roadway needs, the crash data and roadway network screening results, and the countermeasure toolbox. Five priority projects were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis based on the HSIP analyzer.
1. Citywide EVPE System Upgrades – BCR 11.71
S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
2. Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval – BCR 9.37
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 55
3. Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing – BCR 9.17
S06 Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before)
S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists)
4. Citywide Guardrail Upgrades – Set-Aside
SA: Guardrail Upgrades
5. Citywide Installation of Edgelines – Set Aside
SA: Installing Edgelines
As funding opportunities arise from grant programs, local funds, and development projects, planned improvements should be considered for application of the La Mesa LRSP countermeasure toolbox.
The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and should be updated as roadway conditions change and new data becomes available. City staff should continue to monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities. Future updates should also revisit the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP.
Appendix A
Safety Partner Feedback
A-1
LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
STAKEHOLDER PACKET RESPONSE SUMMARY
# Respondent Response
Top 5 Priority Signalized Intersections
1 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr
Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr
La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd
2 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct
Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Ent 1
La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd
Spring St & I-8 Off-Ramps
3 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr
Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr
El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr
University Ave & Yale Ave
4 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
University Ave & Baltimore Dr
El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr
Spring St & Allison Ave
Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr
Spring St & University Ave
Other Signalized Intersections Not on the Priority List 5 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Grossmont Blvd & Jackson Dr: westbound-northbound right turn does not stop at the red light. Same problem at #21 Grossmont Blvd & La Mesa Blvd;
Using Caltrans signals as a starting point, need better corridorwide signal coordination on Jackson Dr and La Mesa Blvd / Grossmont Center Dr
6 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Ctr Dr @ the Off-Ramps from I-8 7 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Lake Murry Blvd & Kiowa Dr has high amount of pedestrian traffic based on the volume recreation at Lake Murray Park
A-2
# Respondent Response
Top 5 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
8 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Jackson Dr & Nentra St
La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr
Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr
Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr
Lemon Ave & Garfield St
9 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St
Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave
University Ave & Culowee St
10 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr
Jackson Dr & Dallas St
La Mesa Blvd & Nepo Dr
Yale Dr & Orien Ave
Lemon Ave & Garfield St
11 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave
Lemon Grove Ave & High St
Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St
Spring St & Gateside Wy / Spring Gardens Rd
Lemon Ave & Garfield St
Other Unsignalized Intersections Not on the Priority List 12 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Wood St & Lemon Ave
Wilson St & Grossmont Ave
Glen St & Jackson Dr
13 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Palm Ave & Pasadena Ave should at the very least have a 4-way stop because of pedestrians at the park
14 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Palm Ave & Fresno Ave is a concern due to high traffic in the morning and afternoon. This is a 4-way stop. Enforcement in this area is a priority due to multiple residential apartments, homes, childcare, and high pedestrians. It doesn’t experience a high number of collisions but there is a high number of complaints Top 5 Priority Roadway Segments
15 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
70th St/Lake Murray Blvd (Saranac St to Kiowa Dr)
Baltimore Dr (Lake Murray Blvd to Pakrway Dr)
Parkway Dr (Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr)
Jackson Dr/Lemon Ave (La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr)
Parkway Dr (Baltimore Dr to Jackson Dr)
16 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
La Mesa Blvd (Grossmont Blvd to I-8 Off-Ramps)
Jackson Dr/Lemon Ave (La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr)
Mariposa St/Merrit Blvd (Upland St to Campo Rd)
17 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
La Mesa Blvd (Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd)
El Cajon Blvd (Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr)
Lake Murray Blvd (Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain/Aztec Dr)
A-3
# Respondent Response
70th St (Tower St to University Ave)
Boulevard Dr (Lois St to Massachusetts Ave)
18 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Spring St (Lemon Ave to High St)
Spring St (High St to Palm Ave)
El Cajon Blvd (Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr)
El Cajon Blvd (Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd)
Baltimore Dr (Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd)
Other Roadway Segments Not on the Priority List
19 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Grossmont Center Dr (Fletcher Pkwy to I-8 Ramps)
Spring St (La Mesa Blvd and Lemon Ave)
Harbinson Ave
Grossmont Blvd (La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr)
20 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
La Mesa Blvd (Grossmont Blvd to Murray Dr): This stretch is potentially lethal for pedestrians. Drivers heading west on Grossmont Blvd threaten pedestrians with their anxiousness to turn right on red onto La Mesa Blvd. The same is true of northbound traffic wanting to turn right on red onto the east 8 on ramp. Then again the same thing with drivers coming off the ramp from westbound 8. Then there’s no way for a pedestrian to enter the Trader Joes parking lot without stepping into the driveway and putting themselves in the line of traffic turning into the lot
21 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Jackson Dr (Grossmont Blvd to Fletcher Pkwy): This stretch is potentially lethal to both pedestrians and cyclists. As with the La Mesa Blvd stretch, the danger begins with westbound drivers who want to turn right on red onto northbound Jackson Drive.
The next danger zone for cyclists is the 8 underpass, which has a very narrow bike lane that’s full of rock and gravel debris (also, drivers blow through that underpass at insane speeds). Then drivers who want to turn into the shopping center on Murray Drive have their own turn lane and, therefore, treat it as a free pass, even though there’s a sidewalk with pedestrian access to the north side. Then right turn on red onto Center Drive presents another problem. On a side note, the fact that the sidewalk on southbound Jackson abruptly ends at the beginning of the 8 underpass is another problem
22 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Eastbound Navajo to Southbound 125 On-Ramp: Cyclists
beware – you’re out there unprotected from speeding cars wanting to get on the 125
23 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Southbound Fletcher Pkwy to 125 On-Ramp: Cyclists beware – you’re out there unprotected from speeding cars wanting to get on the 125
A-4
# Respondent Response
24 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Harbison Ave continues to be one of the most complained about roadways in the City due to issues with speed and pedestrian / bicycle access
Locations Near Schools/Parks with Jaywalking, High Vehicle Speeds, or Other Safety Concerns 25 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Offset intersection of Glen St and Lemon Ave can be difficult for people who walk to Lemon Ave Elementary
26 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Lemon Avenue Elementary School
Helix High School
Collier Park
Eucalyptus Park
27 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Jackson Dr corridor between Parkway Dr and El Paso is
experiencing high speeds and an inability to do enforcement due to an incorrect posted speed limit. This directly impacts Murray Manor Elementary and Jackson Park. Traffic is impacted by drop off, jaywalking, and speeding around Helix High School, mainly on University Ave
28 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Parkway Middle School
Helix High School
29 Susan Richardson,
La Mesa Parks Department
H-update title to MacArthur Park (not Sun Valley/Kuhlken Park); MacArthur Park: Areas of concern: around circular driveway entrance, large tree near playground, Community Center, Nan Couts Cottage, lack of crosswalk, sidewalk trip hazard, cars speeding uphill to pool;
Map is missing identifier letter for Sunshine Park, Porter Park (Adult Enrichment Center), and Sunset Park (missing green) Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Pedestrians 30 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Completing the many missing sidewalks on the City’s classified roadways should be the number one priority for new
infrastructure
31 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Harbison Ave had a pedestrian fatal traffic collision in December 2020 and the lack of sidewalks seems to have contributed to the cause of the fatality
32 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Allison Ave pedestrian crossing just west of the trolley tracks 33 Ryan Purdy,
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
Wakarusa St between Brier Path School and the Grossmont Healthcare District Building: hospital and district employees often cross Wakarusa with no crosswalk;
Wakarusa St near Briercrest Park: Neighborhood pedestrians cross Wakarua with no crosswalk to Briercrest Park
A-5
# Respondent Response
Top 3 Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures
34 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails 35 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails
Walking School Bus
Volunteer Safety Patrol Programs
36 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails
Pedestrian safety training
37 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
Intersection safety lighting
38 Susan Richardson,
La Mesa Parks Department
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails
Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Bicyclists 39 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
4 bicyclists injured as a result of traffic collisions in 2020.
However, these collisions occurred in locations that did not have a history of concern prior to those accidents. The City, in general, has an issue with bicyclists violating traffic laws, which is the main cause of those types of collisions
Top 3 Bicycle Safety Countermeasures
40 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Bike lanes
Bicycle rodeos / safety training
Other: Bicycle safety utility box wraps
41 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Bike lanes
Bicycle rodeos/safety training
Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Roadway Users 42 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Need more enforcement of speeding and running red lights and stop signs
43 Dinah Justice,
Mobility Commission
Lack of sidewalks and bike lanes
Motorists’ irreverence for safety
Frequent speeding and distracted drivers
Use of corridor streets to circumvent traffic on Highway 94 / I-8 Enforcements of speed limits and stop signs are not a priority 44 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Grossmont Center and Center Dr has always been a concern with pedestrian traffic due to the location of the MTS trolley station. It is also a high traffic area due to the mall and hospital entrances. Jackson Dr and Fletcher Pkwy is a very high traffic area, both vehicle and pedestrian. Pedestrians continue not to
A-6
# Respondent Response
use the crosswalks. Traffic collisions in that area, based off of data researched in Crossroads, are high. We did have one pedestrian vs. vehicle fatal collision in this area back in 2015. The area is a priority for traffic enforcement.
Important Safety Countermeasures
45 Mike Calandra,
Mobility Commission
Roundabout
Improve Sight Distance at Intersections
Road Diet
46 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Intersection / Street Lighting
Improve Sight Distance at Intersections
Safe Routes to School Programs
DUI Enforcement Programs
47 Sergeant Purdy,
La Mesa Police Department
Intersection / Street Lighting
Roundabout
Improve Sight Distance at Intersections
Road Diet
Alcohol-Drug Awareness Programs
Safe Routes to School Programs
DUI Enforcement Programs
48 Bent Koch,
Heartland Fire and Rescue
La Mesa Fire Department
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems
Intersection / Street Lighting
Improve Sight Distance at Intersections
Safe Routes to School Programs
DUI Enforcement Programs
49 Susan Richardson,
La Mesa Parks Department
Intersection / Street Lighting
Improve Sight Distance at Intersections
Road Diet
Other: Safe Routes to Parks, Pedestrian Access for Older Adults, Bike Lanes/Sidewalks
Additional Comments
50 Dinah and Paul Justice,
Mobility Commission
Want more sidewalks, bike lanes, and enforcement of laws General Issues:
Traffic volume
Traffic velocity
Inattention to traffic laws (blowing through stop signs and stop lights)
Lack of sidewalks
Narrow streets
Freeway on/off ramps
Anxious right turn on red drivers
A-7
# Respondent Response
51 Susan Richardson,
La Mesa Parks Department
Add Livable La Mesa Age-Friendly Action Plan to the list of City policies and plans supported by the LRSP
52 Ryan Purdy,
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
Want 2 prominent pedestrian crosswalks on Wakarusa St
between Brier Path School and the Grossmont Healthcare
District Building and near Briercrest Park, similar to the pedestrian crosswalks on Center Dr between Health Center Cir 53 Tuere Fa’aola,
San Diego Association
of Governments
Pedestrian Crashes: It is suggested to compare collisions to number of roadway lanes as well as posted speed and volume, if accessible. This could help to better identify scenarios where safety issues occur. For example, if you find that most crashes occur on 4-lane roads with speeds posted 40+ mph, this can help you identify, as a systemic level, the highest priority locations for interventions whether or not you have found a crash history given your analysis does not include near misses 54 Tuere Fa’aola,
San Diego Association
of Governments
Bicycle Crashes: Several crashes seem to be occurring on roads with "proposed class III bike routes" on them. Class III routes, unless combined with significant speed and volume reduction measures, do not noticeably improve safety. It is suggested that the bikeway classification should be revisited;
Suggest a similar analysis to the one noted for pedestrian crashes above
55 Tuere Fa’aola,
San Diego Association
of Governments
Other conditions such as lighting conditions, time of day, and weather should also be examined to see if there are any other major contributing crash factors on a systemic level (such as:
what % of crashes happen at night?)
56 Tuere Fa’aola,
San Diego Association
of Governments
Consider implementing the following strategies to strengthen the LRSP’s vision to promote safety for all roadway users:
• Consider quick-build/tactical urbanism improvements
that are short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions that inspire long term change. These projects can offer immediate safety relief in “priority areas” where roadway users are at high risk for collisions
• Consider implementing “Slow Street” demonstration
projects throughout the City to provide near-term safety relief from vehicles driving above speed limits
• Consider alignment with projects in the Draft 2021
Regional Plan when determining priority projects and
foster partnerships in implementation. For instance, the draft Regional Mobility Hub Network envisions
investments in active transportation infrastructure
improvements and amenities that can make it safer and
more convenient to travel around
A-8
# Respondent Response
• Continue to collaborate with SANDAG as the agency
begins to implement the Draft 2021 Regional Plan
Active Transportation Implementation Strategy
(Appendix L)
• Continue to collaborate with SANDAG as the agency
begins to implement emerging technologies that can
improve safety through the Next OS, including the
Regional Smart Intersection Strategy. Moreover,
collaborating on the collection and analysis of data is essential to inform where the safety improvements are
needed the most
1 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
STAKEHOLDER PACKET
MARCH 2021
WHAT IS A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)?
A comprehensive plan to reduce fatal and severe collisions and is required to expand future grant funding eligibility for state and federal grant programs.
Creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend prioritized safety improvements through collision analysis and collaborative input.
Addresses 5E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies. Supports the City's Vision Zero policy, General Plan Circulation Element, Bicycle Facilities & Alternative Transportation Plan, and Urban Trail Mobility Action Plan.
The graphic demonstrates the process of developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan. CLICK HERE for more information, including a walk-through video. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzdm798MoI8&feature=youtu.be
2 INFORMATION OVERVIEW
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET? Summary of key findings and results for auto, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions (Pages 3-6)
List of additional LRSP resources (Page 7) Instructions and survey (Pages 8-15) WHAT IS MY ROLE?
Your role as a Safety Partner is to provide feedback on priority locations identified through the crash analysis, in addition to known areas with safety issues that may not be readily apparent from the crash data alone. This includes areas that do not have a high rate of reported crashes but are known for having “near-misses.” Feedback received will help inform and prioritize
improvements/programs for roadway safety.
Improvements could include roundabouts, safety lighting, enhanced pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, or education and encouragement activities.
3 81%
5%
5%
9%
AutomobilesMotorcyclesBicyclesPedestrians
CITYWIDE COLLISION OVERVIEW (2015-2019)
This section provides a summary of the results of the collision analysis and is provided for informational purposes. Total Citywide Collisions: 1,265 PURPOSE: Analysis of crash data based on severity, location, and type allows for priority locations to be determined. The result of the data analysis identified 100 priority locations consisting of 22 signalized intersections, 48 unsignalized intersections, and 30 roadway segments.
Based on the priority locations, safety projects and programs can be developed.
31%
13%
29%
27% Pedestrians
BicyclesMotorcyclesAutomobiles
1% 4%
18%
48%
29%
FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only 44%
34%22%
SignalizedUnsignalizedRoadway Segment
Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Citywide Collisions by Crash Location Citywide Collisions by Severity
Roadway User by Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes
KEY FINDINGS:
Majority of crashes occurred at
intersections (44% Signalized & 34% Unsignalized)
Majority of crashes resulted in
Property Damage Only (PDO) & Non-severe injury (18% Other Visible Injury & 48% Complaint of Pain) Majority of crashes involved
automobiles only (81%)
Nearly half of fatal and severe injury
crashes throughout the City involved a pedestrian or bicycle (44%)
4 KEY FINDINGS:
Majority of crashes resulted in Property Damage Only (PDO) & Non-severe injury (18% Other Visible Injury & 48% Complaint of Pain) Majority of Fatal and Severe injury crash types include: Broadside (8% Fatal And 36% Severe Injury), Vehicle/Pedestrian (50% Fatal and 36% Severe Injury), Hit Object (25% Fatal And 10% Severe Injury), and Rear End (14% Severe Injury) The top primary collision factors (PCF) include: Unsafe Speed (21%), Improper Turning (17%), Automobile Right of Way (15%), and Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence (12%)
CITYWIDE COLLISION OVERVIEW (2015-2019)
12%
21%
15% 17%
3%
3%
8%
4%
6%
5%
6%
DUIUnsafe SpeedImproper TurningAutomobile ROWPedestrian ROWPedestrian ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsUnsafe Starting or BackingOtherUnknown / Not StatedCategories < 3% 8%
15%
26% 27%
11%
3%
8%
2%
Head-OnSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle / PedestrianOther / Not Stated 1% 4%
18%
48%
29%
FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only Citywide Collisions by Severity Citywide Collisions by Crash Type Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
5 PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANALYSIS (2015-2019)
Total Pedestrian Collisions: 112
KEY FINDINGS – PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS:
Majority of crashes occurred at intersections
(40% Signalized & 34% Unsignalized)
Majority of crashes resulted in Non-severe Injury
(29% Other Visible Injury & 54% Complaint of Pain)
17% of crashes resulted in Fatality or Severe Injury
40%
34%
SignalizedUnsignalizedRoadway Segment
Pedestrian Collisions by Crash Location
Pedestrian Collisions by Severity
26%
5%
12%
29%
54%
FatalSevereVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only
6 BICYCLE COLLISION ANALYSIS (2015-2019)
Total Bicycle Collisions: 59
41%
39%20%
SignalizedUnsignalizedRoadway Segment
2%
14%
45%
39%
FatalSevereVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only Bicycle Collisions by Severity
KEY FINDINGS – BICYCLE COLLISIONS:
Majority of crashes occurred at intersections
(41% Signalized & 39% Unsignalized)
Majority of crashes resulted in Non-severe Injury
(45% Other Visible Injury & 39% Complaint of Pain)
14% of crashes resulted in Severe Injury
Bicycle Collisions by Location
7 ADDITIONAL LRSP RESOURCES
LRSP Documents & Resources LRSP DIY: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/ Local Roadway Safety Plans and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP): https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance Office of Safety Proven Countermeasures: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/Local Roadway Safety Manual v1.5 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/localassistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf City Documents & Resources La Mesa Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan: https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/8772/Mobility-Action-Plan-forwebsite?bidId=La Mesa Bicycle Facilities & Active Transportation Plan: https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/2477/Bicycle-Facilities-Final-ReportLaMesa_OPT_LowRes?bidId=La Mesa Circulation Element: https://cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/6198/04LaMesaGPCirculation-CD?bidId=
8 NOW IT’S YOUR TURN!
Crash analysis prioritizes locations based on collision severity and frequency. Locations without reported traffic collisions are not included in the analysis. To take a more proactive approach to identifying and implementing roadway infrastructure improvements and/or community safety programs, it is important to consider locations that are known for near-misses, safety issues, or where high-risk behaviors are regularly observed even if there is no crash history. o Examples of safety issues and/or high-risk behaviors include:
Observed speeding near school zones, parks and senior centers Jaywalking Blocking crosswalks Parking in red curb zones Hills, roadway curves and challenging intersection geometrics Barriers to pedestrian and/or bicycle accessibility
INSTRUCTIONS
• The maps on the following pages identify priority project rankings, schools and parks, and pedestrian and bicycle crash locations. Your task is to provide input regarding priority project locations, potential safety measures, and additional locations, if any, where high risk behaviors cause pedestrian/bicycle safety concerns. • Please indicate your name and organization on each comment sheet in case we need to clarify your comments. • Please Submit Completed Forms to:
Phil Kern, PE Engineering Project Manager [email protected]
Example infrastructure improvements/programs:
o Pedestrian countdown signal heads o Pedestrian crossing enhancements o Intersection safety lighting More information on systemic analysis is available at the following link:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa15054/
o New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails o Bike lanes o Walking school bus o Pedestrian safety training o Bicycle rodeos / safety training o Volunteer safety patrol programs
9 PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR TOP 5 PRIORITY LOCATIONS ON THE LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE OTHER SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST ABOVE THAT ARE A PRIORITY TO YOU:
PRIORITY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
10 PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR TOP 5 PRIORITY LOCATIONS ON THE LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE OTHER UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST ABOVE THAT ARE A PRIORITY TO YOU:
PRIORITY UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
11 PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR TOP 5 PRIORITY LOCATIONS ON THE LIST ABOVE. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE OTHER ROADWAY SEGMENTS THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST ABOVE THAT ARE A PRIORITY TO YOU:
PRIORITY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
12 ARE THERE LOCATIONS NEAR SCHOOLS AND PARKS THAT EXPERIENCE JAYWALKING, HIGH VEHICLE SPEEDS, OR OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS?
SCHOOLS AND PARKS IN LA MESA
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
13 BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS OR CHALLENGES FOR PEDESTRIANS? CIRCLE YOUR TOP 3 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES BELOW:
o Pedestrian countdown signal heads o Pedestrian crossing enhancements o Intersection safety lighting o New sidewalks, multi-use paths and trails o Walking School Bus o Pedestrian safety training o Volunteer safety patrol programs o Other (Please List): _____________________
Citywide Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019)
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
14 BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS OR CHALLENGES FOR BICYCLISTS? CIRCLE YOUR TOP 3 BICYCLE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES BELOW:
o Bike lanes o Bicycle rodeos / safety training o Volunteer safety patrol programs o Other (Please List): ____________________ Citywide Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
NAME/ORGANIZATION:
15 ADDITIONAL AREAS OF CONCERN AND SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS OR CHALLENGES FOR ROADWAY USERS?
SELECT THE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU o EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION SYSTEMS o EDGELINES AND CENTERLINES o CHEVRON WARNING SIGNS ALONG CURVES o ROAD DIET o INTERSECTION / STREET LIGHTING o ALCOHOL-DRUG AWARENESS PROGRAMS o ROUNDABOUT o SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS o IMPROVE SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS o DUI ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS o GUARDRAILS o OTHER (PLEASE LIST): NAME / ORGANIZATION:
Appendix B
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings
B-1
B-2
B-3
Appendix C
Roadway Characteristics Data Tables
Rank Priority Signalized Intersection Control Number of approaches Presence of Offset Approach Marked X-Walk (Intersection Leg) Exclusive LT Exclusive RT Median presence (Intersection Leg) 1 Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr Signal 4 - North/South/East/West All NB/SB/EB South/East/West2 Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr Signal 4 - All All NB/SB/EB All3 Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr Signal 4 - All All NB/EB East/West4 El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave Signal 4 - All EB/WB - East/West5 Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr Signal 4 - All All EB -6 University Ave & Baltimore Dr Signal 3 - South/West NB/EB SB/EB -7 El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr Signal 4 - South/West All All All8 Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr Signal 4 - All All - -9 Spring St & Palm Ave Signal 4 - South/West All - - 10 Spring St & Allison Ave Signal 4 - All All SB/WB West11 University Ave & Massachusetts Ave Signal 4 - All All NB/WB East/West12 University Ave & Harbinson Ave/Marian St Signal 4 - All EB/WB - East/West13 University Ave & La Mesa Blvd Signal 4 - North EB/WB NB East/West14 University Ave & Yale Ave Signal 4 - All NB/EB/WB NB All15 Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct Signal 3 - South/East NB/WB NB East/West16 Murray Dr & Wakarusa St Signal 3 - North EB WB -17 Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Entr #1 Signal 4 - East/West EB/WB SB All18 Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr Signal 3 - West SB/EB SB -19 University Ave & Allison Ave Signal 3 - All SB/WB WB North/South20 Spring St & University Ave Signal 4 - South/East All SB/EB/WB East/West21 La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd Signal 3 - All All NB/SB South/East22 Spring St & I-8 EB On Ramp Signal 3 - - SB NB North/South Priority Signalized Intersections Roadway Characteristics Data
C-1
Rank Priority Unsignalized Intersection Control
Number of
approaches
Presence of Offset
Approach
Marked X-Walk
(Intersection Leg) Exclusive LT
Exclusive
RT
Median presence
(Intersection Leg) Additional Notes
1 Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd Side Street Stop 4 - - NB/SB - North/South Reconfiguration may be
needed based on Safety
Partner Feedback
2 Jackson Dr & Nentra St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 3 El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - EB/WB - East/West - 4 Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 5 Grossmont Blvd & Wood St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - East/West East/West Leg TWLT 6 Parkway Dr & Buckland St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 7 La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - Reconfiguration may be
needed based on Safety
Partner Feedback
8 Jackson Dr & Dallas St 4-Way Stop 3 - North/South/East/West NB/SB - - - 9 Lemon Grove Ave & High St 3-Way Stop 3 - - - NB - -
10 High St & Costa Bella Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 11 Jackson Dr & Madison Ave Side Street Stop 3 - North - - - 12 Parkway Dr & Guessman Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 13 Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 14 Marengo Ave & Vincetta Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 15 Pomona Ave & W Point Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 16 Massachusetts Ave & N Pearson St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 17 Pennsylvania Ln & Colorado Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 18 Murray Dr & Nokomis St Side Street Stop 3 - - EB - - - 19 Hercules St & Timken St 4-Way Stop 3 - - - - - -
20 Culowee St & Clarview Way Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 21 La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - Nebo Dr is one way in 22 Bancroft Dr & Spice St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 23 Baltimore Dr & Lake Park Way 4-Way Stop 3 - - NB/SB - North/South - 24 Amaya Dr & Water St Side Street Stop 3 - - WB EB - West Leg TWLT 25 Spring St & Finley Ave Side Street Stop 3 - -SB- - - 26 Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave 3-Way Stop 3 - - - - - -27 Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - NB/SB NB South - 28 Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 29 Massachusetts Ave & Hoffman Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 30 Palm Ave & Echo Dr Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - -
31 70th St & Colony Rd Side Street Stop 3 - - SB - - -
32 E Center Dr & Health Center Cir 4-Way Stop 3 - North/South/East/West EB/WB - - - 33 70th St & Bruce Ct Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 34 Normal Ave & Schoolridge Ln Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - - 35 Massachusetts Ave & S Pearson St Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT Priority Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Characteristics Data
C-2
Rank Priority Unsignalized Intersection Control
Number of
approaches
Presence of Offset
Approach
Marked X-Walk
(Intersection Leg) Exclusive LT
Exclusive
RT
Median presence
(Intersection Leg) Additional Notes
36 La Mesa Blvd & Acacia Ave 4-Way Stop 3 - North/South/East/West - - - - 37 University Ave & Culowee St 3-Way Stop 3 - - NB/SB - North/South -38 Dallas St & Dalhart Ave 3-Way Stop 3 - - - - - - 39 Tower St & Toni Ln 3-Way Stop 3 - South - - - -
40 University Ave & Palm Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - East/West Leg TWLT 41 Spring St & Gateside Rd/Spring Gardens Rd Side Street Stop 3 - - SB - South -42 Alvarado Rd & Guava Ave 3-Way Stop 3 - - - - - - 43 70th St & Adams Ave Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 44 Campina Dr & Bari Ct Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - -
45 Massachusetts Ave & Carmenita Rd Side Street Stop 3 - - - - - North/South Leg TWLT 46 Yale Ave & Orien Ave 4-Way Stop 3 - - - - - -
47 Normal Ave & Olive Ave 4-Way Stop 3 - North/South/East/West - - - - 48 Lemon Ave & Garfield St 4-Way Stop 3 - North/South/East/West - - - - Priority Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Characteristics Data
C-3
Unsignalized Signalized
1 La Mesa Blvd: Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps A Asphalt Horizontal 4 35 - - - - 2 - TWLT in between roadway segment A Asphalt Flat 4 35 1 - Raised, 3' - 12' 1 1 - -B Asphalt Flat 5 35 - - - - 1 Fence I-5 EB Off-ramp to I-8 WB On-ramp C Asphalt Flat 5 35 - - Raised, 6' - 22' 2 - - NB lane merge and SB bike lane turns to right turn lane D Asphalt Flat 4 35 2 - Raised, 6' - 22' - 1 - Bike lanes begin at Church entrance (700' North of Parkway Dr) 3 El Cajon Blvd: 73rd St to Parks Ave A Asphalt Flat 4 35 2 - Raised, 5' - 16' 5 2 - Areas of guardrail north of train tracks along ECR4 Alvarado Rd: 70th St to Comanche/Fletcher Pkwy A Asphalt Horizontal 2 35 - - - 1 2 -5 La Mesa Blvd: Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd A Asphalt Flat 4 35 - - Raised, 3' - 16' - 2 - TWLT in between gaps of median A Asphalt Flat 4 35 - - - 2 1 - TWLT in between roadway segment B Asphalt Flat 4 35 2 - Raised, 14' - 1 - Bike lanes from High St intersection to 1,000' northbound and 500' southbound 7 Spring St: High St to Palm Ave A Asphalt Horizontal 4 40 - - - 6 - - A Asphalt Horizontal 2 45 - 7' - 4 1
B Asphalt Vertical 2 25 - - - - - -
9 Laird St: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 25 - - - 3 - - Residential street, on-street parking multiple curves driveways and side street control devices 12 Parkway Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 35 - - - - 2 - Speed humps along this segment. On street parking on the north side along residential. 13 El Cajon Blvd: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd A Asphalt Horizontal 4 35 2 - Raised, 5 - 16' - 2 - Multiple commercial driveways, parking on both sides.
A Asphalt Flat 2 25 - - - 2 1 - Jackson from La Mesa Boulevard to Lemon Avenue intersection. School zone, parking on both sides of the street.
B Asphalt Flat / Vertical 2 35 - - - 1 1 - Lemon Avenue from Jackson to Bancroft Drive. Slight verticle shift. 15 University Ave: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd A Asphalt Flat 4 35 - - Raised, 5 - 16' 3 2 - Multiple commercial driveways, parking on both sides. 17 Lake Murray Blvd: Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain Blvd/Aztec Dr A Asphalt Horizontal 4 35 2 - Raised, 6' - 22" - 2 - Multiple driveways for commercial 18 Fletcher Pkwy: Baltimore Dr to Marengo Ave A Asphalt Horizontal 6 45 2 - Rasied, 3' - 28' - 2 - One driveway for commercial, large landscaped median19 University Ave: Harbison Ave/Marian St to Massachusetts Ave A Asphalt Horizontal 4 35 2 - Rasied, 4' - 18' - 2 - Multiple driveways for commercial 23 Center Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #6 to Grossmont Center Dr A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 3 25 2 - - 2 2 - TWLT - Speed limit based on adjacent segment 24 70th St: Tower St to University Ave A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 35 2 - - - 2 - TWLT throughout segment, driveways for residential and on street parking. School zone near Tower Street 26 La Mesa Blvd: University Ave to Normal Ave A Asphalt Horizontal 2 25 - - - - 3 - School zone present, tight street with multiple residential and commercial driveways27 High St: Waite Dr to Valley View Cir A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 30 - 2 - 6' - 3 - - Speed humps along this segment 28 Mariposa St/Merritt Blvd: Upland St to Campo Rd A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 25 - 2 - 6' - 6 - - Steep hill with surrounding residential. The hill has many curves and several side streets. 29 Boulevard Dr: Lois St to Massachusetts Ave A Asphalt Horizontal 2 25 - - - 2 - - Parking on south side of street, narrow roadway with residential fronting 30 Wellesley St: Parkway Dr to Baltimore Dr A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 2 25 - - - 4 - - Residential street, on-street parking multiple curves driveways and side street control devices *Please note 'Segment' column is determined currently by geometric/roadway changes e.g. lane drop/gain. Traffic control devices include the beginning and end of the segment. 16 Murray Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #1 to Grossmont Center Dr14 Jackson Dr & Lemon Ave: La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr 25 Lake Murray Blvd: El Paso St to Dallas St20 Baltimore Dr: Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd 21 Fletcher Pkwy: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr22 Fletcher Pkwy: Bus Ct to Albertson's Dwy Entrance Priority Roadway Segments Roadway Characteristics Data
Notes
Roadside
Safety
Hardware
Rank Priority Roadway Segment Segment* Roadway Surface Roadway Geometry # Lanes Bike Lanes 2 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd: Saranac St to Kiowa Dr6 Spring St: Lemon Ave to High St8 Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd: High St to Spring St Shoulder
(width) Median (type, width) Posted Traffic Control Devices Present Speed Flat 4
1 - Raised, 6' - 22' 3 2 -
11 El Cajon Blvd: Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr10 Baltimore Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr A Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical 4 35 A Asphalt
Raised median throughout, surrounding commercial and residential uses. Bike lane on east side of the roadway, parking on west side. Driveways and side street stop control. 35 2 8' Raised, 6' - 22' - 2 - Shoulder is on street parking. Commercial driveways present.
A 4 35 2 -
1 - TWLT throughout segment, driveways for mall/commercial areas Asphalt Horizontal / Vertical Raised, 6' - 18" - 2 Fence Fence over Interstate 8 A Asphalt Horizontal 4 40 - - - 1
- Multiple driveways for commercial
A Asphalt Vertical 6- - 45 2 Raised, 12' - 24" 2 -
A Asphalt Flat 6 45 2 - Raised, 6' - 24" - 2
A Asphalt Vertical 4 35 2 - Raised, 6' - 18" - 2 - Multiple commercial driveways
Appendix D
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of La Mesa – Traffic Calming Toolbox .......................................................................................... 4 Education ................................................................................................................................... 5 Police Presence .......................................................................................................................... 6 Radar Trailer............................................................................................................................... 7 Police Enforcement.................................................................................................................... 8 Speed Limit Signs........................................................................................................................ 9 Speed Limit Pavement Legends............................................................................................... 10 Warning Signs........................................................................................................................... 11 Turn Restrictions via Signs ....................................................................................................... 12 Special Signs............................................................................................................................. 13 High Visibility Crosswalks......................................................................................................... 14 Narrowing Lanes (Striping)....................................................................................................... 15 Entry Treatment....................................................................................................................... 16 Traffic Circle ............................................................................................................................. 17 Center island Narrowing .......................................................................................................... 18 Median Barrier......................................................................................................................... 19 Mid-Block Choker..................................................................................................................... 20 Lateral Shift .............................................................................................................................. 21 Chicane..................................................................................................................................... 22 Semi-Diverter ........................................................................................................................... 23 Partial Diverter......................................................................................................................... 24 Forced Turn Channelization ..................................................................................................... 25 Intersection Bulb-Out............................................................................................................... 26 Curb Radius Reduction............................................................................................................. 27 Realigned Intersection ............................................................................................................. 28 Roundabout.............................................................................................................................. 29 Diagonal Diverter ..................................................................................................................... 30 Textured Pavement.................................................................................................................. 31
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-2
Raised Crosswalk...................................................................................................................... 32 Raised Intersection................................................................................................................... 33 Neighborhood Signs................................................................................................................. 34 Local Road Safety Manual Engineering Countermeasures ..........................................................39 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures..........................................................................................40 S01: Add Intersection Lighting (S.I.)......................................................................................... 40 S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or Operation)..................... 41 S05: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems............................................................. 42 S08: Convert Signal to Mast Arm (From Pedestal-Mounted).................................................. 43 S16: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal)......................................................... 44 S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads ................................................................ 45 Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures ....................................................................................46 NS01: Add Intersection Lighting (NS.I.).................................................................................... 46 NS03: Install Signals ................................................................................................................. 47 NS05: Convert Intersection To Roundabout (From 2-Way Stop Control or Yield Control) ..... 48 NS06: Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning/Regulatory Signs ....................................................................................................... 49 NS07: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS.I).......................................................... 50 NS11: Improve Sight Distance to Intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)..................................... 51 NS20PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New Signs and Markings Only) .................................................................................................................................................. 52 NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (With Enhanced Safety Features) ....................................................................................................................... 53 NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).................................................... 54 Roadway Countermeasures.....................................................................................................................55 R01: Add Segment Lighting ...................................................................................................... 55 R04: Install Guardrail................................................................................................................ 56 R05: Install Impact Attenuators............................................................................................... 57 R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two Way Left-Turn and Bike Lanes) .................................................................................................................................................. 58 R23: Install Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves..................................................................... 59
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-3
R24: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs............................................................................... 60 R28: Install Edge-Lines and Centerlines................................................................................... 61 R32PB: Install Bike Lanes.......................................................................................................... 62 R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway)................................... 63 R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features)..................... 64
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-4
CITY OF LA MESA – TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
Traffic control devices are those official signs and striping placed in the public right-of-way and recognized by the public such as STOP signs, curve warning signs, centerline striping, etc. These devices have been officially approved by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as supplemented by the State of California Department of Transportation pursuant to legislative authority provided for in the California Vehicle Code.
Traffic calming measures, however, have evolved to include features that are not officially approved through legislative action by the State of California. Commonly referred to as "tools", traffic calming measures or features (e.g., tools) are available in the traffic calming "toolbox".
Each tool in the toolbox of options is unique and has a specific purpose for addressing residential street traffic concerns requiring some form of traffic calming. Tools have their limitations on effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages and a range of costs. More than just a structural feature on the street, traffic calming tools include the components of education, enforcement, engineering, and enhancement.
The following pages identify tools that are endorsed and available in the traffic calming toolbox.
They were chosen for:
• appropriateness to address traffic concerns in La Mesa • acceptability to stakeholders, including the Fire Department • suitability for use in neighborhoods
Each traffic calming measure is briefly described, application for use is listed and the advantages and disadvantages of the tool is provided. Estimated costs have been provided where the cost of the measure was able to be determined.
Education
Phase 1
Description:
Conversations, meetings, e-mails, letters
and handouts to residents regarding
neighborhood traffic and pedestrian safety
issues.
Application:
Traffic education is intended to make
residents aware of local residential speed
limits and other neighborhood traffic and
safety concerns.
Advantages:
z Allows residents to express views and
obtain answers.
z Identifies issues of concern and
solutions.
Disadvantages:
z Effectiveness may be limited.
z Potentially time consuming.
z Limited audience.
Special Considerations:
z Meetings need to stay focused on specific traffic issues.
Estimated Cost:
z Varies (staff time and published materials).
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-5
Police Presence
Phase 1
Description:
Police vehicles drive through or stop for a
few minutes on residential streets to
observe driver behavior.
Application:
Police presence is used to make a visual
showing in residential neighborhoods to
help discourage speeding.
Advantages:
z Shows an enforcement presence.
z May help slow vehicle speeds.
Disadvantages:
z Presence without enforcement has
limited effectiveness.
z Limited police resources.
Special Considerations:
z Typically only effective when officer is present.
z Used on residential streets with complaints of speeding.
Estimated Cost:
z N/A
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-6
Radar Trailer
Phase 1
Description:
A portable trailer equipped with a radar
unit that detects and displays the speed of
passing vehicles on a reader board
located next to a speed limit sign.
Application:
Radar trailers help discourage speeding
along neighborhood streets by showing
drivers their current speed.
Advantages:
z Effective educational tool.
z Good public relations tool.
z Encourages speed compliance.
z Can reduce speeds temporarily.
Disadvantages:
z Not an enforcement tool.
z Ineffective on multi-lane roadways.
z Less effective on high volume
streets.
Special Considerations:
z Can be placed where a resident indicates a speeding problem is located. z Typically only effective in reducing speeds when radar trailer is present. z Some motorists may speed up to try to register a high speed.
Estimated Cost:
z Minimal.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-7
Police Enforcement
Phase 1
Description:
The Police Department deploys
motorcycle or automobile officers to
perform targeted enforcement on
residential streets.
Application:
Targeted police enforcement used to make
drivers aware of local speed limits and to
reduce speeds by issuing citations.
Advantages:
z Effective, visible enforcement.
z Driver awareness increased.
z Can be used on short notice.
z Can reduce speeds temporarily.
Disadvantages:
z Temporary measure.
z Requires long-term use to be
effective.
z Limited police resources.
Special Considerations:
z Typically only used on residential streets with documented speeding problems. z Typically only effective while officer is actually monitoring speeds. z Benefits are short-term without regular periodic enforcement. z Expensive.
Estimated Cost:
z N/A
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-8
Speed Limit Signs
Phase 1
Description:
25 mile per hour speed limit signs are
installed on neighborhood residential
streets that meet the legal definition of a
RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
Application: Speed limit signing
encourages slower vehicle speeds along
residential streets. Signs are only installed
along streets where speeding is a
problem.
Advantages:
z Clearly indicates prima facie speed
limit.
z Helps reduce speeds.
z Usually popular with residents.
z Low cost of installation.
Disadvantages:
z Not effective by themselves.
z May add to sign clutter.
z Increased cost of sign maintenance.
Special Considerations:
z Typically only installed on streets where speeding is a documented problem. z Requires police enforcement to be effective.
Estimated Cost:
z $125 per sign.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-9
Speed Limit Pavement Legends
Phase 1
Description:
Painting of speed limit legends on the
roadway adjacent to speed limit signs.
Application:
Speed limit pavement legends increase
driver awareness of the speed limit to help
reduce speeding.
Advantages:
z Supplement to speed limit signs.
z May help reduce speeds.
z Usually popular with residents.
Disadvantages:
z Not effective or legal by themselves.
z Increase in maintenance cost.
Special Considerations:
z Should only be installed on streets where speeding is a documented problem.
Estimated Cost:
z $250 per legend.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-10
Warning Signs
Phase 1
Description:
Standard warning signs give drivers
advanced notice of roadway conditions.
Application:
Warning signs advise motorists to reduce
their speed.
Advantages:
z Informs motorists of roadway
conditions.
z Low cost of installation.
Disadvantages:
z May add to sign clutter.
z Increased cost of sign maintenance.
z Not a regulatory sign.
Special Considerations:
z Advisory only, cannot be enforced.
Estimated Cost:
z $125 per sign.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-11
Turn Restrictions via Signs
Phase 1
Description:
Standard "No Left Turn", "No Right
Turn", or "Do Not Enter" signs used to
prevent undesired turning movements
onto residential streets.
Application:
Turn restriction signing used to reduce
cut-through traffic on residential
streets.
Advantages:
z Redirects traffic to main streets.
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z Low cost.
Disadvantages:
z May divert traffic to other streets.
z Enforcement required.
z Adds to sign clutter.
z Violation rates can be high without
enforcement.
Special Considerations:
z Installed at entry points of a neighborhood to prevent traffic from entering. z Has little or no effect on speeds for through vehicles. z With active enforcement, violation rates can be reduced.
Estimated Cost:
z $125 per sign.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-12
Special Signs
Phase 1
Description:
Special signs involve the use of
neighborhood yard signs such as "KEEP
KIDS ALIVE, DRIVE 25".
Application:
Special signs may help reduce speeding
on residential streets.
Advantages:
z May increase driver awareness.
z May cause drivers to slow down.
z Popular with residents.
z Low cost of installation.
z Proactive approach to a neighborhood
concern.
Disadvantages:
z Has no lasting effect.
z Not a permanent feature.
z May create visual pollution.
z Can create a false sense of
security.
z Increased cost of sign maintenance.
z Not authorized to be installed in the
public right-of-way.
Special Considerations:
z Passively reminds drivers to observe residential speed limits without confrontation. z Residents are less likely to speed themselves if they are displaying a yard sign. z Only used 1-2 weeks to increase neighborhood awareness.
Estimated Cost:
z $20 per sign.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-13
High Visibility Crosswalks
Phase 2/3
Description:
High visibility crosswalks established by
painting stripes between the crosswalk's
outer boundary stripes.
Application:
High visibility crosswalks increase
crosswalk visibility to drivers.
Advantages:
z More visible to the driver than
traditional crosswalks.
Disadvantages:
z May give false sense of security
to pedestrians.
z Higher maintenance costs.
z Increase resurfacing cost.
Special Considerations:
z Pedestrians may place too high a reliance on its ability to control driver behavior. z Can be used at high pedestrian volume crossing locations. z Follow City of La Mesa Crosswalk Guidelines.
Estimated Cost:
z $1,000 to $5,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-14
Narrowing Lanes (Striping)
Phase 2/3
Description:
Striping used to narrow traffic lanes. The
"extra" pavement width can be used to
create or add to bicycle and/or parking
lanes.
Application:
Narrowing lanes with striping used to help
slow vehicle speeds.
Advantages:
z Can be quickly implemented.
z May reduce travel speeds.
z May improve safety.
z Can be easily modified.
Disadvantages:
z Increases regular maintenance.
z Not always accepted as an effective
tool.
z Some residents may oppose
striping on neighborhood streets.
z Increases resurfacing costs.
Special Considerations:
z Narrowed travel lanes create "friction" to help slow vehicle speeds. z Can be installed quickly.
z Designated bicycle lanes and/or parking lanes can be created. z Adds centerline and edgeline striping to neighborhood streets.
Estimated Cost:
z $0.15 per linear foot.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-15
Entry Treatment
Phase 2/3
Description:
Entry treatments consist of raised
landscaped median islands and textured
pavement features and are located at
entries to neighborhoods.
Application:
Entry treatments help reduce speed. They
provide visual cues to drivers they are
entering a residential area or that
surrounding land uses are changing.
Advantages:
z May reduce vehicle speeds.
z Creates an identify for the
neighborhood.
z May reduce cut-through traffic.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Increase in noise.
z May require removal of parking.
z Can impede truck movements.
z Creates physical obstruction.
z Increase in maintenance.
Special Considerations:
z Entry treatments have minimal influence on drivers routine behavior. z Overall speeds and volumes are usually only minimally affected. z Entry treatments make drivers more aware of the neighborhood environment. z Care should be taken not to restrict pedestrian visibility at adjacent crosswalk.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-16
Traffic Circle
Phase 2/3
Description:
Traffic circles are raised circular
islands installed in an existing
intersection. Traffic circles require
drivers to slow down to maneuver
around the circle.
Application:
Traffic circles provide speed control.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle
speeds.
z Reduces collision potential.
z Better side-street access.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z May increase bicycle/automobile
conflicts.
z Can increase emergency vehicle
response time.
z Can restrict large vehicle access.
z Expensive.
Special Considerations:
z Traffic circles are best used in a series or with other devices. z About 30 feet of curbside parking must be prohibited in advance of circle. z Requires the installation of signs and pavement markings. z Traffic circles are less effective at T-intersections.
Estimated Cost:
z $15,000 to $25,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-17
Center Island Narrowing
Phase 2/3
Description:
Center island narrowing is the construction
of a raised island in the center of a wide
street.
Application:
Center islands are installed on wide
streets to help lower speeds and/or to
prohibit left-turning movements. They also
provide a mid-point refuge area for
pedestrians.
Advantages:
z Reduces vehicle speeds.
z Can reduce vehicle conflicts.
z Reduces pedestrian crossing width.
z Landscaping opportunity.
Disadvantages:
z May require parking removal.
z May reduce driveway access.
z May impact emergency vehicles.
z May divert traffic to other streets.
Special Considerations:
z When used to block side street access, may divert traffic. z May visually enhance the street with landscaping.
z Bicyclists prefer not to have travel way narrowed.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-18
Median Barrier
Phase 2/3
Description:
Median barriers are raised islands
constructed through intersections that
prevent left turns and side street through
movements.
Application:
Median barriers reduce cut-through traffic.
Advantages:
z Redirects traffic to other streets.
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z Provides pedestrian refuge area.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Redirects traffic to other streets.
z Increases trip lengths.
z May impact emergency response.
z Creates physical obstruction.
Special Considerations:
z Should not be used on critical emergency response routes. z Landscaping needs to be carefully designed to not restrict visibility for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-19
Mid-Block Choker
Phase 2/3
Description:
Mid-block chokers are curb extensions
that narrow a street by extending
the curbs towards the center of the
roadway. The remaining street crosssection consists of two narrow lanes.
Application:
Reduces speeds by narrowing the
roadway so two vehicles can pass slowly
in opposite directions.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
z Shorter pedestrian crossing width.
z Improves sight distance.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z May require parking removal.
z May create hazard for bicyclists.
z May create drainage issues.
z May impede truck movements.
z May impact driveway access.
Special Considerations:
z Preferred by many emergency response agencies to other measures. z Provide excellent opportunities for landscaping.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-20
Lateral Shift
Phase 2/3
Description:
A lateral shift is the construction of curb
extensions into the roadway that creates a
horizontal deflection drivers must
negotiate.
Application:
A lateral shift helps reduce vehicle speeds.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
z Low impact on emergency vehicles.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Loss of parking.
z Increased maintenance.
z May impact driveways.
z May be expensive.
Special Considerations:
z Most effective when traffic volumes are approximately equal in both directions. z May increase conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-21
Chicane
Phase 2/3
Description:
A chicane is a series of two or more
staggered curb extensions on alternating
sides of a roadway. The horizontal
deflection causes motorists to reduce
speed.
Application:
Chicanes help reduce vehicle speeds.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
z Low impact on emergency vehicles.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Loss of parking.
z Increased maintenance.
z May impact driveways.
z May be expensive.
Special Considerations:
z May require removal of substantial amounts of on-street parking. z Most effective when traffic volumes are approximately equal in both directions. z May increase conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. z Provide landscaping opportunities.
z Most residents would have their driveways affected.
Estimated Cost:
z $30,000 to $60,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-22
Semi-Diverter
Phase 2/3
Description:
Semi-diverters are curb extensions that
restrict movements into a street. They are
constructed to approximately the center of
the street, obstructing one direction of
traffic. A one-way segment is created at
the intersection, while two-way traffic is
maintained for the rest of the block.
Application:
Semi-diverters reduce traffic volume.
Advantages:
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z More self-enforcing than signs.
z Reduces pedestrian crossing widths.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z May divert traffic to other streets.
z May increase trip lengths.
z May require the removal of parking.
z Increased maintenance.
Special Considerations:
z Restricts access into street while allowing residents access within block. z Potential use must consider how residents will gain access. z In emergency situations, emergency vehicles can gain access. z May increase emergency response times.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $15,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-23
Partial Diverter
Phase 2/3
Description:
Partial diverters are raised areas placed
diagonally across a four-legged
intersection (3/4 closure). They prohibit
through movements by creating two "L"
shaped intersections, with one leg having
a right turn.
Application:
Partial diverters help reduce cut-through
traffic. They also minimally decrease
speeds near the intersection.
Advantages:
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z Minimal impact to emergency access.
z Reduces collision potential.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Redirects traffic to other streets.
z May increase trip lengths.
Special Considerations:
z Problem(s) may be shifted to other streets unless a comprehensive area plan is developed.
z Less impact to circulation than a full street closure. z Can be attractively landscaped.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $15,000 to $35,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-24
Forced Turn Channelization
Phase 2/3
Description:
Forced turn channelization are raised
median islands that restrict specific
movements at an intersection.
Application:
Forced turn channelization reduces traffic
volumes/cut-through traffic.
Advantages:
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z More self-enforcing than signs.
z Shorter pedestrian crossing distances.
Disadvantages:
z May divert traffic to other streets.
z Can increase trip lengths.
Special Considerations:
z Has little or no effect on speeds for through vehicles. z In emergency situations, emergency vehicles can gain access. z May increase emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $5,000 to $10,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-25
Intersection Bulb-Out
Phase 2/3
Description:
Intersection bulb-outs narrow the street by
extending the curbs toward the center of
the roadway.
Application:
Used to narrow the roadway and to create
shorter pedestrian crossings. They also
influence driver behavior by changing the
appearance of the street.
Advantages:
z Improve pedestrian visibility.
z Shorter pedestrian crossing width.
z May reduce vehicle speeds.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z May require parking removal.
z May create hazard for bicyclists.
z May create drainage issues.
z Impacts large vehicle turns.
Special Considerations:
z Intersection bulb-outs at transit stops enhance service. z May require landscape maintenance to preserve sight distances.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-26
Curb Radius Reduction
Phase 2/3
Description:
Removal of existing larger radius curb
returns at an intersection and construction
of smaller radius curb returns.
Application:
Curb radius reductions slow vehicle
turning speeds and shorten pedestrian
crossing distance.
Advantages:
z Shorter pedestrian crossing width.
z Slower vehicle turning speeds.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Impacts large vehicle turns.
Special Considerations:
z Careful attention needs to be given to drainage issues and turning radii.
Estimated Cost:
z Varies.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-27
Realigned Intersection
Phase 2/3
Description:
"T" intersections are realigned/modified
by constructing horizontal deflection
which forces previous straight-through
movements to make slower turning
movements.
Application:
Realigned intersections help reduce
vehicle speeds.
Advantages:
z Reduces vehicle speeds.
z No significant impact on emergency
and transit service.
z May discourage through traffic.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Removal of parking required.
z Increased maintenance.
z May divert traffic to other streets.
Special Considerations:
z Reduces vehicle speeds near intersection.
z May change STOP sign configuration and affect emergency response times. z Careful attention needs to be made to drainage issues.
Estimated Cost:
z $10,000 to $20,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-28
Roundabout
Phase 2/3
Description:
Roundabouts are large radius raised
circular islands installed at an intersection
in lieu of a traffic signal or STOP sign.
Roundabouts reduce vehicle speeds and
delay at an intersection.
Application:
Roundabouts reduce vehicle speeds and
delay at an intersection.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
z Reduces collision potential.
z Better side-street access.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Parking removal required.
z May increase bicycle/automobile
conflicts.
z Requires additional right-of-way.
z Expensive.
Special Considerations:
z Retrofitting a roundabout at an existing intersection would require obtaining additional right-of-way and removal of existing curb returns. z Curbside parking must be prohibited in advance of the roundabout. z Requires the installation of signs and pavement markings.
Estimated Cost:
z $50,000 to $75,000 each (construction only/does not include right-of-way costs).
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-29
Diagonal Diverter
Phase 2/3
Description:
Diagonal diverters are raised areas placed
diagonally across a four-legged
intersection. They prohibit through
movements by creating two "L" shaped
intersections.
Application:
Diagonal diverters reduce traffic volumes.
They also minimally decrease speeds near
the intersection.
Advantages:
z Reduces cut-through traffic.
z Self-enforcing.
z Reduces vehicle conflicts.
z Opportunity for landscaping.
Disadvantages:
z Increases out of direction travel.
z Increases trip lengths.
z Impedes emergency vehicles.
Special Considerations:
z Can be designed to allow emergency vehicle access.
z Can be designed to allow pedestrian and bicycle access. z Problem(s) may be shifted to other streets unless a comprehensive area plan is developed.
z Less impact to circulation than a full street closure.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $15,000 to $35,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-30
Textured Pavement
Phase 2/3
Description:
Textured pavement is installed in the
roadway typically to provide an entry
statement to the neighborhood.
Application:
Used as a visual cue for drivers to slow
down.
Advantages:
z Aesthetic/visual enhancement.
z Provides entry statement to traffic
calmed area.
Disadvantages:
z Increase in maintenance.
z Increase in noise.
z Expensive.
Special Considerations:
z Textured pavement has minimal influence on drivers routine behavior. z Overall speeds and volumes are usually only minimally influenced.
Estimated Cost:
z $7 per square foot.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-31
Raised Crosswalk
Phase 2/3
Description:
Raised crosswalks are constructed 3 to 4
inches above the elevation of the street.
They have ramps on the approaches with
a flat section in the middle.
Application:
Raised crosswalks help reduce vehicle
speeds at pedestrian crossing locations.
Advantages:
z Reduces vehicle speeds.
z Enhances pedestrian safety.
z Access not affected.
Disadvantages:
z May increase noise.
z Drainage modifications may be
required.
z Requires special signing and
markings.
z Emergency response times
affected.
Special Considerations:
z Crosswalk elevation needs to be lower than the sidewalk to alert visually impaired that it is a crosswalk.
z Careful attention needs to be made to drainage issues. z Work well in combination with curb extensions and curb radius reductions.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure is least acceptable to the Fire Department and its use requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $5,000 to $10,000 each.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-32
Raised Intersection
Phase 2/3
Description:
A raised intersection is a flat, raised area
covering an entire intersection. There are
ramps on all approaches. The plateau is
generally about 4" high. Typically, the
raised intersection is finished with textured
pavement.
Application:
Raised intersections reduce vehicle
speeds and provide for safer pedestrian
crossings.
Advantages:
z Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
z Enhances pedestrian safety.
z Can be aesthetically pleasing.
Disadvantages:
z Expensive to construct and
maintain.
z Requires drainage modifications.
z Affects emergency vehicle response
time.
z May require bollards around
corners.
Special Considerations:
z Makes intersections more pedestrian-friendly.
z Special signing is required.
Fire Department Evaluation:
This measure is least acceptable to the Fire Department and its use requires extensive evaluation of the specific location and impacts to emergency response times.
Estimated Cost:
z $35,000 to $80,000 per intersection.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-33
Neighborhood Signs
Phase 3
Description:
Neighborhood signs involve the use of
special signs such as "ENTERING A
TRAFFIC CALMED NEIGHBORHOOD"
to increase motorists awareness.
Application:
Neighborhood signs help reduce
speeding on residential streets.
Advantages:
z May increase driver awareness.
z May cause drivers to slow down.
z Low cost of installation.
Disadvantages:
z May have no lasting effect.
z Can create false sense of security.
z Adds to sign clutter.
z Increased cost of sign maintenance.
z Not a standard Caltrans sign.
Special Considerations:
z Installed at entry points to a neighborhood.
Estimated Cost:
z $125 per sign.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-34
Speed Humps
a.k.a. road humps, undulations
Speed humps are rounded raised areas placed across the roadway. They are generally 10 to 14 feet long (in the direction of travel), making them distinct from the shorter "speed bumps" found in many parking lots, and are 3 to 4 inches high. The profile of a speed hump can be circular, parabolic, or sinusoidal. They are often tapered as they reach the curb on each end to allow unimpeded drainage.
Advantages:
• Speed Humps are relatively
inexpensive;
• They are relatively easy for bicycles to
cross if designed appropriately; and
• They are very effective in
slowing travel speeds.
Disadvantages:
• They cause a "rough ride" for all drivers, and can
cause severe pain for people with certain skeletal
disabilities;
• They force large vehicles, such as emergency
vehicles and those with rigid suspensions, to travel
at slower speeds;
• They may increase noise and air pollution; and
• They have questionable aesthetics.
Cost Estimates: $2,000-2,500 (Portland, OR)
$2,000 (Sarasota, FL)
$2,000 (Seattle, WA)
Effectiveness:
• For a 12-foot hump:
o Average of 22% decrease in the
85th percentile travel speeds, or
from an average of 35.0 to 27.4
miles per hour; (from a sample of
179 sites).
o Average of 11% decrease in
accidents, or from an average of
2.7 to 2.4 accidents per year (from
a sample of 49 sites).
• For a 14-foot hump:
o Average of 23% decrease in the
85th percentile travel speeds, or
from an average of 33.3 to 25.6
miles per hour (from a sample of
15 sites).
o Average of 41% decrease in
accidents, or from an average of
4.4 to 2.6 accidents per year (from
a sample of 5 sites).
Similar Measures:
• By lengthening the hump with a flat section in the middle, you have a Speed Table.
• By turning an entire crosswalk into a speed hump, you have a Raised Crosswalk; and
• By raising the level of an entire intersection, you have a Raised Intersection.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-35
Portland, OR
This 14-foot speed hump uses a chevron
marking pattern.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-36
Speed Tables
a.k.a. trapezoidal humps, speed platforms
Speed tables are flat-topped speed humps often constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section. Speed tables are typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on the flat section. Their long flat fields, plus ramps that are sometimes more gently sloped than Speed Humps, give speed tables higher design speeds than Speed Humps. The brick or other textured materials improve the appearance of speed tables, draw attention to them, and may enhance safety and speed-reduction.
Good for:
• Locations where low speeds are desired but a somewhat smooth ride is needed for larger vehicles.
Advantages:
• They are smoother on large vehicles
(such as fire trucks) than Speed Humps;
and
• They are effective in reducing speeds,
though not to the extent of Speed
Humps.
Disadvantages:
• They have questionable aesthetics, if no
textured materials are used;
• Textured materials, if used, can be
expensive; and
• They may increase noise and air
pollution.
Cost Estimates: $2,000-2,500 (Portland, OR)
$2,000 (Sarasota, FL)
$2,000 (Seattle, WA)
Effectiveness:
• For a 22-foot speed table:
o Average of 18% decrease in the
85th percentile travel speeds, or
from an average of 36.7 to 30.1
miles per hour; (from a sample
of 58 sites).
o Average of 45% decrease in
accidents, or from an average of
6.7 to 3.7 accidents per year
(from a sample of 8 sites).
Similar Measures:
• By removing the flat section in the
middle, you have a Speed Hump.
• By placing a crosswalk on the flat
section, you have a Raised Crosswalk;
and
• By raising the level of an entire
intersection, you have a Raised
Intersection.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-37
Bellevue, WA
This speed table is entirely asphalt with
parabolic ramps.
Naples, FL
This concrete speed table is combined with
Textured Pavement to enhance its visibility and
speed-reducing effect.
Portland, OR
This asphalt speed table uses leading horizontal
stripe markings.
Charlotte, NC
This speed table uses stamped, colored
concrete.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-38
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-39
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY MANUAL ENGINEERING
COUNTERMEASURES
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-40
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
S01: Add Intersection Lighting (S.I.)
Description:
Adding intersection lighting to signalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting. This strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night. This countermeasure can only be applied to night crashes that occur within the limits of the proposed lighting area.
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers’ perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers’ available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists.
Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S01 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40% 20 years $1,000 per light
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-41
S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or Operation) Description:
Optimizing traffic signal timing helps improve mobility at an intersection for vehicles and pedestrians. Through proper coordination, corridors can reduce overall delay time at an intersection and provide better progression of traffic flow.
Where to Use:
Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.
Why It Works:
Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S03 50% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $4,000 per intersection
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-42
S05: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
Description:
The installation of emergency vehicle pre-emption systems allows emergency vehicles to disrupt a normal signal cycle to proceed through the intersection in a more quick and safer manner.
Signal pre-emption systems can help reduce driver confusion through the sudden appearance of an emergency vehicle and help lower overall emergency response times.
Where to Use:
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles.
Why It Works:
Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash. When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S05 100% Emergency Vehicle - only
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
70% 10 years $10,000-$20,000 per intersection
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-43
S08: Convert Signal to Mast Arm (From Pedestal-Mounted) Description:
The conversion from a signal to mast may be appropriate for a signalized intersection experiencing safety problems related to the placement or visibility of a pedestal-mounted signal head. Replacing or supplementing signal heads with mast arms helps improve the signal head's prominence upstream of the intersection.
Where to use:
Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection.
Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.
Why It Works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S08 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $100,000
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-44
S16: Covert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal)
Description:
A roundabout reduces the number and severity of conflict points making it a significantly safer type of intersection. This treatment involves converting a signalized intersection to a roundabout. and does not include application of mini-roundabouts.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.
Why It Works:
The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S16 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
Varies 20 years $400,000 - $800,000 (for traffic
signal removal and construction of
roundabout). Cost for roadway
widening may be higher/vary.
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-45
S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
Description:
This treatment involves installing new or upgrading the pedestrian signal head to a countdown signal head. The countdown signal head has a timer that shows the amount of time left in the pedestrian phase.
Where to Use:
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why It Works:
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval.
These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED S17PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $300 - $1,000 per ped head
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-46
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
NS01: Add Intersection Lighting (NS.I.)
Description:
Adding intersection lighting to unsignalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists.
Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS01 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40% 20 years $10,000 per light
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-47
NS03: Install Signals
Description:
This treatment involves removing the stop or yield sign and installing a traffic signal. The signal phasing depends on the lane geometry and volume in each movement. The installation of signal may require modification to lane geometry to facilitate a better and safer operation of the intersection. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7.
Where to Use:
Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn).
Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.
Why It Works:
Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS03 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $400,000
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-48
NS05: Convert Intersection To Roundabout (From 2-Way Stop Control or Yield Control)
Description:
Roundabouts provide an alternative to signalization. This treatment involves removing stop and yield control on major and/or minor roads and constructing a roundabout with yield control on all approaches.
Where to Use:
Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.
Why It Works:
Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stopcontrolled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS05 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
Varies 20 years $400,000 - $800,000
Cost for roadway widening may be
higher/vary
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-49
NS06: Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning/Regulatory Signs
Description:
This treatment involves replacing the existing stop sign with larger sign and/or installing additional stop sign at other location and/or installing warning/regulatory signs at the intersection or in advance of the intersection approach.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Why It Works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS06 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $500 per sign
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-50
NS07: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS.I)
Description:
Pavement markings can communicate information to road user related to roadway alignment, vehicle positioning, and other important driving-related tasks. This treatment involves installing advance warning pavement markings such as "Stop Ahead". The upgrade of pavement markings also involves installing centerlines and stop bars.
Where to Use:
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. 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. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.
Why It Works:
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. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS07 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $3,000 per intersection
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-51
NS11: Improve Sight Distance to Intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Description:
Insufficient sight distance and limited forward visibility can adversely affect safety and increases the risk of a collision by reducing reaction times and stopping distances. Adequate sight distance provides drivers with sufficient time to identify and appropriately react to all elements of the road environment, including other road users and hazards.
Where to Use:
Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway.
Why It Works:
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 (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) 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.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS11 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
20% 10 years Varies based on obstruction type
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-52
NS20PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New Signs and Markings Only)
Description:
This treatment involves the installation of a pedestrian crossing with new pavement markings and signs at unsignalized intersections to address pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings enhances pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.
Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase.
For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS20PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $7,000
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-53
NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (With Enhanced Safety Features)
Description:
This treatment involves installing pedestrian crossings with enhanced features such curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, flashing beacons, and other safety features which complement the standard crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs.
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency’s local-funding share for the project costs.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS21PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50,000 - $100,000 per location
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-54
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Description:
This treatment involves installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) including pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage at a pedestrian crossing.
Where to Use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why It Works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED NS22PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $12,000 per assembly
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-55
ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES
R01: Add Segment Lighting
Description:
Adding intersection lighting to roadway segments helps improve visibility throughout the roadway and helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rearend, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.
Why It Works:
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R01 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $10,000 per street light
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-56
R04: Install Guardrail
Description:
Guardrail is a safety barrier intended to shield a motorist who has left the roadway.
Where to Use:
Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and endtreatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.
Why It Works:
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R04 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $50-250 per linear foot
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-57
R05: Install Impact Attenuators
Description:
An impact attenuator, also known as a crash cushion, crash attenuator, or cowboy cushion, is a device intended to reduce the damage to structures, vehicles, and motorists resulting from a motor vehicle collision. Impact attenuators are designed to absorb the colliding vehicle's kinetic energy.
Where to Use:
Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier endtreatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information.
Why It Works:
Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R05 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $10,000-$15,000
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-58
R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two Way Left-Turn and Bike Lanes)
Description:
A road diet reconfiguration involves the conversion of an undivided four lane roadway to a threelane undivided roadway made up of two through lanes, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes. The reduction of lanes allows the roadway cross section to be reallocated for other uses such as bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, transit uses, and/or parking.
Where to Use:
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. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.
Why It Works:
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious headon 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.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R14 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $30,000 - $150,000 per mile
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-59
R23: Install Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves
Description:
Chevron signs emphasize and guide drivers through a change in horizontal alignment. When properly placed, the signs help define the direction and sharpness of the curve resulting in driver awareness and better navigation along the curve of the roadway.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why It Works:
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. While they are intended to act as a warning, it should also be remembered that the posts, placed along the roadside, represent a possible object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. Design of posts to minimize damage and injury is an important part of the considerations to be made when selecting these treatments.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R23 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40% 10 years $500 per sign
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-60
R24: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs
Description:
Curve advance warning signs provide a visual cue to drivers that they are approaching a horizontal curve. This treatment is appropriate for locations where relatively sharp curves have resulted in crashes. This treatment should be installed in combination with additional treatments such as chevron signs, delineators, and pavement markers to provide increased awareness of the curved roadway alignment.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. This countermeasure may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses problem curves and serves as an advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R24 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $500 per sign
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-61
R28: Install Edge-Lines and Centerlines
Description:
This treatment helps drivers to better understand the limits of roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be most appropriate.
Where to Use:
Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-offroad-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway.
Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.
Why It Works:
Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are all-weather, more visible, and have a higher retro reflectivity than traditional pavement markings.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R28 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $4 per linear foot
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-62
R32PB: Install Bike Lanes
Description:
This treatment involves installing Class II bicycle lanes to address crashes between bicycles and vehicles. Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.
Why It Works:
Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists’ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R32PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $4 per linear foot of striping
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-63
R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway) Description:
This treatment involves installing new sidewalks or pathways to address pedestrian crashes related to people walking along the roadway. This countermeasure cannot be used to replace an existing sidewalk with a wider one unless prior Caltrans approval is included. A walkway is any type of defined space or pathway for use by a person travelling on foot or using a wheelchair.
Where to Use:
Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
Why It Works:
Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for nonmotorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including:
sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R34PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
80% 20 years $35 per linear foot
La Mesa Local Roadway Safety Plan - D-64
R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features) Description:
At many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect nonmotorized users. This treatment involves the installation of flashing beacons, curb extensions and other safety features in order to complement the standard crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on a Zegeer study, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features can greatly enhance pedestrian safety. Enhanced safety elements may include curb extensions, pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting. Combined with pavement markings, this delineates the portion of the roadway designated for pedestrian crossing. Care must be taken to warn drivers of pedestrians crossing the roadway. Guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but costs over standard crosswalk markings must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable.
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED R35PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50,000 - $100,000 per location
Local Roadway Safety Plan D-1
Appendix E
Priority Project Summaries
E-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Priority Projects E-2
Citywide Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems E-3
Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval E-6
Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing E-9
Citywide Guardrail Upgrades E-15
Citywide Edgeline Striping E-17
E-2
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY PROJECTS
TABLE 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS
PROJECT
#
PROJECT LOCATION
LRSM
COUNTERMEASURE BCR
1 Citywide Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
1. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave
2. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr
3. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr
4. Jackson Dr & El Paso St
5. Lake Murray Blvd & Dallas St
6. Fletcher Pkwy & Dallas St
7. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr
8. Grossmont Center Dr & Grossmont Center Dr Entrance #3
9. Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr
10. Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Dr
11. Murray Dr & Wakarusa St
12. Massachusetts Ave & Waite Dr
S05: Install emergency
vehicle pre-emption
systems
11.71 2
Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval
1. Spring St & I-8 EB On-Ramp
2. Spring St & University Ave
3. Spring St & Allison Ave
4. Spring St & La Mesa Blvd
5. Spring St & Lemon Ave
6. Spring St & High St
7. Spring St & Gateside Rd / Palm Ave
S21PB: Modify signal
phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
9.37 3
Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing
S6 Project Locations
1. Massachusetts Ave & Waite Dr
S7 Project Locations
1. Baltimore Pkwy & Parkway Dr
2. Jackson Dr & El Paso St
3. 70th St & Tower St
4. Lake Murray Blvd& El Paso St
S06: Install left-turn lane
and add turn phase (signal
has no left-turn lane or
phase before)
S07: Provide protected
left turn phase (left turn
lane already exists)
9.17 4 Various existing guardrail locations throughout the City of La Mesa SA – Guardrail Upgrades NA 5 Various roadways throughout the City of La Mesa SA - Edgelines NA
E-3
CITYWIDE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION SYSTEMS
LRSM COUNTERMEASURES: S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems DESCRIPTION: Install new emergency vehicle pre-emption systems and upgrade traffic signal equipment for operations.
S05 PROJECT LOCATIONS: 12 Signalized intersections citywide TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT:
$2,924,075
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$249,700
BENEFIT COST RATIO:
11.71 Project Intersection
E-4
S05 CRASH ANALYSIS: 2 Total Collisions
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE INJURY COMPLAINT OF PAIN PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
0 1 0 1 0
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT VEHICLE -
PEDESTRIAN
OTHER
0 0 0 2 0 0 0
COLLISION FACTOR
UNSAFE SPEED WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER TURNING AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
0 0 0 0 0 1
PED ROW
VIOLATION
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
UNSAFE
STARTING OR
BRAKING
OTHER HAZARDOUS
MOVEMENT
UNKNOWN
0 0 1 0 0 0
HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S05)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $10,000 10,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Remove and Salvage Existing
EVPE System. Furnish and Install
New EVPE System Complete
EA 12 $10,500 $126,000 100% 0% 0%
4 Furnish and Install 2070 Traffic
Signal Controller EA 2 $4,500 $9,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Furnish and Install Ethernet
Switch EA 2 $3,500 $7,000 100% 0% 0%
6 Remove and Salvage Existing
Conflict Monitor Unit. Furnish
and Install Conflict Monitor Unit
EA 2 $1,500 $3,000
WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $161,000 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the
construction items 15% $24,150
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to the
nearest hundreds) $185,200
E-5
HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTAL (%) HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $3,000 62% $1,860 $1,140
PS&E $34,000 62% $21,080 $12,920
Subtotal – PE $37,000 62% $22,940 $14,060
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $27,500 62% $17,050 $10,450 Construction Items $185,200
(Read only – from Section I)
100% $185,200 $0
Subtotal – Construction $212,700 95.1% $202,250 $10,450 PROJECT TOTAL $249,700 90.2% $225,190 $24,150
E-6
SPRING ST LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
LRSM COUNTERMEASURES: S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
DESCRIPTION: Install Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) and traffic signal system upgrades for LPI operations
S21PB PROJECT LOCATIONS: 7 Signalized intersections on Spring St from I-8 EB On Ramp to Palm Ave TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT:
$1,549,320
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$165,400
BENEFIT COST RATIO:
9.37 Project Intersection
E-7
S21PB CRASH ANALYSIS: 2 Total Collisions
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE INJURY COMPLAINT OF PAIN PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
0 0 5 7 1
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT VEHICLE -
PEDESTRIAN
OTHER
1 2 0 4 0 5 1
COLLISION FACTOR
UNSAFE SPEED WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER TURNING AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
0 0 0 0 4 0
PED ROW
VIOLATION
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
UNSAFE
STARTING OR
BRAKING
OTHER IMPROPER
DRIVING
UNKNOWN
2 3 3 0 1 0
HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S21PB)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Furnish and Install 2070
Traffic Signal Controller EA 4 $4,500 $18,000 100% 0% 0% 4 Remove and Salvage
Existing Pedestrian Push
Buttons. Furnish and Install
New Accessible Pedestrian
Push Button System
Complete
EA 3 $8,000 $24,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Remove Existing Pedestrian
Curb Ramps. Install New
ADA Pedestrian Curb Ramps
EA 12 $4,250 $51,000 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $109,000 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the
construction items 10% $10,900
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to
the nearest hundreds) $119,900
E-8
HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTAL (%) HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $3,000 100% $3,000 $0
PS&E $25,000 100% $25,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $28,000 100% $28,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $17,500 100% $17,500 $0
Construction Items $119,900
(Read only – from Section I)
100% $119,900 $0
Subtotal – Construction $137,400 100% $137,400 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $165,400 100% $165,400 $0
E-9
CITYWIDE PROTECTED LEFT TURN PHASING
LRSM COUNTERMEASURES: S06 Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before), S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) DESCRIPTION: Install protected left turn phases and signal heads on existing and/or new traffic signal poles and mast arms. Install left turn lane striping and pavement markings.
S06 PROJECT LOCATIONS: Intersection of Massachusetts Avenue/Waite Drive S07 PROJECT LOCATION: Intersections of Baltimore Pkwy/Parkway Dr, Jackson Dr/El Paso St, 70th St/Tower St, and Lake Murray Blvd/El Paso St.
S06 TOTAL EXPECTED
BENEFIT: $905,520
S07 TOTAL EXPECTED
BENEFIT: $7,333,561
S06 TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$281,400
S07 TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$617,400
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT:
$8,239,081
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$898,800
BENEFIT COST RATIO:
9.17 S06 CRASH ANALYSIS:
6 Total Collisions
Project Intersection
E-10
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE INJURY COMPLAINT OF PAIN PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
0 0 1 3 2
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT VEHICLE -
PEDESTRIAN
OTHER
0 0 1 5 0 0 0
COLLISION FACTOR
UNSAFE SPEED WRONG SIDE
OF ROAD
IMPROPER PASSING UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER TURNING AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
1 0 0 0 0 0
PED ROW
VIOLATION
PED
VIOLATION
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
UNSAFE
STARTING OR
BRAKING
OTHER HAZARDOUS
MOVEMENT
UNKNOWN
0 0 5 0 0 0
S07 CRASH ANALYSIS: 39 Total Collisions
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE INJURY COMPLAINT OF PAIN PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
0 2 10 17 10
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT VEHICLE -
PEDESTRIAN
OTHER
2 5 10 15 6 0 1
COLLISION FACTOR
DUI UNSAFE SPEED FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSELY
WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE CHANGE
11 2 1 0 1 0
IMPROPER
TURNING
AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
PED ROW
VIOLATION
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
& SIGNS
OTHER EQUIPMENT
6 8 0 0 3 0
OTHER
HAZARDOUS
VIOLATION
OTHER THAN
DRIVER (OR
PEDESTRIAN)
UNSAFE STARTING
OR BRAKING
OTHER
IMPROPER
DRIVING
FELL ASLEEP UNKNOWN
1 2 2 0 0 2
E-11
S06 HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S06)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Signing & Striping EA 1 $5,500 $5,500 100% 0% 0%
4 Construction Staking EA 1 $20,000 $20,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Remove Existing Pole and
Break Down Foundation 30
Inches Below Grade
EA 2 $5,000 $10,000 100% 0% 0%
6 Furnish and Install Traffic
Signal Pole (30' Ht) with 20'
Signal Mast Arm, 15'
Luminaire Mast Arm,
Equipment, and Foundation
Complete
EA 2 $30,000 $60,000 100% 0% 0%
7 Remove and Salvage
Existing Vehicle Head.
Furnish and Install New
Vehicle Head (5-Section)
EA 2 $2,000 $4,000 100% 0% 0%
8 Relocate Existing Signs to
New Traffic Signal Pole EA 2 $200 $400 100% 0% 0%
9 Remove and Salvage
Existing Street Name Sign.
Furnish and Install New
Street Name Sign
EA 4 $500 $2,000 100% 0% 0%
10 Furnish and Install Mast
Arm Mounted Sign EA 2 $500 $1,000 100% 0% 0%
11 Furnish and Install Vehicle
Detection Loop EA 12 $600 $7,200 100% 0% 0%
12 Rewire Traffic Signal LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 100% 0% 0% 13 Modifications to Controller
Cabinet to Perform New
Operations
LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 100% 0% 0%
14 Remove Existing Pedestrian
Curb Ramps. Install New
ADA Pedestrian Curb Ramps
EA 4 $5,000 $20,000 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $175,100 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the
construction items 15% $26,265
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to
the nearest hundreds) $201,400
E-12
S06 HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTA
L (%)
HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $2,000 13% $260 $1,740
PS&E $48,000 13% $6,240 $41,760
Subtotal – PE $50,000 13% $6,500 $43,500
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 90% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 90% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 90% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $30,000 13% $3,900 $26,100 Construction Items $201,400
(Read only – from Section I)
90% $181,260 $20,140
Subtotal – Construction $231,400 80% $185,160 $46,240
PROJECT TOTAL $281,400 68.1% $191,660 $89,740
E-13
S07 HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S07)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Remove Existing Pole and Break
Down Foundation 30 Inches
Below Grade
EA 5 $5,000 $25,000 100% 0% 0%
4 Furnish and Install Traffic Signal
Pole (30' Ht) with 20' Signal Mast
Arm, 15' Luminaire Mast Arm,
Equipment, and Foundation
Complete
EA 3 $35,000 $105,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Furnish and Install Traffic Signal
Pole (30' Ht) with 30' Signal Mast
Arm, 15' Luminaire Mast Arm,
Equipment, and Foundation
Complete
EA 2 $40,000 $80,000 100% 0% 0%
6 Remove and Salvage Existing
Vehicle Head. Furnish and Install
New Vehicle Head (Doghouse)
EA 2 $2,000 $4,000 100% 0% 0%
7 Remove and Salvage Existing
Vehicle Head. Furnish and Install
New Vehicle Head (5-Section)
EA 8 $2,000 $16,000 100% 0% 0%
8 Remove and Salvage existing
Safety Light Fixture. Furnish and
Install LED Safety Light Fixture.
EA 2 $1,500 $3,000 100% 0% 0%
9 Relocate Existing Signs to New
Traffic Signal Pole EA 9 $200 $1,800 100% 0% 0%
10 Remove and Salvage Existing
Street Name Sign. Furnish and
Install New Street Name Sign
EA 12 $500 $6,000 100% 0% 0%
11 Furnish and Install Mast Arm
Mounted Sign EA 8 $500 $4,000 100% 0% 0%
12 Relocate Existing EVP Detector
System to New Traffic Signal Pole LS 2 $2,000 $4,000 100% 0% 0% 13 Modifications to Controller
Cabinet to Perform New
Operations
LS 4 $5,000 $20,000 100% 0% 0%
14 Rewire Traffic Signal LS 2 $15,000 $30,000 100% 0% 0% WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $383,800 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the construction items
15% $57,570
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to the nearest
hundreds)
$441,400
E-14
S07 HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTAL (%) HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $3,000 100% $3,000 $0
PS&E $107,000 100% $107,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $110,000 100% $110,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $66,000 100% $66,000 $0
Construction Items $441,400
(Read only – from Section I)
100% $441,400 $0
Subtotal – Construction $507,400 100% $507,400 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $617,400 100% $617,400 $0
E-15
CITYWIDE GUARDRAIL UPGRADES
LRSM COUNTERMEASURES: SA: Guardrail Upgrades
DESCRIPTION: Upgrade existing guardrails and end treatments SA PROJECT LOCATIONS: Various existing guardrail along the corridors of Alpine Avenue, Alvarado Road, Bancroft Drive, Date Avenue, Garfield Street, High Street, Lemon Circle, Lowell Street, Merritt Boulevard, Nebo Drive, Panorama Drive, Riviera Drive, Spring Street, Terrace Drive, and Yale Avenue.
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT:
NOT APPLICABLE FOR
FUNDING SET-ASIDE
APPLICATIONS
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$499,300
BENEFIT COST RATIO: NOT
APPLICABLE FOR FUNDING
SET-ASIDE APPLICATIONS
Project Corridor
E-16
SA HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S06)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Replace existing MBGR with
MGS LS 530 $75 $39,750 100% 0% 0%
2 Replace existing MBGR with
Concrete Barrier (Type 732) LS 250 $500 $125,000 100% 0% 0% 3 Repair existing MBGR EA 50 $50 $2,500 100% 0% 0%
4 Install terminal system end
treatment and end anchor
assembly
EA 5 $5,000 $255,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Install transition railing EA 3 $4,000 $12,000 100% 0% 0% WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $434,250 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the
construction items 0% $0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to
the nearest hundreds) $434,300
HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTA
L (%)
HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $2,000 100% $2,000 $0
PS&E $42,000 100% $42,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $44,000 100% $44,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $21,000 100% $21,000 $0
Construction Items $434,300
(Read only – from Section I)
100% $434,300 $0
Subtotal – Construction $455,300 100% $455,300 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $499,300 100% $499,300 $0
E-17
CITYWIDE EDGELINE STRIPING
LRSM COUNTERMEASURES: SA: Installing Edgelines
DESCRIPTION: Install edgeline striping
SA PROJECT LOCATIONS: Various existing guardrail along the corridors of Alpine Avenue, Alvarado Road, Bancroft Drive, Date Avenue, Garfield Street, High Street, Lemon Circle, Lowell Street, Merritt Boulevard, Nebo Drive, Panorama Drive, Riviera Drive, Spring Street, Terrace Drive, and Yale Avenue.
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT:
NOT APPLICABLE FOR
FUNDING SET-ASIDE
APPLICATIONS
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$150,000
BENEFIT COST RATIO:
NOT APPLICABLE FOR
FUNDING SET-ASIDE
APPLICATIONS
Project Corridor
E-18
SA - HSIP ANALYZER DETAILED ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
HSIP ANALYZER PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTA
L (%)
HSIP FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $1,000 100% $1,000 $0
PS&E $12,000 100% $12,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $13,000 100% $13,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $8,500 100% $8,500 $0
Construction Items $128,500
(Read only – from Section I)
100% $128,500 $0
Subtotal – Construction $137,000 100% $137,000 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $150,000 100% $150,000 $0
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S06)
% FOR
OS*
% FOR
NS**
1 Install 6” Solid White
Edgeline Striping LF 61,180 $2 $122,360 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE %
TOTAL ($) $122,360 100% 0% 0%
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, as % of the above ‘Total” of the
construction items 5% $6,118
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Rounded up to
the nearest hundreds) $128,500
Local Road
Safety Plan
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
1 Page 326 of 365
2 Page 327 of 365
LRSP VISION & MISSION
3 VISION
The City of La Mesa is a community that prioritizes safety for all roadway users and promotes and implements strategies that advance a zero-death vision by 2025
MISSION
The City aims to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries and reduce overall collisions through a combination of safety measures based on the 5 E’s of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies
CITYWIDE COLLISION ANALYSIS
• Analyzed 1,265 collisions
• Roadway Network Screening
• Identified Priority Locations:
• 22 signalized intersections
• 48 unsignalized intersections
• 30 roadway segments
4 Page 329 of 365
44%
34%
22%
81%
5%
5%
9%
5 KEY FINDINGS
LOCATION CITYWIDE ROADWAY USER
31%
13%
29%
27%
FATAL & SEVERE INJURY
ROADWAY USER
CRASH TYPE PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
0 100 200 300 400
Other / Not Stated
Overturned
Head-On
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Broadside
Rear End
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Brakes
Impeding Traffic
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Unsafe Lane Change
Following Too Closely
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown / Not Stated
Other
Traffic Signals and Signs
DUI
Automobile ROW
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
6 KEY FINDINGS
SAFETY PARTNERS FEEDBACK
7 La Mesa Department of Public Works
La Mesa Mobility Commission
La Mesa Police Department
Heartland Fire & Rescue/La Mesa Fire Department
La Mesa Community Services
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
San Diego Association of Governments
COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
ENGINEERING Infrastructure-Oriented Safety Treatments
ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of Actions that Reduce HighRisk Behaviors EDUCATION Educate All Roadway Users on Safe
Behaviors
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Improve Emergency Response Times and
Actions
EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES
Application of Emerging Technologies to
Roadways, Vehicles, and / or Roadway
Users
5E’S OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
8 Page 333 of 365
PRIORITY PROJECTS
# PRIORITY PROJECT
1 Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
• 12 Intersections Citywide
• Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems, Traffic Signal Controllers, Ethernet Switches, and Conflict Monitors
2 Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval
• 7 Intersections from I-8 EB On Ramp to Palm Dr
• Traffic Signal Controllers, Pedestrian Ramps, Audible Pedestrian Push Button Systems, and Updated Timing Sheets
3 Protected Left Turn Phasing
• 5 Intersections Citywide
• Traffic Signal Poles and Equipment, Traffic Signal Modifications to Perform New Operations, and Pedestrian Ramps
4 Citywide Guardrail Upgrades
• 3.5 Miles on 15 Corridors Citywide
5 Citywide Edgeline Striping
• 6 Miles on 8 Corridors Citywide
9 Page 334 of 365
IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION
• Implement Priority Projects
• Before / After Study Evaluations
• LRSP Updates
• 5 Years Required
• 2 Years for HSIP Calls for Projects
10 Page 335 of 365
Michael Kinnard, Associate Engineer
[email protected]
QUESTIONS?
11 Ashley Adamos, Engineering Lead
[email protected]
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: March 14, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A 50% COST RECOVERY
REDUCTION POLICY WITH A $50,000 MONETARY
CAP OR AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY FOR A THREEYEAR OKTOBERFEST SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
APPLICATION
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council consider a 50% cost recovery reduction policy with a $50,000 monetary cap or an alternative policy for a three-year Oktoberfest Special Event Permit Application?
Recommendation:
That the City Council consider a 50% cost recovery reduction policy with a $50,000 monetary cap or an alternative policy for a three-year Oktoberfest Special Event Permit Application.
Fiscal Impact:
The City incurs costs in support of the annual Oktoberfest event for police services, coordination of traffic control, inspection of electrical requirements, and Fire Department inspections. The City calculates these costs and invoices the permit applicant annually as part of the cost recovery process.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Enhanced recreation and quality of life opportunities
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 2 of 4
BACKGROUND:
In 2017, McFarlane Promotions, Inc. (McFarlane), a San Diego-based event management and promotions company, was hired by the La Mesa Village Association (LMVA) to oversee all aspects of planning and operation of the Oktoberfest event. To help support the event, the City Council approved a cost recovery reduction policy of 50% for the event with a $50,000 monetary cap. In 2018, the City Council approved the same cost recovery reduction policy for the event. In 2019, Council approved the same policy for a three-year special event permit for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 events.
Pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Section 10.50.040(b)(2), upon written request an applicant can apply for a three-year special event permit and waive the requirements for separate applications as long as the future dates of the special event is provided and the permit fee for all three years is paid at the time of the application submittal. Due to the pandemic, the 2020 Oktoberfest event was cancelled and occurred virtually, therefore it was not counted as a cost recovery year. In 2022, the final year of the three-year permit, total cost recovery for the event was $76,766. With the cost recovery policy of 50%, the applicant paid $38,383 to the City for support of the 2022 Oktoberfest event.
DISCUSSION:
At this time, McFarlane has submitted a special event permit application for a three-year permit for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 Oktoberfest events with a request for a cost recovery reduction policy of 50% with a $50,000 monetary cap for each year. The permit is currently under review by the City with no changes to the event boundaries or logistics from the prior year. The proposed event dates for each of the three years is as follows:
2023 Event Dates/Times
Friday, September 29, 2023 – 4pm-10:30pm
Saturday, September 30, 2023 – 10am-10:30pm
Sunday, October 1, 2023 – Noon-8:00pm
2024 Event Dates/Times
Friday, October 4, 2024 – 4pm-10:30pm
Saturday, October 5, 2024 – 10am-10:30pm
Sunday, October 6, 2024 – Noon-8:00pm
2025 Event Dates/Times
Friday, October 3, 2025 – 4pm-10:30pm
Saturday, October 4, 2025 – 10am-10:30pm
Sunday, October 5, 2025 – Noon-8:00pm
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 3 of 4
According to McFarlane, the City’s cost recovery reduction policy in recent years has had a significant positive impact on the ability to provide a quality and memorable venue for La Mesa and San Diego residents. Since 2017, McFarlane and the LMVA have worked to rebrand Oktoberfest into a safe, family-friendly event with the addition of German-themed activities, music and a variety of new vendors that are in line with this goal. McFarlane has confirmed with the La Mesa Police Department (LMPD) that arrests at the event have been on a decline since 2017 and that no arrests were made at the 2022 event, which is a first on record.
In their request for a 50% cost recovery reduction, McFarlane has provided the following accomplishments since managing the event:
Over $83,000 donated to the LMVA since managing the event. Continuing to work with the LMVA each year to develop a program to help promote the local businesses over the event weekend and promote this program on the event website so that local businesses are benefitting from the increased audience that the event attracts.
Each year a free booth space is donated to the Boys & Girls Club and Kiwanis Club for their fundraising efforts.
Implementation of an Artisan Market where vendor spaces have been significantly discounted and provided at no charge to small businesses and minority applicants.
Each year, several free, family-friendly activities are provided including hat making, face painting, friendly competitive games, an interactive dance square and more.
Promotion of the event as a signature La Mesa event and the largest Oktoberfest in San Diego to media outlets throughout Southern California, garnering significant media coverage for La Mesa.
Creation of a safe event experience for eventgoers and the nearby community. Collaboration with MTS to encourage the use of public transportation and ride shares for safe and easy travel to and from the event.
With no significant changes to the event, staff anticipates cost recovery for 2023 to be comparable with last year’s event.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 4 of 4
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider a 50% cost recovery reduction policy with a $50,000 monetary cap or an alternative policy for a three-year Oktoberfest Special Event Permit Application and provide direction to staff on how to process the application and request for cost recovery.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Lyn Dedmon
City Manager Assistant to the City Manager
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: March 14, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023-2024 AND A
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2022-
2023
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:
Issues:
1. Are the current CDBG program priorities in alignment with community needs?
2. How should the City program the FY 2023-2024 allocation and unexpended FY 2022-2023 and prior year funding?
Recommendation:
Reaffirm CDBG program priorities and direct staff to draft and circulate for public review the FY 2023-2024 CDBG Action Plan and amended FY 2022-2023 CDBG Action Plan for HUD-funded activities and return to Council on April 25, 2023, for final review and approval.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no impact to the City’s General Fund. Federal CDBG funds allow the City to support programs and complete projects that benefit low and moderateincome people and eliminate slum and blight. The City’s CDBG entitlement funding allocation for FY 2023-2034 is expected to be $478,231. In addition, the City has $116,441 current and prior year funding and program income available to reprogram.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 2 of 6
City’s Strategic Goals:
Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
Enhanced recreation and quality of life opportunities Ensure safe and affordable homes for La Mesa's current and future residents
BACKGROUND:
As a CDBG entitlement community with a population of over 50,000, the City receives federal funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that can be used to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and community facilities and services, with priority given to activities benefiting low and moderate income communities. La Mesa has participated in the CDBG program since the 1980s.
To remain eligible, the City is responsible for identifying community needs and priorities through the Consolidated Planning process. Every five years, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan that establishes goals towards addressing those needs.
Annual Action Plans are then developed to program activities that carry out the long term goals. The process includes multiple opportunities for citizen participation. Fiscal year 2023-24 is Year 4 of the 2020-25 Consolidated Plan. The current CDBG program goals are as follows:
Improve facilities and infrastructure
Fair Housing
Planning and Administration
Homeless Services
Public and Community Services
Conserve the Housing Stock
The City’s CDBG allocation has fluctuated
over the years, from a high of $689,000 in
1993, to a low of $337,000 in 2012. Over the
past ten years, funding has been trending
upward. In addition to the entitlement
allocation, the City periodically receives
program income from a Housing
Rehabilitation Loan program that was CDBGfunded prior to 2011. Although the loan
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 3 of 6
program is currently suspended, under recommendation by HUD, annual program income from repayment of outstanding loans can be expected until all have been repaid.
HUD’s three statutory program goals for serving lower income populations are: decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity. All of the City’s CDBG-funded activities meet at least one of the statutory goals.
The CDBG program goals fit within the City Council’s strategies and goals. Projects and activities funded with CDBG revitalize neighborhoods, enhance recreation and quality of life opportunities, and improve access to safe and affordable housing. These projects and activities also help the City to improve public services and infrastructure and increase financial stability and public safety.
DISCUSSION:
In addition to the allocation of $478,231 anticipated for FY 2023-2024, current and prior year funding totaling $116,441 is also available, as follows:
Program income in the amount of $46,441 from the payoff of two homeowner rehabilitation loans
Current and prior-year funding of $60,000 is available from a homeless services activity that was not carried out due to funding available from alternate sources.
Current and prior-year year funding of $10,000 is available from various sources, including unused program administration budget.
Community participation is a key component of the consolidated planning process. In accordance with the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan, two public hearings and a 30-day public review period are held annually. Notice of public hearing for this item was published in the Daily Transcript on March 3, 2023.
A detailed description of the various capital improvement, public service, and grant administration activities available for programming is provided below.
Improve Facilities and Infrastructure: Collier Park ($283,672) Available Budget: FY 2023-2024: $167,231
FY 2022-2023: $116,441
The highest CDBG funding priority identified by the community is capital improvements.
Investing in capital projects creates long-lasting neighborhood and community benefits.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 4 of 6
Collier Park is located in an eligible area and is suggested for funding in the upcoming year.
CDBG has long supported rehabilitation efforts at Collier Park. A need was identified by the community to create a safer, more active use park with improved connections to the neighborhood. Following adoption of the Collier Park Renovations Project Master Plan in 2015, Phase I improvements were completed in 2018 and included grading, new hardscape, new landscape, and irrigation improvements to the panhandle portion of the park, near the park entry. Implementation of the Master Plan is continuing. Phase II, which includes grading and landscaping, new restroom facilities, additional parking, roadway improvements, and security upgrades in the heart of the park, is under construction. Funding sources include prior year CDBG allocations totaling $1.7 million, leveraged with $4 million in State Parks and Recreation funding, Proposition 68 funds, and local park funds.
An additional budget of $283,672 is requested for additional Phase II work including eligible excavation, hardscape, landscaping, irrigation, lighting, a pedestrian trail, and slope treatments.
Improve Facilities and Infrastructure: Nancy Drive Street Improvements ($150,000)
Nancy Drive is located in an eligible neighborhood. Water runoff has caused the road surface to degrade. To prevent further deterioration of the street surface, installation of concrete gutter extensions is proposed. The gutter extensions would provide a greater drainage surface. The remainder of the street will then be milled and paved.
Improve Facilities and Infrastructure: Sidewalk Improvements ($75,000) The City’s Sidewalk Master Plan Map identifies streets where pedestrian connectivity needs improvement. Eligible areas where sidewalk gaps occur include portions of Aztec Drive, Gateside Road, and Amarillo Avenue. A CDBG allocation of $75,000 will allow for completion of priority sidewalk segments in low-moderate residential neighborhoods.
Locations will be selected based on walking safety and presence of hazards with higher priority given to locations close to transit, schools, parks, and public interests.
Fair Housing ($30,000)
Under the Consolidated Plan, fair housing services are funded as a public service program. Fair housing services are provided to the City by the Center for Social Advocacy (CSA) San Diego County. Each year, the City must certify to HUD that the City is affirmatively furthering fair housing and the contract with CSA helps the City meet this CDBG program implementation requirement. The City’s contribution to CSA, combined with that of several other east county jurisdictions, including the cities of El
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 5 of 6
Cajon, Santee, and Lemon Grove, support this organization and furthers fair housing goals within La Mesa and the region. An allocation of $30,000 is consistent with prior years. This activity falls within the 20 percent administrative cap.
Planning and Administration ($50,000)
Planned administrative activities include preparation of annual plans and reports, environmental review of projects, contract administration, financial reporting, development of a Notice of Funding Availability for homeless services, subrecipient monitoring, and public outreach. This activity falls within the 20 percent administrative cap.
Conserve the Housing Stock ($6,000)
Administrative activities associated with the housing rehabilitation loan program include monitoring the loan portfolio and processing loan pay-off paperwork. This activity falls within the 20 percent administrative cap.
Program Summary Table
Recommended
Funding Level Description
Facility and Infrastructure Improvements
Collier Park Improvements 2022-23 $455,501 Increase existing budget by $116,441
Collier Park Improvements 2023-24 $167,231
Nancy Drive Improvements 2023-24 $150,000
Sidewalk Improvements 2023-24 $75,000
Total Facilities $847,732
Service Programs
Fair Housing
CSA, San Diego County Fair Housing $30,000 Fair housing and landlord/tenant mediation Total Services $30,000
Planning and Administration
CDBG Program Administration $50,000
Housing Program Rehab Administration $6,000
Total Administration $56,000
Total $933,732
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 14, 2023
Page: 6 of 6
CONCLUSION:
The current CDBG program priorities remain in alignment with community needs, with facility and infrastructure improvements being of the highest priority, followed by fair housing, and program administration. Staff recommends the Council:
1. Authorize staff to develop the FY 2023-2024 Action Plan and a FY 2022-2023 Action Plan Amendment that allocates available funding to Collier Park improvements, Nancy Drive improvements, sidewalk improvements, fair housing services, and program administration as described above and as adjusted to reflect the actual entitlement amount should an adjustment occur at final appropriation.
2. Direct staff to return to Council on April 25, 2023, for final review and approval of the amended FY 2023-2024 and new FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plans for HUDfunded activities.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Kerry Kusiak
City Manager Director of Community Development
DATE: March 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Jack Shu
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST STAFF TO DRAFT A TOBACCO
RETAILER LICENSING (TRL) ORDINANCE
The Tobacco Retailer Licensing (TRL) Ordinance will include licensing fees that adequately fund regular enforcement to reduce illegal tobacco, electronic smoking devices, and flavored tobacco product sales to youth. The Ordinance will also utilize retailer density regulations based on simple direct distance between property lines (not walking nor travel distance), that limit tobacco, vape, and drug paraphernalia sellers in proximity to schools, playgrounds, libraries, and churches. If so moved, staff to return to Council within two months with a draft ordinance and implementation plan.
DATE: March 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Patricia Dillard and Vice Mayor Colin Parent SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN
NEGOTIATIONS TO ENTER INTO A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH THE BUILDING TRADES AND CARPENTERS UNIONS
We would like to invite our City Council colleagues to discuss directing the City Manager to begin a negotiation process to enter into a Project Labor Agreement for projects undertaken by the City of La Mesa, with the San Diego Building & Construction Trades Council and the San Diego Union Carpenters Local 619.
DATE: March 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Jack Shu and Vice Mayor Colin Parent SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO CREATE A POLICY AND
PROGRAM TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENTS AND
TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT FEE REVENUE TO MONITOR
COMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABILITY DEED RESTRICTIONS
Over the last few years, La Mesa has seen a welcomed up-tick in residential developments include homes that are deed-restricted to be permanently affordable.
These are the housing units that can address the housing needs of those most impacted by the rising cost of housing.
These deed-restricted units have been included in 100 percent affordable projects like 8181 Allison Avenue. They have also been included in mixed-income developments that use La Mesa’s Affordable Homes Bonus Program.
However, La Mesa currently has no policy or practice to monitor those affordable units, to ensure they are being leased to income-eligible households.
Other jurisdictions have policies that require new developments seeking entitlement that include deed-restricted units to sign affordable housing agreements. Those agreements outline the process for periodic monitoring of deed restrictions, and a method of paying a modest fee for the jurisdiction to fund that monitoring.
Attached to this memo as a reference is a copy of an affordable housing agreement used by the San Diego Housing Commission, which administers a monitoring program for the City of San Diego.
We are asking the City Council to direct staff to create a policy and program to utilize affordable housing agreements, and to generate sufficient fee revenue to monitor compliance with affordability deed restrictions.
1 NO CHARGE ON THIS DOCUMENT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A STATE
AGENCY FORMED BY THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
Recording Requested By:
When Recorded Mail To:
Christensen & Spath LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2250
San Diego, CA 92101
COMPLETE COMMUNITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING FLOOR AREA RATIO
BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
IMPOSING COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL
PROPERTY
XYZ
THIS COMPLETE COMMUNITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING FLOOR AREA RATIO
BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT IMPOSING COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY (“Agreement”) is dated as of the __ day of ___________, 2022, between CIB Broadway LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”), and the San Diego Housing Commission (“Commission”).
RECITALS
A. Developer owns and is developing the real property generally located at 1905 East Broadway, in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, California, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Property”).
B. Under the applicable land use regulations for the Property, Developer would be allowed to construct fourteen (14) dwelling units on the Property. Developer has applied to and the Commission and the City of San Diego (“City”) for a floor area ratio bonus under the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations as set forth in Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 10 of the San Diego Municipal Code (“Complete Communities Law”). The Project meets the requirements of Section 143.1015(a) of the San Diego Municipal Code, which provides for a floor area ratio bonus for a total floor area ratio of 6.5 which will allow for the construction of ninetyone (91) total dwelling units on the Property (“Project”).
C. In order to obtain the floor area ratio bonus, Developer has agreed to: (i) restrict the occupancy of three (3) of the dwelling units (“Very Low Income Affordable Units”) so that the Very Low Income Affordable Units are affordable to very low-income households at a rent, including any and all homeowners association fees or other similar fees (the rent will also include a utility adjustment based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time, a copy of which is available at the Commission offices),
2 that does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of fifty percent (50%) of area median income; (ii) restrict the occupancy of two (2) of the dwelling units (“Low Income Affordable Units”) so that the Low Income Affordable Units are affordable to low income households at a rent, including any and all homeowners association fees or other similar fees (the rent will also include a utility adjustment based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time, a copy of which is available at the Commission offices), that does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of sixty percent (60%) of area median income; and (iii) restrict the occupancy of three (3) of the dwelling units (“Moderate Income Affordable Units”) so that the Moderate Income Affordable Units are affordable to moderate income households at a rent, including any and all homeowners association fees or other similar fees (the rent will also include a utility adjustment based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time, a copy of which is available at the Commission offices), that does not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of area median income, pursuant to the Complete Communities Law and as provided in this Agreement. The Very Low Income Affordable Units, the Low Income Affordable Units and the Moderate Income Affordable Units may be referred to collectively herein as the “Affordable Units.”
D. Development of the Property is also governed by Chapter 14, Article 2, Division 13 of the San Diego Municipal Code (“Inclusionary Ordinance”). The Inclusionary Ordinance can be satisfied by providing at least ten percent (10%) of the pre-floor area ratio bonus dwelling units in the proposed project as affordable to households with household incomes below specified levels for a period of not less than fifty-five (55) years. The Project is meeting the requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance by providing the Very Low Income Affordable Units and the Low Income Affordable Units as set forth herein.
E. The City has delegated to the President and CEO of the Commission the authority to execute this Agreement. The President and CEO of the Commission is willing to memorialize the floor area ratio bonus for the Property providing for a total floor area ratio of 6.5 which will allow for the construction of ninety-one (91) dwelling units on the Property, and Developer is willing to participate in a rental control program ensuring affordability in connection with the eight (8) Affordable Units subject to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement.
Developer acknowledges that the floor area ratio bonus would not be granted in the absence of Developer’s express covenant to restrict the usage of the Affordable Units, as more fully set forth herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration Commission and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Developer Covenants. Developer agrees and covenants on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, and each successor in interest to the Property, that at all times during the term of this Agreement set forth herein:
3 (i) one (1) studio dwelling unit, one (1) one-bedroom dwelling unit and one (1) twobedroom dwelling unit on the Property shall be set aside and reserved as “Very Low Income Affordable Units;”
(ii) one (1) one-bedroom dwelling unit and one (1) two-bedroom dwelling unit on the Property shall be set aside and reserved as “Low Income Affordable Units”; and (iii) one (1) studio dwelling unit, one (1) one-bedroom dwelling unit and one (1) twobedroom dwelling unit on the Property shall be set aside and reserved as “Moderate Income Affordable Units.”
As used herein the term “Affordable Units” shall refer to the residential dwelling units on the Property which are held available strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2. Area Median Income. As used herein, “Area Median Income” or “AMI” shall mean the area median income, as adjusted for family size, for the San Diego-Carlsbad Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and published in the Federal Register. In the event HUD ceases to publish an established Area Median Income as aforesaid, the Commission may, in its sole discretion, use any other reasonably comparable method of computing Area Median Income.
3. Developer Covenants Concerning the Affordable Units. (a) Occupancy Restrictions. During the term of this Agreement: (i) each of the Very Low Income Affordable Units shall be occupied by a family earning at or below fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income; (ii) each of the Low Income Affordable Units shall be occupied by a family earning at or below sixty percent (60%) of the Area Median Income; and (iii) each of the Moderate Income Affordable Units shall be occupied by a family earning at or below one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income. (b) Rent Restrictions. During the term of this Agreement, the monthly rental rate for:
(i) each of the Very Low Income Affordable Units (which shall include a utility allowance based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time) shall not exceed 1/12 of thirty percent (30%) of fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, as adjusted for assumed family size and utilities; (ii) each of the Low Income Affordable Units (which shall include a utility allowance based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time) shall not exceed 1/12 of thirty percent (30%) of sixty percent (60%) of the Area Median Income, as adjusted for assumed family size and utilities; and (iii) each of the Moderate Income Affordable Units (which shall include a utility allowance based upon the “San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule,” as adjusted from time to time) shall not exceed 1/12 of thirty percent (30%) of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income, as adjusted for assumed family size and utilities.
4 4. Deed of Trust.
(a) Execution and Recordation. Developer shall, concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, execute, acknowledge and record a deed of trust on the Property ensuring timely performance of the obligations set forth in this Agreement (“Deed of Trust”). The Deed of Trust shall be subordinated to the construction deed(s) of trust and/or permanent financing in favor of institutional lenders, as approved by the President and CEO of the Commission in his reasonable discretion. The subordination shall be upon such terms and conditions and for such periods of time as the President and CEO may approve to protect the provision of affordable housing as required by this Agreement. Commission shall reconvey the Deed of Trust following the expiration of the fifty-five (55) year term of this Agreement. (b) Foreclosure on the Property. In the event of a foreclosure on the Property which eliminates the Deed of Trust, the new owner, upon five (5) days written notice from the Commission, shall: (i) execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Commission an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in a form as approved by the Commission, in its reasonable discretion, for recordation; (ii) execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Commission a deed of trust, in a form as approved by the Commission, in its reasonable discretion, to be recorded against the Property, in a lien priority immediately junior to the Assignment and Assumption Agreement and securing the performance of this Agreement; and (iii) reimburse the Commission for all of its attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the foregoing, including all costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert witnesses fees incurred by the Commission in obtaining compliance by the new owner, including those incurred in litigation, if any.
5. Design, Construction and Occupancy Schedule for the Affordable Units. The Affordable Units shall receive final inspection approval no later than the date that the market-rate units receive final inspection and approval. Time is of the essence in the occupancy of the Affordable Units.
6. Extension of Time Parameters for Good Cause. The President and CEO of the Commission may, in his sole discretion, extend one or more time deadlines for performance as referenced in this Agreement for good cause. “Good cause” shall include, but shall not be limited to, acts of God, labor strikes, war, riots, etc., as shall be determined by the President and CEO in his sole discretion.
7. Eligibility. No Affordable Unit shall be rented to a prospective tenant or occupied by any person unless and until the Commission, through its designated staff, has verified that the prospective tenant or occupant is eligible, and that affordable rents will be charged in accordance with the criteria set forth in this Agreement. Developer and/or its successor in interest shall ensure that all eligibility and rent criteria are met during the term of this Agreement. Annually, on the anniversary of the initial certification of compliance as determined by the Commission of each year during the term of this Agreement, Developer or its successor in interest shall certify to the Commission that the Affordable Units are being occupied by eligible tenants. Said certification shall be on forms acceptable to the Commission.
5 8. Indemnity. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Commission, the City of San Diego, the Housing Authority of the City of San Diego, and any and all of their respective Commissioners, members, officers, agents, servants, or employees (the “Indemnitees”) from and against all claims, liens, claims of lien, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, whether direct or indirect, arising in any way from the construction, sale, rental or operation of the Property and/or any of the units, or from the default by Developer in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that Developer shall not be required to indemnify, defend or hold harmless any of the Indemnitees from claims, losses, damages, costs and expenses related to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees.
9. Covenants to Run With the Land. Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Property and upon every person having any interest therein at any time and from time to time during the term of this Agreement. Further, Developer agrees that, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the obligations set forth herein do not qualify as covenants running with the land, they shall be enforced as equitable servitudes.
10. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. Developer shall not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the Property, any portion thereof, or any interest therein unless the proposed transferee shall have executed and delivered to Commission an express written assumption of all of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement, on a form reasonably acceptable to Commission.
Upon assignment and assumption by a successor entity, as approved by Commission, Developer shall be released from all prospective liability and responsibility under the terms of this Agreement.
11. Restrictions. The following restrictions shall also be applicable to the Affordable Units:
(a) No Relationship With Developer. No Affordable Unit shall be occupied or leased to Developer or any relative (by blood or marriage) of Developer or any person employed by Developer or of any individuals who are members, principals, executives, directors, partners or shareholders of Developer or in any entity having an ownership in Developer or in the Property. (b) No Full-Time Students. No Affordable Unit shall be occupied or leased to any household comprised exclusively of persons who are full-time students, unless such persons are married and eligible to file a joint federal income tax return and both of such persons reside in the Affordable Unit. The term “full-time student” shall be defined as any person who will be or has been a full-time student during five calendar months of the calendar year in question at an educational institution (other than a correspondence school) with regular faculty and students. (c) No Student Dependents. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 11(b), no Affordable Unit shall be occupied or leased to any student dependent as defined in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, unless the taxpayer (upon whom the student in question is dependent) resides in the same unit.
(d) No Owners of Real Property. No Affordable Unit shall be occupied or leased to any person or any household comprised of one or more persons who own real property.
6 (e) Liquid Asset Limitation. No Affordable Unit shall be occupied or leased to any person or household holding, directly or indirectly, liquid assets whose aggregate value exceeds, at the time of determination of eligibility, sixty-five percent (65%) of the then-current annual Area Median Income. As used herein, the term “liquid assets” refers to cash and assets which are readily convertible to cash within a reasonable period, including but not limited to savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit of any term, marketable securities, money market and similar accounts, mutual fund shares, and insurance policy cash values. The term “liquid assets” shall not include retirement funds which are not readily accessible or which cannot be accessed by the tenant without the tenant incurring a penalty.
(f) Income of Co-Tenants. The income of all co-tenants and/or occupants shall be taken into account in determining whether a tenant or prospective tenant meets the requirements of this Agreement.
(g) Eligible Tenants - Increased Income. If as a result of the annual recertification procedure described above any household which was previously determined to be eligible to occupy an Affordable Unit is determined to be ineligible as a result of increased income or assets, the Commission will provide written notification thereof, and Developer shall have one hundred eighty days (180) from the date of notification to take all reasonable steps to pursue eviction of the ineligible household. If Developer fails to act within the one hundred eighty day (180) period, the Commission shall require payment of a fee by Developer, provided that no fee shall be payable so long as Developer is diligently pursuing eviction of the ineligible household by appropriate proceedings. Under this fee requirement, the ineligible tenant residing in the Affordable Unit shall pay the full market rate rent, and Developer shall pay the difference between the affordable rent and the full market rate rent, as determined by the Commission, to the Commission. The period of fee payment shall in no event exceed a period of six months, at which time Developer’s failure to provide such Affordable Unit to a household eligible hereunder shall constitute a material default under this Agreement.
12. Term. Pursuant to the Complete Communities Law and the Inclusionary Ordinance the term of this Agreement shall begin upon the completion of the construction of the Project, evidenced by the first certificate of occupancy, and shall remain in full force and effect for a period of fifty-five (55) years therefrom.
13. Incentives. The Complete Communities Law provides a developer of a housing development which meets the requirements of the Complete Communities Law to receive concessions or incentives as set forth in the Complete Communities Law. Developer hereby acknowledges receipt of such concession or incentive.
14. Covenant Against Discrimination. Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall unlawfully discriminate against any tenant or prospective tenant of any Affordable Unit on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, national origin, physical handicap, or the fact that a prospective tenant or tenant has a child or children.
7 15. Enforcement; Remedies; Security.
(a) Standing; Equitable Remedies; Remedies Cumulative. Developer expressly agrees and declares that Commission or any successor public agency shall be the proper party and shall have standing to initiate and pursue any and all actions or proceedings, at law or in equity, to enforce the provisions hereof and/or to recover damages for any event that is expressly stated to be a material default hereunder and which event remains uncured following sixty (60) days’ written notice to Developer by Commission (or up to one hundred twenty (120) days after notice, if actions to correct the material default have been timely initiated and are, in the reasonable opinion of Commission, being diligently pursued), notwithstanding the fact that such damages or the detriment arising from such a material default that remains uncured as aforesaid may have actually been suffered by some other person or by the public at large. Further, Developer expressly agrees that injunctive relief and specific performance are proper pre-trial and/or post-trial remedies hereunder to assure compliance with this Agreement. Nothing in this Section 15(a) and no recovery by the Commission shall restrict or limit the rights or remedies of persons or entities other than the Commission, including but not limited to the City, against Developer in connection with the same or related acts by Developer, provided that Developer shall not be subject to duplicate awards or recoveries. The remedies set forth in this Section 15 are cumulative and not mutually exclusive, except to the extent that their award is specifically determined to be duplicative by final order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the award of damages hereunder shall not bar the exercise of police power or other governmental powers, or the pursuit of criminal, civil or administrative penalties by the City in connection with any material default under this Agreement that remains uncured as aforesaid. Developer acknowledges that a material default under this Agreement that remains uncured may constitute a violation of state law. (b) Remedies At Law For Breach Of Rental Restrictions. In the event of any material default under the provisions hereof that remains uncured following thirty (30) days written notice to Developer by the Commission (or up to ninety (90) days after notice, if actions to correct the material default have been timely initiated and are, in the reasonable opinion of the Commission, being diligently pursued) regarding restrictions on rental of the Affordable Units, at the sole option of the Commission, the Commission shall be entitled to the following remedies at law to the extent they are not duplicative, the election of which shall not be required and may be revoked and/or modified until immediately prior to entry of judgment:
(1) Damages For Specific Breach. The Commission shall be entitled to recover compensatory damages, at its sole option in the event of a material uncured default under the terms of this Agreement. If the material uncured default in question involves the violation of Section 15(a) above, the amount of such compensatory damages shall be the product of multiplying (A) the number of months that the material uncured default in question has continued (following expiration of Developer’s cure period) until the time of trial or cure, whichever occurs first, by (B) the result of subtracting (i) the rents properly chargeable hereunder for the Affordable Units at issue from (ii) the rents actually collected by Developer for the Affordable Units at issue for the months in question, as reasonably determined by the Commission. Developer and the Commission agree that it would be extremely difficult or impracticable to ascertain the precise amount of actual damages accruing to the Commission as a result of such a material uncured default and that the foregoing formula is a fair and reasonable method of approximating such damages. The
8 Commission shall be entitled to seek and to recover damages in separate actions for successive, separate breaches, which may occur during the term of this Agreement. Further, interest shall accrue on the amount of such damages from the date of the expiration of Developer’s cure period for the material uncured breach in question at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate then allowed by law, whichever is less. Nothing in this section shall preclude the award of exemplary damages as allowed by law.
(2) Acceleration and Liquidation of Future Performance. At the sole option of the Commission, if any material default by Developer in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement remains uncured for more than ninety (90) days after written notice to Developer by the Commission specifying such breach in reasonable detail (or such longer period of time, not to exceed six (6) months, as may reasonably be required for Developer to cure such breach exercising reasonable diligence), Developer’s obligation to perform hereunder may be accelerated by the Commission and declared immediately due through the payment of a liquidated sum.
Developer and the Commission agree that it would be extremely difficult and impractical to predict the precise cost to the Commission of (i) locating rental units equivalent to the Affordable Units, (ii) procuring such units (through purchase, lease or subsidies) at the rent discounts contemplated herein, (iii) performing the substantial administrative activities associated with replacing the Affordable Units, and (iv) inflation. Therefore, Developer and the Commission agree that, in the event of a material default hereunder by Developer that remains uncured as aforesaid, and upon written notice from the Commission to Developer that the Commission has elected to exercise its option to accelerate and liquidate Developer’s performance hereunder in accordance with the provisions of this Section 15(b)(2), Developer shall pay, and the Commission shall be entitled to receive, within thirty (30) days of the Commission’s delivery of such written notice, in complete liquidation of the Commission’s future monetary damages and Developer’s future obligations under this Agreement, a lump sum payment equal to: (A) the aggregate of the mathematical differences between the monthly rent for “Comparable Market Rate Unit” (as determined by the Commission, using statistical data for units of the same size and location at the time of the breach) and the monthly rent allowable hereunder for the Affordable Units, at the date of delivery of the aforesaid written notice of election to accelerate, multiplied by (B) the number of months remaining in the term of this Agreement, from and after the date of delivery of the aforesaid written notice of election to accelerate. Developer and the Commission agree that acceleration is a fair and reasonable remedy for non-compliance hereunder, and that the foregoing formula represents a fair and reasonable method of approximating and liquidating the future monetary obligations of Developer to the Commission hereunder for purposes of any such optional acceleration by the Commission. Further, such liquidated amount shall automatically commence to bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate then allowed by law, whichever is less, from and after the date that the Commission delivers to Developer the aforesaid written notice of the Commission’s election to accelerate Developer’s performance hereunder, until paid.
Further, if Developer breaches this Section 15(b)(2), the Commission shall be entitled to receive all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, title insurance charges, foreclosure costs and other outof-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in recovering such liquidated amount.
9 16. Floor Area Bonus and Inclusionary Ordinance Compliance. In consideration of Developer’s covenants hereunder, and on the condition subsequent that Developer performs its obligations hereunder, Commission hereby agrees that Developer has satisfied the Complete Communities Law’s requirements with the provision of the three (3) Very Low Income Affordable Units, two (2) Low Income Affordable Units and the three (3) Moderate Income Affordable Units, as described herein, to qualify for a floor area ratio bonus for the Property pursuant to the Complete Communities Law and to comply with the requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance.
Accordingly, if Developer is able to secure all required building permits from the City, the floor area ratio for the Property shall increase to 6.5 which will allow for the construction ninety-one (91) dwelling units, including the Affordable Units, upon the Property. Commission shall have no concern with, and shall not be responsible in any way for, the processing of Developer’s building permits or other permit applications with the City of San Diego. If Developer does not receive all of the necessary permits and approvals to construct the Project, Developer and Commission agree that this Agreement, the floor area ratio bonus and compliance with the Inclusionary Ordinance as set forth herein shall be null and void and of no further force and effect.
17. Commission Monitoring Functions. It is contemplated that, during the term of this Agreement, Commission will perform the following monitoring functions:
(a) Commission shall prepare and make available to Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions, which are applicable to the Affordable Units.
(b) Commission shall review the applications of prospective occupants of the Affordable Units and determine the eligibility of such persons. (c) Commission shall review the documentation submitted by Developer in connection with the initial qualification of tenants and the annual certification process for tenant eligibility described in Section 7, above. Notwithstanding the foregoing description of Commission’s functions, Developer shall have no claim or right of action against Commission based on any alleged failure to perform such functions.
18. Fees and Cost Reimbursement.
(a) Initial Set-Up Fee and Occupancy Monitoring Fee. Developer agrees to pay the Commission, at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the City of San Diego, an initial monitoring fee in the amount set forth in schedules promulgated by Commission from time to time.
In addition, in each year during the term of this Agreement, Developer shall pay to the Commission an annual monitoring fee, as determined by Commission in schedules promulgated by Commission from time to time. Failure to timely pay such fees shall constitute a material default under this Agreement.
(b) Cost Reimbursement. The Developer deposited $2,000.00 with the Commission as a deposit against costs incurred by the Commission in connection with implementation of the Complete Communities Law and Inclusionary Ordinance. In the event actual costs incurred by the Commission exceed $2,000.00, the Developer shall pay such excess to the Commission.
10 19. Title Insurance. Developer shall obtain and pay for an American Land Title Association lender’s policy satisfactory to Commission in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), insuring that the Deed of Trust is an encumbrance against the Property, subordinate only to any monetary liens to which the Deed of Trust has been subordinated as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement.
20. Physical Condition of the Affordable Units. After completion of construction of the Project, Developer shall continually maintain the Affordable Units in a decent, safe and sanitary condition, and in good repair in a manner which satisfies the Uniform Physical Conditions Standards promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (24 CFR §5.705), as such standards are interpreted and enforced by Commission under its normal policies and procedures. Commission shall have the right to inspect the Affordable Units from time to time, on reasonable notice and at reasonable times, in order to verify compliance with the foregoing maintenance covenant. Further, the Affordable Units shall be requalified annually, as to the foregoing maintenance covenant, as part of the annual tenant requalification process. Any deficiencies in the physical condition of the Affordable Units shall be corrected by Developer at Developer’s expense within thirty (30) days of the identification of such deficiency by Commission and delivery of written notice of the same to Developer.
21. General Provisions.
(a) Integration. The undersigned, and each of them, acknowledge and represent that no promise or inducement not expressed in this Agreement has been made in connection with this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to its subject matter.
(b) Waiver and Amendment. No provision of this Agreement, or breach of any provision, can be waived except in writing. Waiver of any provision or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other provision, or of any subsequent breach of the same or other provision.
This Agreement may be amended, modified or rescinded only in writing signed by both parties hereto.
(c) Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence in this Agreement, and of every provision in which time is an element.
(d) Captions. Section titles and captions contained in this Agreement are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and are not a substantive part of this Agreement. (e) Additional Documents. The parties each agree to sign any additional documents, which are reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement or to accomplish its intent. (f) Benefit and Burden. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any person other than the parties hereto.
11 (g) Governing Law. This Agreement has been entered into in the State of California, and shall be interpreted and enforced under California law. (h) Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing party in any action, including, but not limited to, arbitration, a petition for writ of mandate, and/or an action for declaratory relief, brought to enforce, interpret or reform the provisions of this Agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including, but not limited to, experts’ fees and costs, and including “costs” regardless of whether recoverable as such under statute) incurred in such action. (i) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and, as so executed, the counterparts shall constitute one and the same Agreement. The parties agree that each such counterpart is an original and shall be binding upon all the parties, even though all of the parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. (j) Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for the County of San Diego in first lien priority position. (k) Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and sent to the party at its address appearing below (a) by certified or registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested, (b) overnight by a nationally recognized overnight courier such as UPS Overnight or FedEx, or (c) by personal delivery. All notices shall be effective upon receipt (or refusal to accept delivery). These addresses may be changed by any party by written notice to all other parties.
If to Commission: San Diego Housing Commission
Attention: Real Estate Department, Density Bonus
1122 Broadway, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101
If to Developer:
(l) Exhibits and Recitals Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement by this reference, regardless of whether or not the exhibits are actually attached to this Agreement. The Recitals to this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement by this reference.
(m) Further Assurances. If Developer does not receive all of the necessary permits and approvals to construct the Project, Developer and Commission agree that this Agreement, the Inclusionary Ordinance compliance and floor area ratio bonus granted herein shall be null and void and of no further force and effect and Developer and Commission agree to take all reasonable steps and to execute and cause to be recorded all documents reasonably necessary to remove this Agreement and the Deed of Trust from the record chain of title to the Property. (n) Title. Developer shall open a title order to ensure proper and timely recordation of this Agreement.
12 (o) Signature Authority. All individuals signing this Agreement for a party which is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other legal entity, or signing under a power of attorney, or as a trustee, guardian, conservator, or in any other legal capacity, covenant to the Commission that they have the necessary capacity and authority to act for, sign and bind the respective entity or principal on whose behalf they are signing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.
DEVELOPER:
XYZ
By:_______________________________________
Print Name:________________________________
Its:_______________________________________
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
13 COMMISSION:
San Diego Housing Commission
By:_______________________________________
Emily S. Jacobs
Executive Vice President-Real Estate
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christensen & Spath LLP
By:___________________________________
Walter F. Spath III
Commission General Counsel
14 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
)
County of San Diego )
On ____________________, 2022, before me, _________________________________, notary public, personally appeared __________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
15 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
)
County of San Diego )
On ____________________, 2022, before me, _________________________________, notary public, personally appeared __________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
16 EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of the Property
That certain real property located in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California more particularly described as follows:
XYZ