Live Oak City Council
February 4, 2026

LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2026

The Council may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at City Hall, 9955 Live Oak Boulevard, Live Oak, during normal business hours.

Such documents are also available on the City of Live Oak’s website at www.liveoakcity.org, subject to staff’s availability to post the documents before the meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available. If you have a disability and need disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (530) 695-2112 x107. Requests must be made at least 24 hours in advance.
• Remote Viewing Only – No Public Participation:
o The meeting will be livestreamed for public viewing, but not participation, as follows:
▪ Granicus livestream: https://liveoakca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1. ▪ Zoom livestream:
• Join by Electronic Device:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81250111291
• Join by Phone:
1-669-900-6833 or 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 812 5011 1291
• Public Comment: Members of the public can submit general public comments, as well as comment on specific agenda items in the following ways:
o Public Attendance: Members of the public who attend in person may make comments from the Council Chamber podium.

LIVE OAK

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 4, 2026
6:00 PM

MEETING LOCATION

LIVE OAK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9955 LIVE OAK BOULEVARD
LIVE OAK, CALIFORNIA 95953

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

JERAMY CHAPDELAINE, MAYOR

AARON PAMMA, VICE MAYOR

ASHLEY HERNANDEZ, COUNCILMEMBER

NANCY SANTANA, COUNCILMEMBER

BOB WOTEN, COUNCILMEMBER

BENJAMIN MOODY,

CITY MANAGER

NICOLE ROSSER,

CITY ATTORNEY
1 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2026

o Email Public Comment: Comments from the public on agenda items will be accepted until 1:00 pm on the date of the meeting, via email to the City Clerk at [email protected]. Comments will be distributed to Council prior to the meeting and reflected in the meeting minutes. Please note that emailed comments will NOT be read aloud by staff during the meeting unless an approved accommodations request has been granted.
o eComment Feature: Comments from the public on agenda items will be accepted until 1:00 pm on the date of the meeting, via the eComment feature at
https://liveoakca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1. Comments will be distributed to Council prior to the meeting and reflected in the meeting minutes. Please note that eComments will NOT be read aloud by staff during the meeting unless an approved accommodations request has been granted.
2 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2026

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION

CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BY CITY MANAGER ONLY

PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. Senior Project Presentation – Farmers Market

PUBLIC COMMENT
Any person wishing to address the City Council on general jurisdictional matters or consent calendar items may do so at this time. If you are commenting on an agenda item, your comments will be heard at the time that item is scheduled for discussion. The City Council adopted a time limit of three minutes per person. The Brown Act does not allow for Council discussion of items not on the agenda. Councilmembers may only a) refer the matter to staff; b) ask for additional information; c) request a report back; or d) provide a limited factual response for items not listed on the agenda.

CONSENT ITEMS
Consent Calendar is passed by one motion with exceptions and separate votes as noted.

1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the January 21, 2026, City Council Regular Meeting minutes. (Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk)

2. Approve the 2026 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) Board of Directors Recommendation: Approve the following appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District as required by Health and Safety Code Section 40152(b): City of Marysville Councilman Stuart Gilchrist as Director, City of Marysville Councilman Bruce Buttacovoli as Alternate Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Mike Pasquale as Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Wade Kirchner as Alternate Director, City of Wheatland Councilman Brian Abe as Director, and City of Wheatland Councilman John Abe as Alternate Director.
(Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk)

BUSINESS ITEMS

3. Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan. (Benjamin Moody, City Manager)

4. Authorizing Submittal of an Application for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Funds and Approve PLHA Section 302(c)(4) Plan
Recommendation: 1) Adopt a resolution approving the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds Section 302(c)(4) Plan; 2) Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for a project utilizing Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds; and 3) Authorize the Finance Director to amend Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget to receive funding and establish a fund for Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds in the amount of $136,641 and take any actions to allocate the funding for use in accordance with federal and state guidelines.
(Benjamin Moody, City Manager)
3 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2026

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION

UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / COMMENTS / REQUESTS

CLOSED SESSION
After the Closed Session the City Council will leave the Council Chambers and the meeting will be adjourned by operation of law due to lack of a quorum. If there is any reportable Closed Session Action, a report will be made at the beginning of the next regular Council meeting. After the Closed Session Item descriptions are read by the City Attorney, all members of Council, applicable Consultants and Staff are asked to join the Closed Session meeting.

5. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):

One case.

ADJOURNMENT
4 Date: February 4, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Clarissa Menchaca,
Subject: Senior Project Presentation - Farmers Market

CITY OF LIVE OAK

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item A.
5 Background:

Recommendation:

Date: February 4, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes
Submitted for approval are the January 21, 2026, City Council Regular Meeting minutes.

Approve the January 21, 2026, City Council Regular Meeting minutes.

CITY OF LIVE OAK

STAFF REPORT
Attachments:

Minutes
Agenda Item 1.
6 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 21, 2026

CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order by Mayor Chapdelaine at Live Oak City Council Chambers, 9955 Live Oak Boulevard, Live Oak, CA at 6:00 pm.
**Clerk’s Note: Mayor Chapdelaine opened the meeting with a moment of silence for Congressman Doug LaMalfa.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Woten, Hernandez, Vice Mayor Pamma, and Mayor Chapdelaine

Absent: Councilmember Santana
**Clerk’s Note: Councilmember Santana arrived at 6:02 pm.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Vice Mayor Pamma led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Woten delivered the invocation.

CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BY CITY MANAGER ONLY Closed session moved to follow councilmember comments.

PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. Holiday Home Lighting Contest Winner
Mayor Chapdelaine recognized the Bates Family as the contest winner.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The following member of the public submitted a written public comment: Cruz Mora.

The following member of the public addressed the Council: Cruz Mora.

LIVE OAK

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2026
6:00 PM

MEETING LOCATION

LIVE OAK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9955 LIVE OAK BOULEVARD
LIVE OAK, CALIFORNIA 95953

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

JERAMY CHAPDELAINE, MAYOR

AARON PAMMA, VICE MAYOR

ASHLEY HERNANDEZ, COUNCILMEMBER

NANCY SANTANA, COUNCILMEMBER

BOB WOTEN, COUNCILMEMBER

BENJAMIN MOODY,

CITY MANAGER

NICOLE ROSSER,

CITY ATTORNEY
7 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 21, 2026

CONSENT ITEMS
Consent Calendar is passed by one motion with exceptions and separate votes as noted.

MOTION: APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 2 AND 3 WHICH WERE PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
(MOTION: WOTEN; SECOND: HERNANDEZ)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, HERNANDEZ, VICE MAYOR PAMMA, AND MAYOR CHAPDELAINE NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER SANTANA

1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
Council action: December 17, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting minutes approved.

2. Capital Acquisition – Used Tractor Purchase
Luis Cibrian, Parks and Recreation Director
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion at the request of Councilmember Santana.

3. Professional Services Agreement Amendment for Building Services Benjamin Moody, City Manager
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion at the request of Councilmember Santana.

BUSINESS ITEMS

4. Annual Audited Financial Statements – Year Ended June 30, 2025 Ethan Gutierrez, Finance Director
Ethan Gutierrez, Finance Director, and Laura Arvizu, RAMS, provided a report for the Council.

James Ramsey, Finance Consultant, addressed questions from the Council.

The following member of the public addressed the Council: Rick Dais.

MOTION: ACCEPT AND FILE.
(MOTION: WOTEN; SECOND: CHAPDELAINE)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, HERNANDEZ, VICE MAYOR PAMMA, AND MAYOR CHAPDELAINE NOES: COUNCILMEMBER SANTANA
8 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 21, 2026

5. Department Directors Employment Agreement
Jessica Mata, Management Analyst
Jessica Mata, Management Analyst, provided a report for the Council.

Benjamin Moody, City Manager, addressed questions from the Council.

Public Comment was opened and closed without any speakers.

MOTION: 1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE SALARIES WITHIN COUNCIL

DEFINED LIMITS AS WELL AS INITIAL LEAVE BALANCES, ACCRUAL RATES, AND FRINGE BENEFITS AND

TO MAKE OCCASIONAL UPDATES AND CHANGES TO THE AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW WHERE NOT TO EXCEED COUNCIL ESTABLISHED FISCAL YEAR BUDGET LIMITS. (MOTION: CHAPDELAINE; SECOND: WOTEN)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Reference Resolution No. 01-2026.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION

2. Capital Acquisition – Used Truck Purchase
Luis Cibrian, Parks and Recreation Director
Luis Cibrian, Parks and Recreation Director, provided a report for the Council.

Tony Wright, Chief Plant Operator, and Benjamin Moody, City Manager, addressed questions from the Council.

MOTION: 1) APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY FOR THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF AN USED TRACTOR, AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTS, MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A MIN. 70 HP TRACTOR, IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY, BEING IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO UTILIZE FUNDING SOURCES BASED ON THE INTENDED USE AND MAKE ASSOCIATED BUDGET MODIFICATIONS FOR THE PROCUREMENT. (MOTION: WOTEN; SECOND: PAMMA)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
9 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 21, 2026

3. Professional Services Agreement Amendment for Building Services Benjamin Moody, City Manager
Benjamin Moody, City Manager, provided a report for the Council.

MOTION: 1) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT, WITH MIGUEL CAMPOS, FOR BUILDING SERVICES, TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT BY $45,000 FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY2025-26, WITH THE FINDING THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO MAKE A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO ESTABLISH FUNDING FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR. (MOTION: WOTEN; SECOND: CHAPDELAINE)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER City Manager Benjamin Moody provided follow-up regarding representation on the Yuba-Sutter Mosquito Vector Control Board. He reported that the mid-year budget cycle annual report closed the books for the last fiscal year, and that the mid-year budget is currently in development, with the mid-year budget presentation scheduled for February 18. He also provided an update on the Citizens Fire Initiative. Mr. Moody discussed upcoming municipal code enforcement changes, which includes to repeal and replace the current code. He informed Council of the upcoming annual Caltrans coordination meeting scheduled for the following day and addressed discussion items specific to Live Oak. Lastly, he noted that March 4 is being planned as the Council goal-setting workshop.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Santana announced that Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s service is scheduled for Saturday, January 24, at the Chico Fairgrounds. She also inquired about current PFAS water testing and as to whether the donut shop owner had contacted the City Manager regarding opening a new business in town.

Vice Mayor Pamma reported attending a Realtors and Representatives Meet and Greet hosted by the Sutter Yuba Association of Realtors. He discussed how he addressed the City’s reduction of impact fees and emphasized that the city is welcoming both commercial and residential development. Additionally, he noted the importance of keeping the Highway 99 corridor as clean as possible through abatement and addressing abandoned structures to keep the town looking as attractive as possible. Vice Mayor Pamma also acknowledged the passing of Congressman Doug LaMalfa and offered his condolences. He further noted that James Gallagher intends to run in the August special election to fill the vacancy and serve the remainder of Congressman LaMalfa’s term. Lastly, Vice Mayor Pamma noted that one of the Realtors assisted in closing the transaction for the former building supply property located north of town. There was hope expressed that the new owner will reach out to the city and that the site will be developed into a business that generates revenue.

Councilmember Woten expressed disappointment regarding the closing of the Penny Candy Store and inquired whether Councilmember Santana was aware of the type of business the donut shop owner was interested in potentially opening.
10 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 21, 2026

Mayor Chapdelaine provided updates on recent and upcoming meetings, including the Housing Authority meeting and the groundbreaking for a project at Richland Village. He also reported attending the SACOG Policy and Innovation Committee meeting, as well as the regular SACOG Board meeting last week. He noted that LAFCO skipped this month’s meeting due to the holidays and mentioned that the SBFCA meeting is scheduled for next week.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b):

One case.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Chapdelaine adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 7:40 pm.

Jeramy Chapdelaine, Mayor
ATTEST:

Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
11 Purpose:

Background:

Analysis:

Fiscal Impact:

Date: February 4, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
Subject: Approve the 2026 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) Board of Directors
Summary: Recommendation: Approve the following appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District as required by Health and Safety Code Section 40152(b): City of Marysville Councilman Stuart Gilchrist as Director, City of Marysville Councilman Bruce Buttacovoli as Alternate Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Mike Pasquale as Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Wade Kirchner as Alternate Director, City of Wheatland Councilman Brian Abe as Director, and City of Wheatland Councilman John Abe as Alternate Director.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Approve changes of the member jurisdiction appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors.

The governing body of the Feather River Air Quality Management District is the nine member Board of Directors that includes five members from the two counties and four members from the four incorporated cities. Whenever a jurisdiction changes a member of the FRAQMD Board, the remaining jurisdictions must approve the new appointees.

A request for approval of the recommended members to the Board of Directors has been received from FRAQMD. The following recommendations have been deemed to be compliant with the 2004 Amended and Restated Agreement: City of Marysville Councilman Stuart Gilchrist as Director, City of Marysville Councilman Bruce Buttacovoli as Alternate Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Mike Pasquale as Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Wade Kirchner as Alternate Director, City of Wheatland Councilman Brian Abe as Director, and City of Wheatland Councilman John Abe as Alternate Director.

CITY OF LIVE OAK

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 2.
12 Recommendation:

None.

Approve the following appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District as required by Health and Safety Code Section 40152(b): City of Marysville Councilman Stuart Gilchrist as Director, City of Marysville Councilman Bruce Buttacovoli as Alternate Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Mike Pasquale as Director, City of Yuba City Councilman Wade Kirchner as Alternate Director, City of Wheatland Councilman Brian Abe as Director, and City of Wheatland Councilman John Abe as Alternate Director.

Attachments:

FRAQMD Approval of Appointments Request Letter
Agenda Item 2.
13 14
Purpose:

Background:

Analysis:

Date: February 4, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Benjamin Moody, City Manager
Subject: Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan
Summary: Recommendation: Adopt a resolution adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan
Fiscal Impact: The recommended action positions the City to qualify for future safety related transportation grant funding.

To adopt the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan and position the City for future transportation grant funding.

In September 2022, on behalf of the agencies in Sutter and Yuba County, Yuba County submitted a grant application to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program for the purpose of preparing a Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) covering all of Yuba and Sutter Counties. Live Oak, Yuba City, Sutter County, Marysville, and Wheatland were all co-applicants on the grant application.

The goal of the RSAP is to eliminate traffic fatalities, including a vision for zero deaths and serious injuries by 2050, by comprehensively addressing safety for people walking, biking, driving, and using public transit. In June 2023, Yuba County, acting as the lead agency, executed a grant agreement for $800,000 in SS4A grant funding with a local share of $200,000 split among the six local agencies proportionally. Yuba County subsequently issued a request for proposals and, through a competitive process, selected Fehr and Peers, a Sacramento-area-based transportation consulting firm to prepare the RSAP. Fehr and Peers commenced work on the RSAP in April 2024.

Representatives from the six local agencies, SACOG, and Caltrans have coordinated with Fehr and Peers to collect data and develop the RSAP. Through this process, public outreach has been made to solicit comments from the public, including the use of an interactive map for community feedback. Public comments have been taken into consideration in the final document.

CITY OF LIVE OAK

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 3.
15 Fiscal Impact:

Recommendation:

The plan identifies the following safety corridors in the City:
* State Route 99 from the northern city limit to the southern city limit * Pennington Road from the Live Oak Cemetery to State Route 99 The final RSAP (Attachment 2) provides specific policies, projects, and performance metrics recommended to address high-risk areas, allowing the City to qualify for and pursue safetyrelated transportation grants.

To date, there have been minor costs associated with staff and grant participation. However, with the establishment and adoption of a RSAP, the adopted document positions the City to qualify and compete for future transportation grant opportunities.

Adopt a resolution adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan.

Attachments:

Resolution
Yuba-Sutter RSAP
PowerPoint Presentation
Agenda Item 3.
16 1
Resolution No.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVE OAK ADOPTING THE YUBA-SUTTER

REGIONAL SAFETY ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, a Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) provides a framework for eliminating traffic fatalities, including a vision for zero deaths and serious injuries by 2050, by comprehensively addressing safety for people walking, biking, driving, and using public transit; and WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak has partnered with the Counties of Yuba and Sutter and the Cities of Yuba City, Marysville, and Wheatland to prepare the Yuba-Sutter RSAP by utilizing a federal Safe Streets for All grant; and
WHEREAS, adopting the RSAP will allow the City to be eligible for upcoming federal and state funded, safety-related transportation grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Live Oak resolves as follows:

1. The City Council finds that all the facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan dated January 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Live Oak this 4 th day of February, 2026, by
the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

NOT VOTING:

APPROVED:

Jeramy Chapdelaine, Mayor
ATTEST:

Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
17 YUBA-SUTTER
Regional Safety Action Plan
Final Draft January 2026
Made possible by a Safe Streets 4 All Planning Grant 18 CHAPTER 1 Introduction
A: Policy Benchmarking & Additional Policy Considerations B: Community Engagement Materials & Feedback
C: Safety Corridor Background & Technical Methodology
D: Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Acknowledgments What’s In This Plan
CHAPTER 2 Community Engagement
CHAPTER 3 Regional Crash Analysis
CHAPTER 4 Regional Implementation Plan

APPENDICES
Yuba County City of Marysville City of Wheatland
Sutter County City of Yuba City City of Live Oak
This study applies a systemic safety approach that identifies certain features on particular roadways that are correlated with specific crash types and frequencies. This broad approach is necessitated by the inherent nature of covering an entire region’s facilities in one study and the limited scope/budget available to prepare roadway safety plans. Limited time is available to perform field observations throughout the study area to contextualize the data, and therefore, it is beyond the scope of work to perform in-depth “hot spot” evaluations at all locations.

The analysis and recommendations in this report are conceptual in nature based upon limited information, and before implementing any changes, or using any of its information for design or construction, more detailed analysis should be conducted to make sure that the design or construction documents reflect specific, detailed, local, and field conditions.

Adrian Engel, P.E.

Registered Professional Engineer
CHAPTER 5 Yuba County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 6 Marysville Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 7 Wheatland Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 8 Sutter County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 9 Yuba City Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 10 Live Oak Safety Analysis
Note: Chapters 5 through 10 serve as standalone documents. 19 Regional Safety Action Plan 5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction This Plan and Our Region
Yuba and Sutter Counties and four incorporated cities, Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, and Live Oak, are committed to prioritizing transportation safety and eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious injuries on their roadways.

The development of this Regional Safety
Action Plan (RSAP) was led by a joint effort
of County, City, and partner agencies in the
Yuba-Sutter region. By combining efforts, the
Yuba-Sutter region can provide leadership in
roadway safety and more effectively spearhead
the implementation of roadway safety policy,
projects, and programs. This RSAP covers the
two counties and four incorporated cities in
them: Yuba County, Marysville, Wheatland,
Sutter County, Yuba City, and Live Oak.

Yuba County and Sutter County are situated
in the Sacramento Valley. The counties have
a combined total population of over 180,000,
with people concentrated in Yuba City and
Marysville. Roadway safety is a pressing issue
facing the region today. In 2021, the Office of
Traffic Safety ranked Yuba County eighth of 58
counties statewide based on the total number
of crashes resulting in injury and fatality, third
for crashes involving pedestrians, and fifth for
crashes involving motorcycles. Sutter County
ranked sixth for total number of crashes
resulting in injury and fatality, third for crashes
involving bicyclists under the age of 15, and
seventh for crashes where a party involved had
been drinking.

The beginning chapters of the document
cover the regional aspects of the plan,
including project vision and goals, potential
countermeasures, and a Safety Action Plan
that will act as a roadmap for Yuba-Sutter and
its member agencies to implement this RSAP.

The second portion of the plan contains six
jurisdiction-specific chapters, each of which
includes crash analysis, focus areas, priority
projects, and project lists.

Project team conducting walk audits
20 6 Yuba-Sutter 7

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safe System Approach
The Safe System Approach acknowledges
that mistakes are inevitable while also
asserting that severe injuries and fatalities
are avoidable on our roadways. According to
the World Health Organization, the goal of a
Safe System is to ensure that if crashes occur,
they “do not result in serious human injury.”1
The Safe System Approach to road safety
started internationally as part of the Vision Zero
proclamation that death and serious injury on
the roadway system is unacceptable.2 3
As shown in Figure 1.1, the Safe System
Approach is founded on several principles,
including acknowledging that humans make
mistakes and humans are vulnerable. As a
result, a proactive, redundant system is needed
to prevent death and serious injuries.4 Countries
that have adopted the Safe System Approach
have had success reducing highway fatalities,
with reductions in fatalities between 50%
and 70%.5 The Safe System Approach is the
foundation for the National Safety Strategy
released by the United States Department
of Transportation (USDOT) in 2022. In 2022,
Caltrans also adopted both a Safe System
Approach and a Vision Zero goal as part
of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan to
eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries
by 2050.

1. World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/roadsafety/ decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9

2. Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47, 826-831

3. Tingvall, C., & Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility. Paper presented at the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7 September 1999, Melbourne, Australia

4. Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.

5. World Resources Institute (2018). Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved from https:// www.wri.org/publication/ sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths.

6. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Road to Zero Coalition, Road to Zero Safe System Working Group. Retrieved from https:// www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/safe-systems.

7. World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https:// www.who.int/ roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/ plan_en.pdf.

8. Federal Highway Administration (2020). Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Report No. FHWA-SA-20-018. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf.

To anticipate human mistakes, a Safe System
seeks to6:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities)
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated signal turn phases)
• Alert users to potential hazards
• Accommodate human injury tolerance
through interventions that reduce speed
and/or impact force
Creating a Safe System means shifting a
major share of the responsibility for preventing
crashes from road users to those who design
the road transport system. “Individual road
users have the responsibility to abide by laws
and regulations”7 and do so by exhibiting
due care and proper behavior on the
transportation system. While road users are
responsible for their own behavior, this is a
shared responsibility with those who design,
operate, and maintain the transportation
network including the automotive industry, law
enforcement, elected officials, and government
bodies.8 In a Safe System, roadway system
designers and operators take on the highest
level of ethical responsibility.

WHAT
A Safe System aims to eliminate fatal and
serious injuries for all road users.

WHY
A Safe System acknowledges the vulnerability
of the human body.

WHO
A Safe System requires a partnership between
cities, counties, Caltrans, police, and road
users.

References
Figure 1.1: Safety System Elements and Principles
,
21 8 Yuba-Sutter 9

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Guiding Principles: Safety Is Our Highest Priority.

Existing Policy Landscape
In recent years, leaders at the federal and state
levels have taken bold and consistent steps to
acknowledge the persistent and unacceptable
level of severe injuries and fatalities on our
roadways, commit to eliminating these
occurrences, and follow international best
practices and public health fundamentals to
form a new safety paradigm in the US. This
has specifically involved embracing the Vision
Zero goal of safe mobility for all and adopting
the Safe System Approach as the way to
get there. The Safe System Approach is a
significant evolution in how roadway safety is
conceptualized.

This Safety Action Plan has been developed
to align with the pivot to the Safe System
Approach. This chapter summarizes the
primary reference documents and policy
considerations that influenced the direction,
decisions, and priorities in this RSAP.

This Plan focuses on addressing crash risk
through an assessment of vehicle speed, mass,
and exposure that is inherently proactive
and systemic. This Plan presents a holistic
assessment of the needs and opportunities for
enhancing safety consistent with a systemic
risk factors, from systematically addressing
socioeconomic and land use, features of the
built environment, and passive and active
safety tools. Finally, this Plan aspires to make
safety the default choice: the easy choice
for people as they move about and the easy
choice for roadway design decisions. This
Plan identifies the opportunities to streamline
decision making to prioritize safety and improve
internal alignment in programs, practices,
and policies consistent with the Safe System
Approach.

National Roadway Safety Strategy
The United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) incorporated the Safe
System Approach as part of its most recent
National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS),
adopted in January 2022. This NRSS is the
first national commitment to the goal of zero
fatalities on America’s roadways, and names
the Safe System Approach as the way to
accomplish that goal. Federal transportation
officials have since unveiled a number of
policies and programs geared towards the
application and implementation of the Safe
System Approach at the state and local levels.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant
program was established by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law in 2022, centered around
USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy
and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries
on America’s roadways. It provides $5 billion
in grant funding over its five-year duration
(2022 - 2026) to develop and implement safety
plans and projects. The SS4A grant program
provides funding for local agencies to create
Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (CSAPs).

It also provides funding to implement safety
projects, but only to those agencies that have
an adopted CSAP or equivalent.

Federal Policy Considerations

1. Traffic deaths and serious injuries are a preventable public health issue that must be addressed.

2. Safety is a shared responsibility.

3. Actions towards Vision Zero will be data-driven based on available crash data and risk factors (e.g., exposure, likelihood, and severity).

4. Evaluation will be ongoing. Regular data collection and analysis will help measure performance against Regional Safety Action Plan objectives.

Commitment & Vision
Our Commitment
The Yuba-Sutter Region will work collaboratively to
eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.

Our Vision
The Yuba-Sutter Region will have a multimodal and
sustainable transportation system where users of all ages and abilities can travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm.
22 10 Yuba-Sutter 11

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy,
created by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in 2024, provides guidance in
contextualizing and assessing infrastructurebased countermeasures and strategies on their alignment with the principles of the Safe
System Approach.

The Hierarchy classifies countermeasures into
four tiers, from most to least aligned with Safe
System principles. Crucially, the Hierarchy
prioritizes improvements and countermeasures
that make physical changes to the system for
the whole population as more effective than
measures that rely on roadway users and
individual decisions.

Safe System Approach for Speed Management
The FHWA’s 2023 report on the Safe System
Approach for Speed Management provides
targeted recommendations around speed
management. The report notes the need for
agencies to place safety and the prevention
of injury crashes (as opposed to throughput
or travel times) as the highest priority when
it comes to speed setting on roadways, and
highlights the need to change the physical
design and context of the roadway beyond
merely changing regulatory speed limits in
order to achieve target speeds. The report
outlines a five-stage framework to speed
management consistent with the Safe System
Approach.

More Effective
Easier To Implement

1. Remove Severe Conflicts
Removing severe conflicts, by separating
users with different speeds or directions,
such as using separated bike lanes.

2. Manage Vehicle Speeds
Reducing vehicle speeds and thereby
reduces the severity of crashes that do
occur. Countermeasures that reduce
prevailing speeds can include lane
narrowing and median islands.

3. Manage Conflicts In Time
Managing conflicts in time, which would
separate users in time at shared spaces,
like giving pedestrians a head start at
intersections.

4. Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
Increasing attentiveness and awareness,
which involves alerting users to conflicts
and potential risks, can involve such
countermeasures as intersection
daylighting and warning signage.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians
and Bicyclists
The Primer, released by the FHWA in 2021,
emphasizes the importance of protecting
pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable
users, under the Safe System Approach. The
Primer details the considerations surrounding
pedestrians and bicyclists under each of the
five elements of the Safe System Approach
and provides strategies and actions that
can be taken at the federal, state, and local
levels towards implementing the Safe System
Approach. Also included is an appendix on
benchmarking policies, programs, and practices
for Safe System consistency.

If struck by a person driving at... Percent of people struck who will survive... 20mph 90%
30mph 60%
40mph 20%
Speed Management and Roadway Safety
23 12 Yuba-Sutter 13

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Regional and Local Policy
Considerations
Fully committing to Vision Zero and following
the Safe System approach requires a
fundamental pivot that involves infusing safety
into all programs, policies, and practices within
the agency as well as reconsidering existing
agency approaches, budgets, and priorities
where they conflict with Safe System principles.

The Project Team developed a benchmarking
tool for Federal Highway Administration as part
of the Primer on the Safe System Approach
for Pedestrians and Bicyclists where agencies
can assess their standing on current safety
policy and work against industry best practices.

A combination of General Plans, Local Road
Safety Plans, Standard Plans & Specifications,
and Active Transportation Plans/Bicycle Master
Plans were reviewed for the six jurisdictions
to identify opportunities to improve how
processes prioritize safety.

Safety as A Public Health Concern
This RSAP draws from emerging best practices
which identifies and prioritizes strategies
focused on addressing the potential for
injury from the force generated by moving
vehicles or individuals in a crash. The Safe
Systems Pyramid, shown below, draws
from public health principles to emphasize
that interventions with the broadest reach
and lowest individual effort are the most
effective. This framework serves as a guide for
prioritizing roadway design and operational
Pedestrians in Live Oak City
The General Plans include policies to prioritize
safety in roadway projects or enhance safety
while making other transportation system
improvements. General Plans also bolster a
Safe System by addressing the socioeconomic
factors that have an impact on roadway
safety. Older Improvement Standards and
Specifications for some jurisdictions should be
updated to focus on reducing the likelihood and
severity of crashes (e.g., speed management).

Over half of the jurisdictions have Active
Transportation Plans/Bicycle Master Plans
that identify recommendations for facilities
with physical separation between vehicles and
bicyclists/pedestrians. Yuba City, Marysville, and
Yuba County already have Local Road Safety
Plans. Many safety planning benchmarks are
current efforts with this RSAP, but others will
require additional work beyond the plan. For
a detailed listing of relevant local policies, see
Appendix A.
strategies that maximize safety impacts while
fostering collaboration beyond traditional
safety-focused efforts. It highlights the role of
agency partners and community stakeholders
in the RSAP and addresses upstream, systemic
issues to tackle root causes more holistically.

The Safe System Pyramid guided the selection
and prioritization of implementation strategies
in Chapter 4.

Safe System Pyramid

1. Education
Driver Education Programs, Slow Down Campaigns

2. Active Measures
Signals and signs, in-vehicle crash warnings, seatbelts, helmets

3. Latent Safety Measures
Signal timing, leading pedestrian intervals, air bags, automated emergency braking

4. Built Environment
Roundabouts, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, sidewalks, bikeways

5. Socioeconomic Factors
Affordable housing near transit, zoning reform
Population
Health
Impact
Individual
Effort
24 14 Yuba-Sutter 15

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 2
Community Engagement
The project team engaged with organizational partners around the region and the community at large, seeking insight to ensure that the resulting Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) creates a vision for improving the region’s roadways that aligns with the community’s values.

Our Community Engagement Journey Towards Vision Zero

1. United for Vision Zero
Establish a multi-agency task force
to align strategies, share data, and
guide Vision Zero efforts.

2. Map the Insights
Launch a project website and web
map to gather location-based
public input.

4. From Talk to Action
Translate data and public feedback
into targeted strategies and
implementation priorities.

3. Listen to Communities
Host pop-ups and listening sessions
to collect community insights and
ground-truth safety needs.
1 2
3 4
25 16 Yuba-Sutter 17

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
Project Website & Interactive Web Map
A website was developed for the Plan to
collect public feedback, consisting of project
information, an interactive web map, and a
project calendar. In the web map, visitors could
identify specific locations within the region
where they had roadway safety concerns by
leaving comments and tag them by mode of
travel (i.e. walking, biking, driving, etc.). The
web map was open for public response from
November 2024 to June 2025, and made
available in English, Spanish, and 10 other
languages. The web map received a total of 49
comments. A map and log of all comments are
included in Appendix B.
49 Total Comments
Vision Zero Task Force
A Task Force was convened for the
development of this Regional Safety
Action Plan (RSAP) which comprised staff
representatives from the partner jurisdictions’
agencies as well as community organizations
such as Blue Zones and the Yuba Area Bike
Advocates. The Task Force is responsible for
the Action Plan’s development, implementation,
and monitoring phases.

Over the course of the development of this
RSAP, the Task Force met three times. The
first meeting included an introduction on the
Safe System Approach and Vision Zero and
preliminary discussions on funding, regional
coordination, and how best to address the
needs of the public. During the second meeting,
the Task Force discussed results of the crash
data analysis along with the locations with
disproportionately high injuries and fatalities
and suggested other locations to consider
based on their local knowledge. They also
shared information about ongoing safety
related projects or policies taking place within
their jurisdiction or by their organization.

During the third meeting, the groups discussed
the results of the public facing community
engagement along with focus areas…and
choosing solutions to fit the contexts of the
Yuba-Sutter region.

United for Vision Zero Map the Insights
14 Walking Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.
15 Biking Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.
20 Driving Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.

The Task Force included staff or members
from the following agencies and
organizations: • Yuba County Public Works • City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• Sutter County Public Works • Yuba City Public Works • City of Yuba City Public Works • Marysville Joint Unified School District • Yuba County Sheriff • Sutter County Police Department • Yuba City Police Department • Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• Yuba Area Bike Advocates • Blue Zones Yuba-Sutter
Task Force meeting
26 18 Yuba-Sutter 19

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
In-Person Outreach
Task Force and online engagement were supplemented with in-person events around the region to raise awareness and gather public input. At each pop-up event and listening session, project staff was available to inform the public about this Plan and its purpose. Residents were encouraged to share their safety concerns through interactive activities, direct conversations with the project team, and add comments on the web map. Lawn signs and posters that directed community members to project resources were strategically posted in high-traffic areas throughout the community.

Pop-Ups
To meet people where they are and optimize
engagement, project staff participated at three
community events. These events provided the
opportunity for the engagement of a broader
cross-section of the public than that which
would attend a typical project-specific public
meeting. At the first pop-up event in January
2025, the team distributed informational
takeaway cards and engaged attendees in
conversations about the project while they
were in line for food at a Yuba-Sutter Food
Bank distribution site. The outreach team later
joined a Group Walking event with Blue Zones,
a community-based organization, where they
discussed the project and safety concerns with
other attendees. During the third event, the
team shared project information and gathered
input at the Family Skate Night, which took
place at the Tri-Counties Community Center.

From Talk to Action
Speeding is a primary concern.

Residents consistently identified vehicle speeding as a top safety issue across neighborhoods.

Pedestrian crossing safety is a major theme.

Many comments focused on the need for safer crossings, particularly near schools.

Infrastructure improvements are widely requested.

Community members called for enhanced sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and improved lighting—especially in residential and downtown areas.

Listening Session
In May, the team hosted four listening sessions,
one in each of the four partner cities during
evenings. These meetings were conducted in
an open-house style, with informational and
interactive boards set up around the room for
attendees to interact with. For each jurisdiction,
one board displayed crash trends and crash
hotspot maps and a second board listed the
safety corridors identified by the project team
for potential improvements and again solicited
feedback on the community’s agreement on
those corridors being given higher priority,
as well as provide an opportunity for them
to propose other locations. All boards were
translated into Spanish. Boards utilized are in
Appendix B.

Food bank pop up
Project team distributing flyers
Project team collecting feedback
Marysville listening session
Wheatland listening session
United for Vision Zero
Key Takeaways
27 20 Yuba-Sutter 21

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 3
Regional Safety Analysis
This chapter summarizes key findings from the region’s crash data, including the identification of high-injury safety corridors and region-wide focus areas.

Together, these components highlight crash trends across the Yuba-Sutter region and inform the systemic safety strategies presented in Chapter 4.

About the Data
Crash analysis for 2018 to 2023
for Yuba-Sutter Region was carried
out using crash data obtained
from the California Highway
Patrol’s Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and
excludes property-damage-only
crashes. Data collected includes the
type of crash, primary cause, and
at-fault party, etc.

While crash databases such as
the SWITRS, accessed through
the Transportation Injury Mapping
System (TIMS), remain the best
source of crash data, they have
been found to have certain reporting
biases, including:
• Crashes involving people
walking, on bicycles, or on
motorcycles are less likely to
be reported than crashes with
people driving.
• Younger victims are less likely to
report crashes.
• Alcohol-involved crashes may
be underreported.

Bicyclist using crosswalk at signalized intersection
28 22 Yuba-Sutter 23

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include: • Broken or fractured bones • Dislocated or distorted limbs • Severe lacerations • Severe burns • Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries • Unconsciousness at or when taken from the crash scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is used to
denote crashes where someone was killed or severely
injured.

Summary of KSI Crashes
886 of the region’s 5,362 crashes resulted in
a victim being Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

There was a disproportionately greater share
of KSI crashes that involved pedestrians when
compared to all crashes. 101 (11 percent of
KSI crashes compared to 6 percent) involved
pedestrians, and 48 KSI crashes (5 percent)
involved bicyclists.
4881
186 295
Injury Crashes
737
48 101
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crash
Bicycle-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
Figure 3.3
Crash Mode Share by Severity

KSI CRASHES IN THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION
Distracted Driving: The Safe System
Approach addresses human mistakes such
as loss of attention, distracted driving,
and aggressive driving by designing road
infrastructure and traffic systems that anticipate
these errors. The goal is to minimize their
consequences by creating multiple layers of
protection that prevent severe crashes even
when mistakes occur. These protections include
improved visibility, in-vehicle technology, traffic
calming measures, lane departure warnings, and
physical barriers that separate traffic flows.
29 24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25

1. Introduction
Crash Data Fact Sheet
What are the different crash types?
Broadside: also known as a T-bone crash, occurs when the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another. These crashes can be severe due to limited protection on vehicle sides. It is the most common type of crash in the Yuba-Sutter region.

Rear End: happens when one vehicle hits the back of another, typically due to sudden stops or following too closely at an unsafe speed. It is the second most common type of crash in the region.

Vehicle/Pedestrian: involves a vehicle striking a pedestrian. In the YubaSutter region, this crash type had the highest rate of KSI outcomes, due to the vulnerability of pedestrians.

Hit Object: occurs when a vehicle collides with a fixed object like a tree, pole, or barrier. These crashes often involve just one party. Hit object crashes make up the largest share of KSI crashes in the region.

Head-On: occurs when two vehicles collide front-to-front, usually on undivided roads. These are among the most dangerous crash types and represent the second highest share of KSI crashes in the region.

Overturned: occurs when a vehicle flips onto its side or roof, often due to sharp turns or high speeds. Overturned crashes can be especially hazardous for occupants.

Sideswipe: occurs when two vehicles traveling in the same or opposite directions brush against each other, often during lane changes or merging.

Primary Crash Factor
Determining the cause of a crash is not always
straightforward, as multiple contributing factors
may be involved. The primary crash factor
(PCF), is the element identified by the reporting
officer as most responsible for the incident.

Below are some of the most common crash
factors observed in the Yuba- Sutter region: • Unsafe Speed: refers to motorists operating a vehicle at a speed that
exceeds what is considered safe given
roadway conditions, including weather,
traffic volume, and road characteristics.

Even when it is not cited as the primary
cause of a crash, speed contributes to the
resulting severity of crashes.
• Improper Turning: refers to any turn
made that violates traffic regulations or
safety guidelines. This includes executing
an illegal turn, failing to use a turn signal,
or making a turn that interrupts traffic
flow.
• Vehicle Right-of-Way Violation: occurs
when a driver fails to properly yield to
another vehicle who has the legal right to
proceed.
• Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence:
involves operating a motor vehicle or
bicycle while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Impaired driving significantly increases
collision risk by reducing reaction time,
impairing judgment, and affecting motor
coordination.
• Traffic Signals and Signs: indicates
failure to comply with traffic control
devices, including stop signs and traffic
signals. Typical violations include running
red lights and failing to stop at limit lines.
• Wrong Side of Road: involves a vehicle
driving on the incorrect side of the road.
• Following Too Closely: indicates
tailgating or not maintaining a safe
distance from the vehicle ahead.
• Pedestrian Violation: refers to when
pedestrians fail to follow traffic laws,
such as crossing outside of designated
pedestrian crosswalks or against signals.

Pedestrian violations sometimes indicate
inadequate pedestrian infrastructure
surrounding the crash area.

Who’s at fault?
The “at-fault” party refers to the individual
determined to be primarily responsible for
the crash. In most instances, it is the operator
of a motor vehicle making the driving error.

In vehicle/pedestrian crashes, it could be a
pedestrian who violated rules of the road by
walking in areas not designated for pedestrian
use. However, pedestrian violations may
be overrepresented due to a lack of clear
information related to crash circumstance,
such as a lack of crosswalks and the increased
likelihood that the pedestrian party may be
unable to provide their side of the incident at
the time of the crash.

Time of Day and Lighting Conditions
Crashes are divided into four categories based
on lighting conditions: • Daylight • Dusk and dawn • Dark/nighttime, working streetlights present
• Dark/nighttime, streetlights not present or
working.

Knowing the lighting condition of crashes helps
reveal where improvements such as increased
lighting can help with reducing crash risks.

Driving Under the Influence
This category summarizes the share of crashes
that involved a driver or bicyclist impaired by
alcohol and/or drugs.

The region’s crash history includes several categories, as explained below. 30 26 Yuba-Sutter 27

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Regional Crash Analysis
Figure 3.1 Injury Crashes by Year
Figure 3.2 KSI Crashes by Year
814 837 791 864 747 828
33 26 19
26 39
43 53 42 38
46 56
60 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
116 116 125 138 127 115
9 4 4
8 10 13 16 14 18
17 18 18
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
5,362

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
886

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
Between 2018 and 2023, the Yuba-Sutter
region (encompassing Yuba County and Sutter
County) saw 5,362 crashes that led to some
degree of injury. 186 crashes (3 percent)
involved bicyclists and 295 (5 percent) involved
pedestrians.
886 of the region’s 5,362 crashes resulted in
a victim being Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

A disproportionately greater share of KSI
crashes involved pedestrians when compared
to all crashes. 101 (11 percent of KSI crashes
compared to 6 percent of all crashes) involved
pedestrians, and 48 KSI crashes (5 percent)
involved bicyclists. Broadside crashes emerged
as the most common type of crash, with
speeding as the top primary cause of crashes.

CRASH HEAT MAP OF THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
31 28 Yuba-Sutter 29

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Figure 3.4
Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type, 2018 - 2023
Figure 3.5
Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF), 2018 - 2023 Injury Crash
KSI Crash
Crashes by Crash Type
Broadside (27 percent), rear end (24 percent),
and hit object (19 percent) emerged as the
most common types of crashes throughout the
region, accounting for 70 percent of crashes.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF)
Unsafe speed (25 percent), improper turning
(22 percent), vehicle right of way violation (16
percent), and driving or bicycling under the
influence (12 percent) were the most common
reported primary causes of crashes, accounting
for 75 percent of crashes.

Figure 3.6
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting, 2018 - 2023
Dusk - Dawn
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not
Present or Not Working
Figure 3.7
DUI Crashes, 2018 - 2023
Other Crash
DUI Crash
67%
4%
14%
15%
Injury Crashes
13%
87%
Injury Crashes
54%
4%
16%
26%
KSI Crashes
25%
75%
KSI Crashes
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(67 percent), 4 percent occurred during dusk
and dawn, 14 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 15 percent
in the dark with no lighting. 54 percent of KSI
crashes happened in the daytime, 4 percent
occurred during dusk and dawn, and 16
percent occurred in the dark with streetlight
present. A disproportionately greater share of
KSI crashes occurred during nighttime in areas
that lacked lighting, at 26 percent compared to
15 percent of all injury crashes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
13 percent of all crashes involved a DUI charge.

Notably, this share was larger for KSI crashes,
at 25 percent.
27%
24%
19%
9% 7% 7%
5%
1%
19%
11%
26%
13%
5%
14%
10%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Broadside Rear End Hit Object Overturned Sideswipe Head-On Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
25%
22%
16%
12%
7%
4% 2% 2%
10%
17%
25%
9%
23%
3%
7%
2%
6%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle
Right of
Way
Violation
Driving or
Bicycling
Under the
Influence
Traffic
Signals and
Signs
Wrong Side
of Road
Other Than
Driver (or
Pedestrian)
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
32 30 Yuba-Sutter 31

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Railroad Crash Summary RAILROAD-RELATED CRASHES IN THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION The railroad crash data analyzed covers the same time span as the roadway crash data: 2018 through 2023. There were eight railroad crashes that occurred in the same time period. Six crashes were within unincorporated Yuba County, five of them being on private roads and one being on Virginia Road southeast of Ostrom. There were two crashes within unincorporated Sutter County, one on Paseo Road and the other one on Clark Road south of Live Oak.

Of the crashes reported, two resulted in fatalities, two involved serious injuries, and two involved no injuries. Each crash report includes a narrative field that provides additional context. In six of the eight cases, the narrative stated: “Stopped on Crossing.” The remaining two crashes also attributed fault to the road user, though with different wording.

About the Data
Railroad crash data was sourced from the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), from the
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Incident Data.

According to the USDOT, a highway-rail
grade crossing crash is defined as any impact
between on-track railroad equipment and a
highway user (e.g., automobile, pedestrian,
etc.) occurring at a designated highwayrail grade crossing. These incidents are documented by FRA personnel when such
crashes occur.

Incident information captured includes:
• Crash cause category (e.g., human factors,
track issues, signal failures, mechanical
problems)
• Casualty data (total killed and injured)
• Damage estimates
• Crash type (e.g., derailment)
• Track type (e.g., main line, yard)
• Track characteristics including
signalization and method of operation
(e.g., direct train control, yard/restricted
limits)
Rail Crossing Rules and Regulations
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices provides standards and
specifications for all official traffic control
devices in California (California MUTCD Part
8, Traffic Control for Rail and Light Rail Transit
Crossings, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/camutcd).

The California Public Utilities Commission,
which oversees the design, construction,
and maintenance of rail crossings, hosts
a webpage with the rules, guidance, and
references for these high-risk areas: https://
www.cpuc.ca.gov/crossings/
The CPUC also recently updated their
Guidance on Pedestrian Treatments for
Rail Crossings, which includesgeometric
design considerations and design elements
such as markings, signage, channelization,
and warning devices.
33 32 Yuba-Sutter 33

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safety Corridors
Safety corridors are defined as the roadways with the highest number and risk of crashes resulting in severe injury or death. This section discusses the methodology used to identify them.

Policy Background: Assembly Bill 43
Assembly Bill (AB) 43 is state traffic safety
legislation aimed at reducing road fatalities
by giving local governments more flexibility in
setting speed limits. AB 43 enables jurisdictions
to consider pedestrian and cyclist safety, school
zones, and crash history when setting speed
limits. If a jurisdiction, after completing an
engineering and traffic survey, finds that the
speed limit on a roadway segment is higher
than reasonable or safe, they may declare a
default speed limit that has been reduced an
additional five miles per hour if that segment
is designated as a safety corridor. A safety
corridor is a roadway segment within an overall
roadway network where the highest number
of serious injury and fatality crashes occur; AB
43 stipulates that a jurisdiction’s set of safety
corridors must account for at least 25 percent
of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) crashes and
must comprise 20 percent of its streets or less.

More information on AB 43 can be found in
Appendix A.

Methodology
The methodology developed for this safety
corridor identification is based on best practices
identified from a review of Safe Systemfocused Vision Zero programs, as well as the recent California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices definition of Safety Corridors.

Safety corridors were designated based on
crash frequency and contextual risk factors
such as crash severity and mode, proximity to
schools, the presence of vulnerable populations,
etc. This methodology adopts a proactive,
systemic safety analysis rather than relying
solely on historical crash data. It incorporates
known risk factors from national and statelevel research. A network of safety corridors was developed using the 5-year crash dataset
for 2018-2023 from the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation
Research and Education Center database.

Other data sources such as the USDOT
Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) and
Wejo speed data were used to incorporate
contextual data into the network. For a full
description of the technical methodology, see
Appendix B.

YUBA-SUTTER REGIONAL SAFETY CORRIDORS
34 34 Yuba-Sutter 35

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Focus Areas
Focus areas were identified to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—especially KSI crashes—in the region. Six such focus areas, denoted ‘A’ through ‘F’, were identified across the region, with each one applicable to several or all of the jurisdictions covered by this RSAP.

The following pages contain
cutsheets that present each
focus area, along with the
following information: • Description and
associated information
about each focus area
• Number of crashes
associated, including
number of KSI crashes
among those (note
that focus areas are
not mutually exclusive;
crashes can fall under
multiple, and totals will
exceed 100%)
• A map identifying
locations of crashes
within the focus area
Engineering countermeasures
that can potentially
address these crashes are
also presented in each
jurisdictions’ chapter.

Yuba-Sutter Region Focus Areas:

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
35 36 Yuba-Sutter 37

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
State Routes 20, 49, 65, 70, 99, and 113
traverse through the region and serve as
key corridors within Yuba and Sutter County
jurisdictions. Due to their high volumes
and travel speeds, these highways present
elevated safety risks and are frequently the
sites of crashes. 39 percent of all crashes and
42 percent of KSI crashes in the Yuba-Sutter
region occurred on state highways. Sections of
highways that function as Main Streets in more
populous areas often see conflicts between
829 (15%) Total Crashes 80 (9%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
different modes of transportation—40 percent
of all highway crashes (16% overall) occurred
in such areas throughout the region. Speeds
exceeding 60 mph were a factor in 40 percent
of “main street” highway crashes, and in 10
percent of bicycle- and pedestrian-related
incidents on these highways.

Countermeasures that can improve
safety along highway main streets focus on
slowing vehicle speeds, organizing traffic flow,
and reducing conflict points between drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.

STATE HIGHWAYS AS MAIN STREET CRASHES
Wheatland
36 38 Yuba-Sutter 39

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Complete Streets on the State Highway System
Caltrans Complete Street Contextual Design Guidance (DIB94) The Yuba-Sutter region includes a mix of rural communities, suburban neighborhoods, and semi-urban downtown centers, many of which are bisected by state highways. These state routes frequently serve as community main streets in areas with growing residential development, schools, transit use, and walkable town centers. However, these corridors often lack adequate facilities for people walking, biking, or accessing transit, leading to serious safety risks, particularly for vulnerable road users.

Through the published Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (Design Bulletin 94), Caltrans has provided new flexibility in the design of complete streets projects on the State Highway system.

The guidance includes considerations for changing speed limits, constructing appropriate bike facilities, and increasing shoulder widths – all context-sensitive solutions appropriate to better serving travelers of all ages and abilities.

Project Criteria
A project must meet the following criteria to follow this new guidance:
• Located in an urban area, suburban area, or rural main street • Posted speed limit does not exceed 45 MPH
• Includes a bike, pedestrian, or transit facility.

Suggested Guidance
Some of the guidance suggested by DIB 94 is as follows:
• Design Contexts: Reallocate roadway space to enhance safe and efficient connectivity for communities, regardless of travel mode. To accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, use strategies such as narrowing or removing travel lanes, adjusting median or turn lane widths, and reducing or eliminating on-street parking.
• Vehicle Speeds: Traffic calming and speed management strategies are tools to achieve safe and predictable speed transitions. Proposed speed limits should be based on place type, helping avoid sharp accelerations or decelerations along transitions such as from a rural area into a commercial district where pedestrians are more likely to be present. • Roadway Cross-sections: Cross-sectional design should consider factors such as place type, operating speed, and current and potential users when establishing or modifying lane widths and preferred sidewalk and bikeway widths. Considering the community context and place type is key to aligning the class and location of treatments such as bicycle facilities for optimal safety and connectivity.
• Crosswalks: The placement and frequency of crosswalks should support pedestrian safety and visibility, particularly near schools, transit stops, and community destinations.

Where does this apply in Yuba-Sutter?
Several corridors in the region not only meet the DIB 94 eligibility criteria but also reflect ongoing safety concerns and latent demand for safer multimodal travel, particularly for non-motorized users.

Examples include:

SR 20 through Marysville and Yuba City
This route traverses central business districts
and neighborhoods with significant pedestrian
activity. Speed limits are typically 35–45 MPH,
and these corridors serve local bus routes but
lack safe crossing opportunities and continuous
bike facilities.

SR 70 through Linda and Olivehurst
This route serves as a main spine for residential
communities and local schools. SR 70 has
multiple driveways, cross streets, and transit
stops—features typically found in a rural main
street context. Current roadway geometry
and traffic volumes, however, present safety
challenges especially for pedestrians and
cyclists, especially at uncontrolled crossing
points.

SR 99 in Yuba City
This route is a key corridor with significant
pedestrian activity, transit stops, and adjacent
commercial and residential areas. It lacks
consistent or protected bicycle facilities, often
depending on narrow shoulders or intermittent
bike lanes. This route also experiences land
use transitions that would benefit from more
predictable speed profiles.

SR 99 in Live Oak
This state highway cuts through small-town
centers where pedestrian activity is high,
but facilities are lacking or outdated and are
candidates for safety enhancements, including
sidewalk improvements, safer crossings, and
improved visibility for vulnerable road users.

In each of these locations, existing land use, speed profiles, and community access needs, make the roadway a good candidate for design treatments as outlined in DIB 94. Several sites identified in this plan’s crash analysis have shown repeated collisions on these highway segments, underscoring the need for safety improvements catered towards low-speed, multimodal infrastructure.

The design flexibilities provided under DIB 94 offer local agencies and Caltrans a valuable opportunity to modernize transportation infrastructure in a way that is both efficient and responsive to local context. Designing with this guidance in mind allows for rural and suburban settings like Yuba and Sutter Counties to design solutions that better match the context of the communities they serve. 37 40 Yuba-Sutter 41

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Improper turning is one of the primary causes
of crashes and accounts for 1,153 crashes
(nearly 22 percent) of all and 223 (25 percent)
of KSI crashes in the Yuba-Sutter region. Of
those 1,153 crashes,
740 occurred away from the intersection of
two roadways, accounting for 14 percent of
the region’s crashes. Crashes with a primary
collision factor of improper turning that aren’t
occurring at intersections of roadways include a
wide range of actions, such as mis-attributing a
turn into a driveway. In the moments leading up
to these collisions, 43 percent of at-fault parties
made an unsafe turning action (e.g. making
abrupt lane changes) and 25 percent ran off
1,005 (20%) Total Crashes 94 (11%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA B
Right of Way Issues at Intersections
the road. This crash type is strongly related to
roadway departure on highways and county
roads where speeds exceed 55 MPH.
32 percent of this crash category led to an
object being hit and 17 percent to the vehicle
overturning, the majority of which occur
outside of city limits in more rural parts of the
region. Countermeasures for this focus area
include a combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and additional shoulder space,
which can help prevent dangerous turning
maneuvers and roadway departures by guiding
drivers and providing recovery space.

RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES AT INTERSECTIONS CRASHES
38 42 Yuba-Sutter 43

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant
contributor to injury crashes, especially and
disproportionately to KSI crashes. 26 percent
of KSI crashes involves alcohol impairment.

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday see higher crash
frequency from 6pm to 3am, compared to other
times of day and days of the week.

Within cities, there are higher concentrations
of DUI crashes on arterial and collector roads
along commercial areas, where there is also a
707 (13%) Total Crashes 227 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
higher share of DUI crashes involving bicyclists
and pedestrians—even with crosswalks
present. In the unincorporated areas, 63
percent of DUI crashes occurred on rural roads,
and 44 percent resulted in a hit object crash.

Narrow two-lane corridors such as SR-113,
and curved road segments also host sites
of DUI crashes. Countermeasures for DUIs
are typically programs that target education
and enforcement rather than engineering or
infrastructure changes.

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CRASHES
39 44 Yuba-Sutter 45

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
People walking and riding bicycles are
considered vulnerable roadway users. Although
crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
make up less than nine percent of all crashes,
they account for nearly seventeen percent of all
KSI crashes in the region.

Sutter County’s KSI crashes are concentrated
within Yuba City, while Yuba County’s crashes
are dispersed throughout Marysville and
the unincorporated communities of Linda
and Olivehurst. There are higher rates of KSI
crashes involving bicylists and pedestrians
on wide four-lane arterials along commercial
480 (9%) Total Crashes 149 (17%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
areas, sometimes with two-way left turn
medians or median islands. Mid-block crashes
occurred more often in areas where pedestrian
crossings are sparse, mainly in unincorporated
areas. Additionally, 24 percent of KSI crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians occurred
within a quarter-mile of a school and 25
percent ran off the road. Countermeasures for
crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
that occurred within a quarter-mile of a school
typically offer vulnerable road users with
dedicated, protected space and increased
visibility, like bikeways and lighting.

CRASHES INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
40 46 Yuba-Sutter 47

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Improper turning is one of the primary causes of
crashes and accounts for 1,153 crashes (nearly
22 percent) of all and 223 (25 percent) of KSI
crashes in the region. Of those 1,153 crashes,
740 occurred away from an intersection,
accounting for 14 percent of the region’s
crashes. In addition, 32 percent of crashes with
improper turning as the primary factor and
occurring away from intersections led to hit
object and 17 percent to overturned, both crash
types happening almost exclusively outside of
city limits. This indicates roadway departure
on highways and county roads where speeds
exceed 55MPH. In the moments leading up to
this focus area, 43 percent of at-fault parties
740 (14%) Total Crashes 172 (19%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections
made an unsafe turning action (e.g. making
abrupt lane changes) and 25 percent ran off
the road.

A combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements,
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and delineators, can help prevent
unsafe turning and mitigate roadway
departures by guiding drivers and providing
recovery space. Pairing these countermeasures
with speed limit reductions can reduce
crash severity by lowering the kinetic energy
transferred during high-speed impacts, helping
prevent serious injuries.

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTIONS CRASH MAP

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTION CRASHES
41 48 Yuba-Sutter 49

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Overall, 1,004 of crashes resulted in hit object,
making up 19 percent of the region’s crashes.

However, this type of crash accounted for 26
percent of KSI crashes. 95 percent of all hit
object crashes involved only one party.
896 crashes, or 89 percent, of hit object crashes
occurred outside of city limits. Out of those,
68 percent occurred on non-state facilities. In
unincorporated Sutter County, many of these
hit object crashes occurred on two-lane rural
county roads—typically narrow lanes without
shoulders, most of which have posted speed
limits of 55MPH and up. In unincorporated Yuba
County, many non-state-highway hit object
crashes occurred in and near residential areas,
mainly Linda and Olivehurst, where some roads
range from two- to four-lanes and often have
on-street parking.
1,004 (19%) Total Crashes 229 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
Most of the objects hit were fixed objects (83
percent), such as trees and utility poles, nine
percent were other objects such as items
dropped from a vehicle, and two percent were
animals.

Countermeasures like clear zone improvements
and widened shoulders help prevent crashes
with objects and provide recovery space, while
rumble strips and reflectors enhance driver
awareness and guidance, especially in lowvisibility conditions. Speed limit reductions are especially critical, as lower speeds directly
reduce the kinetic energy transferred during a
crash, which in turn lowers the risk of severe
injury or fatality.

HIT OBJECT CRASHES
42 50 Yuba-Sutter 51

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 4
Regional Implementation Plan
This section presents a toolbox of safety countermeasures that can be deployed to address crash trends and the systemic factors behind them. Systemic improvements, both engineering and programmatic/nonengineering related, were identified for implementation.

Engineering & Programmatic
Countermeasures
What Are Engineering Countermeasures?
Engineering countermeasures are physical,
infrastructure-based improvements that can
be made to roadways to reduce likelihood of
crashes.

What Are Programmatic/Non-engineering
Countermeasures?
Programmatic/Non-engineering
countermeasures introduce education,
enforcement, and other policy instruments
as means of encouraging safer roadways
through user behavior, and they can be used to
tackle traffic safety problems such as alcohol
and drug impaired driving, distracted driving,
speeding, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Example: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Example: OTS Go Safely California campaign resources 43 52 Yuba-Sutter 53

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Engineering Countermeasures
Engineering countermeasures are presented in a toolbox in Appendix D, which includes descriptions of the countermeasures, its applicable tier(s) in the Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy, estimated high-level cost, and opportunities for quick-build versions. Countermeasures that are part of FHWA’s list of Proven Safety Countermeasures and/or in the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) are also noted. Both distinctions can be advantageous for use in Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding applications.

As practitioners select countermeasures for specific projects, they should consider crash history, contextual factors, design features, costs, and a range of other issues. In each jurisdictions’ chapter in subsequent sections of this Plan, countermeasures from this toolbox are paired with focus areas to provide a systemic approach to addressing crash trends.

Example Countermeasure - Roundabout
Roundabouts represent a proactive approach to improving intersection safety and efficiency within the Yuba-Sutter region. Their design aligns with the goals of the Regional Safety Action Plan by reducing severe crashes, enhancing traffic flow, and accommodating diverse users. Implementing roundabouts in strategic rural and urban locations can serve as a cost-effective and sustainable measure to advance both safety and mobility outcomes identified in the plan.

Roundabout
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A roundabout is a circular intersection where traffic flows in one direction around a central island, and vehicles must yield at entrance lanes. Unlike conventional intersections, roundabouts eliminate severe conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements. The design of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, which narrows the range of vehicle speeds and reduces the severity of crashes. Additionally, pedestrians only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time, minimizing their exposure to vehicles.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S16/NS04
Example Engineering Countermeasure
Programmatic Countermeasures
Programmatic countermeasures can also be effective in reducing the likelihood and severity of crashes. Programmatic countermeasures include education, enforcement, and other strategies.

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 11th Edition, published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2023, provides a range of information on example traffic safety programs, including examples and effectiveness rankings.

What’s Included?
• Speed limit decrease opportunities, especially near
schools or in downtowns
• Enforcement based on crash history
• High-visibility DUI enforcement
• DUI prevention through partnerships with public
health agencies
• Education and public awareness campaigns
targeted at speeding, DUIs, and increasing
awareness of people walking and biking
• Automated enforcement with red-light cameras or
speed cameras
More information on these and other programs can be
found in Appendix D.

Local Efforts
Locally, several safety programs have already been
implemented. CHP has previously been awarded
grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety to
perform targeted enforcement in high-frequency
crash areas. Marysville has recently performed a
round of DUI enforcement. Live Oak is in the process
of performing engineering and traffic studies to
implement lower speed limits in key areas.

There have been several other efforts through Blue
Zones and First Five Sutter County as well as other
local groups that have conducted education and
outreach related to active transportation. Additionally, several of the jurisdiction’s Health Departments have
funding for bike helmet give-aways.

Speed Limit Modification
Description
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was
passed in 2021 to provide a means
to lower speed limits on corridors
that meet certain criteria. AB 43
focused on giving local jurisdictions
more flexibility in setting speed limits,
especially regarding vulnerable road
users:
• Speed Limit Reduction: Reduction
of additional 5 mph based
on several factors, including
designation of Safety Corridors,
as described in Chapter 3
• Prima Facie Speed Limits: Options
for 15 and 25 mph in certain
areas such as school zones
depending on context
• Business Activity Districts: Option
for 20 or 25 mph speed limits
Effectiveness and Cost
Cost: $
Example Programmatic Countermeasure
44 54 Yuba-Sutter 55

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Implementation Plan
This section presents the Action Plan for the Yuba-Sutter Region partner agencies. Yuba-Sutter is committed to providing regional leadership to improve roadway safety and working to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on the roadway network. The Action Plan is comprised of strategies to facilitate successful implementation and evaluate and communicate progress.

Consistency with the Safe System
This Plan builds on existing safety practices
to ensure consistency with the Safe System
Approach. The Plan establishes a framework
for the Region to guide transportationrelated implementation moving forward to be aligned with the Safe System Approach. This
includes rethinking how the jurisdictions in
the Yuba-Sutter Region prioritize projects and
allocate funding to address safety concerns
systematically and proactively. The Plan also
includes guidance for developing projects by
reviewing them through a safety-first lens. All
transportation projects should be reviewed to
ensure severe crash risks are minimized for
vulnerable road users.

Infrastructure
A priority corridor list was prepared for each
jurisdiction based on the locations of the safety
corridor network that had the highest number
of severe and fatal crashes, community input,
location of sensitive land uses, as well as
review of the jurisdiction’s other infrastructure
needs and priorities. See identified projects in
each jurisdiction’s section.

Prioritization
The FHWA Safe System Roadway Design
Hierarchy provides guidance on how to
prioritize projects when reviewing development
applications and making land use and
transportation planning decisions. Projects
identified in the project list, as well as any
future projects, should prioritize higher tiers
with the goal of first removing severe conflicts.

Project priorities should include those with
the greatest potential of reducing crash risk
(exposure, likelihood, and severity).

Policies and Practices
In addition to infrastructure projects, the
success of this RSAP is dependent on
changes to the policies and practices that
institutionalize the Safe System Approach for
the region’s partner agencies in. As a result of
the benchmarking assessment described in
Appendix A and recommendations from the
Task Force, the Action Plan contains strategies,
institutional improvements, and new standard
practices that center safety in the day-to-day
operations of the Yuba-Sutter counties and
local agencies. For example, rolling safety
projects into existing capital improvement
projects by consolidating safety improvements
with maintenance efforts such as roadway
resurfacing can be cost efficient and expedite
project implementation and delivery. YubaSutter’s commitment to the goals of this RSAP emphasize that safety considerations are
prioritized in projects over other competing
factors.

Oversight, Coordination, and Partnership
The Action Plan also provides for oversight
and accountability towards the commitment
to safety. Yuba-Sutter will continue the
momentum from the Task Force that convened
during the creation of this plan. Having
the leadership and oversight of this group
will help maintain buy-in and support from
elected officials and the community as YubaSutter encourages Caltrans to implement countermeasures on state-owned facilities
identified in the RSAP.

Continued communication and transparency
with community members can allow for greater
trust and support of the RSAP’s goals. The
Action Plan also contains policies that promote
community education to develop collective
awareness around safety, target educational
campaigns towards identified emphasis areas,
and create a culture that supports both policy
and infrastructure changes.

Partner agencies must work together to carry
out the projects and policies listed in each
jurisdiction chapter and assume a shared
responsibility for the implementation of the
Plan.

Yuba-Sutter’s city councils and county boards
of supervisors should receive regular updates
on if their jurisdictions are on track to meet
the Vision Zero goal. The future success of
this plan will require a comprehensive effort
across government and the community,
including partnerships with neighborhoods and
community based organizations to encourage
engagement and support.

Implementation Phasing & Sequencing
Implementing countermeasures, policies,
and projects identified in the Plan typically
requires an ongoing, long-term commitment.

To facilitate the evaluation and prioritization
of funding, it is desirable to consider the
implementation of safety projects through
different time horizons.

Jurisdictions should seek overlapping
opportunities where safety improvements
will be implemented as part of an upcoming
effort such as the repaving program or CIP.

Implementation should also happen proactively
as part of any development impact review
process to ensure that new developments
align with the Safe System Approach and
meet safety requirements. All transportation
construction projects should be reviewed
to ensure they align with the Safe System
Approach and follow recommendations in this
Plan.
45 56 Yuba-Sutter 57

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Caltrans Project Implementation
Caltrans Project Delivery
Once the Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is
adopted, projects taking place on the California
State Highway System (SHS), such as
Highways 20, 70, and 99, will involve Caltrans.

Project delivery with Caltrans is a structured,
multi-phase approach designed to ensure
projects are safe, efficient, and aligned with
statewide mobility goals.

Following project identification from the
planning process, Caltrans or one of the cities
or counties involved with the RSAP will prepare
a Project Initiation Document (PID). This
document outlines the project’s purpose, scope,
schedule, and estimated cost, and serves as
the foundation for securing funding. The PID
includes analysis of key issues such as traffic
operations, environmental impacts, multimodal
considerations, and community involvement.

It is essential for programming the project into
the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) or Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP), which commits funding from
sources like the State Highway Account.

Projects may be developed directly by Caltrans
as part of the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program (SHOPP) which focuses
on maintenance of existing facilities but will
incorporate feasibility, safety, and multimodal
elements as identified by various planning
processes. Alternatively, the local agencies may
implement projects on the SHS through the
encroachment permit process for smaller, less
complex projects or through the formal Project
Study Report approval process for larger
projects.

Following programming, the project enters
the development phase, which includes
environmental studies, securing necessary
approvals and permits, acquiring rights of
way, and completing detailed design plans.

Caltrans then prepares and advertises the
construction contract. Once a contractor is
selected, the project moves into construction
and contract administration, where Caltrans
oversees the execution of the work to ensure
compliance with specifications, timelines, and
safety standards. The final step is project
close-out, which includes documentation, final
inspections, and transitioning the project into
operational status.

Throughout this process, Caltrans coordinates
closely with local agencies, especially when
projects are locally sponsored or require
regional input. This collaboration ensures that
projects reflect community needs and are
delivered efficiently and equitably.

More information on project delivery can be
found from the link here:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/project-delivery
Caltrans Project Delivery can be reached at:
• [email protected]
• (916) 653-2451
North Region Projects Viewer
The North Region Projects Viewer is a publicly available map-based web application that displays Caltrans projects occurring within the Caltrans North Region, consisting of Caltrans Districts 1, 2, and 3, under six project phase categories: Complete, Construction, Maintenance, Planned, Programmed and Emergency. Members of the public may use this tool to view projects and track their progress. The application can be accessed from the link here: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/239772ff383d416483addc029ae9c6fa 46 58 Yuba-Sutter 59

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Performance Measures
This Plan is a policy document and requires regular updates and monitoring to evaluate its efficacy and to ensure the Region is on track to achieve zero KSI crashes by 2050. Each jurisdiction in the Yuba-Sutter Region will monitor the following performance measures on an annual basis and make additional adjustments to the Plan as needed to meet the zero goal. The goal of monitoring is to understand if the measures are effective at reducing crashes as the region works toward zero fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, ongoing monitoring will help to identify locations with high propensity for KSIs based on exposure, likelihood, and severity. Historic crash patterns can inform these considerations, but design decisions will be proactive and based on reducing safety risk. Every five years, the Yuba-Sutter Region will update their Safety Action Plan to reevaluate the crash data and performance measures. Performance measures will be added or removed to meet the goal of reducing fatal and severe injury crashes to zero.

Plan Implementation Metrics
The number of roadway miles and intersections improved
The percentage of streets where the operating speed matches the target speed The number of projects implemented with the systemic deployment of countermeasures Policy and Programmatic Changes
The provision of continuous sidewalks, low stress bicycle facilities, and traffic calming improvements alongside land use zoning changes
Set contextually appropriate target speeds and prioritize and implement speed management strategies to meet those targets
Standardize the selection and implementation of pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on contextual factors such as speed and volume
The prioritization of projects for transportation connections to communities of persistent poverty and underserved populations along Walk and Roll Routes and key transit corridors The collaboration with transit, land use, and social service partners for strategies at the base of the Safe Systems Pyramid
The review and reprioritization of the city’s and county’s annual CIP budget to shift funding toward proactive and opportunistic opportunities to efficiently address safety priorities The collaboration with agency partners to make meaningful progress on cross-jurisdictional efforts The creation of a rapid response program to evaluate roadway design and context of crash locations after KSI crashes
Crash Statistics
The number of KSI crashes on Safety Corridors
The number of crashes where the crash type was identified as unsafe speed The number of DUI-related crashes
The number of youth bicyclist-involved crashes
Funding

FEDERAL FUNDING
Funding
Source Program Purpose
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A) Grant
Program
The Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) grant program is a Federal grant program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law centered around the Department of Transportation’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on America’s roadways. It provides $5 billion in grant funding over 5 years to develop safety action plans and implement safety projects.

Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Improvement
Program
The FAST Act continued the CMAQ program to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).

Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
(RAISE)
This program supports surface transportation infrastructure projects that will improve safety; environmental sustainability; quality of life; mobility and community connectivity; economic competitiveness and opportunity including tourism; state of good repair; partnership and collaboration; and innovation.

Reconnecting
Communities
and
Neighborhoods
Program
The Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods program combines the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) discretionary grant programs into a single funding opportunity. The program funds projects that address the impact of transportation infrastructure, such as freeways and railroads, that form barriers for travel in communities.

The program funds the removal, retrofit, mitigation, or replacement of the infrastructure in question.

Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG) Program
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Communities often use CDBG funds to construct and repair streets and sidewalks.

Below are federal and state funding sources applicable to the future implementation of this Plan. 47 60 Yuba-Sutter 61

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan

STATE FUNDING
Funding Source Program Purpose
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs). Local HSIP projects must be identified on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data-supported means.

Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
ATP is a statewide competitive grant application process with the goal of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs.

SB-1 Transportation
Funding
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the biennial fiveyear plan for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements.

Caltrans Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grant
Program
This program is intended to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines adopted by the California Transportation Commission.

California Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS)
OTS administers traffic safety grants in the following areas: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Emergency Medical Services, Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Traffic Services, Public Relations, Advertising, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program makes it easier for Californians to drive less by making housing, jobs, and key destinations accessible by walking, biking, and transit. 48 62 Yuba-Sutter 63

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action Plan
The following pages present safety strategies organized into three priorities:
integrate the Safe System Approach in policy and practice; systemically and proactively address common crash focus areas; educate all roadway users.

Priority A: Integrate Safe System in Policy and Practice These strategies aim to infuse roadway safety concepts, especially the Safe System Approach, as part of routine practices and design decisions.

Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Maintain the Vision Zero Task Force and advance safety
plans and projects; coordinate on funding opportunities. • Yuba County Public Works Department & Sheriff’s Department • Sutter County Public Works Department & Sheriff’s Department • City of Marysville Public Works Department • City of Wheatland Engineering Department • City of Yuba City Public Works Department • City of Live Oak Public Works Department • Caltrans • California Highway Patrol • Partner Organizations (Blue Zones, YABA, etc.) Number of meetings with Vision Zero Task Force. Number of federal, state, regional, and local funding opportunities applied for regionally.

Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Prioritize safety in funding decisions, such as during regular updates to local capital improvement plans. • Yuba County Public Works Department • Sutter County Public Works Department • City of Marysville Public Works Department • City of Wheatland Engineering Department • City of Yuba City Public Works Department • City of Live Oak Public Works Department Evaluation
Metric
Documented roadway safety considerations during decision-making processes for major plan updates, including local Capital Improvement Plans, local General Plan Updates, and SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Ongoing
Ongoing
Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Integrate safety improvements into regular maintenance
based on countermeasures from this plan. Find opportunities for partnership through infrastructure project bundling. • Yuba County Public Works Department • Sutter County Public Works Department • City of Marysville Public Works Department • City of Wheatland Engineering Department • City of Yuba City Public Works Department • City of Live Oak Public Works Department • Caltrans Percent of regular maintenance projects that infuse roadway safety countermeasures from this Plan. Number of infrastructure projects bundled.

Action 4
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Evaluate and implement lower speed limits in business
districts, school areas, and other areas that have a high concentration of vulnerable road users, as eligible through AB 43. • Yuba County Public Works Department • Sutter County Public Works Department • City of Marysville Public Works Department • City of Wheatland Engineering Department • City of Yuba City Public Works Department • City of Live Oak Public Works Department • Local School Districts Number of qualifying roadways with lower speed limits.

Ongoing
Long Term
49 64 Yuba-Sutter 65

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action 5
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Update street design standards to include designs that
reduce kinetic energy and reflect Complete Streets principles based on state and national guidance (e.g. National
Association of City Transportation Officials).
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Design standards updated.

Action 6
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Work with emergency responders to identify barriers and improve response times, as necessary.
• Yuba County
• Sutter County
• City of Marysville
• City of Wheatland
• City of Yuba City
• City of Live Oak
• Local Emergency Responders
Annual meetings with emergency response agencies to review the previous year’s emergency response metrics and methods for improvement.

Short Term
Ongoing
Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Advance design concepts and apply for grant funding or
identify other financing methods for three priority corridors every five years.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of projects advanced through design or grant applications.

Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Install low-cost safety improvements at six regional locations per year—including new road markings, signs, and minor signal modifications—that address the focus areas in this plan. • Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of low-cost projects that address focus areas implemented regionally per year.

Priority B: Systemically and Proactively Address Common Crash Focus Areas These strategies target key areas for improvement identified through crash analysis, including intersection control and vulnerable users.

Ongoing
Short Term
50 66 Yuba-Sutter 67

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Complete three projects that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety near schools and community destinations such as
parks and downtown business areas within five years.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of bicycle and pedestrian projects implemented.

Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Launch high-visibility multilingual education PSA campaigns against speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, and other high-risk behaviors, with a focus on safety corridors.

The campaigns should have both digital and in-person
components for greatest reach into the communities.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
• Local law enforcement agencies
• California Higway Patrol
Estimated number of people reached.

Priority C: Educate All Roadway Users
These strategies represent a variety of educational and outreach programs and strategies that encourage behavior change in road users.

Short Term
Short Term
Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Deter impaired driving by targeting education and outreach at alcohol-serving establishments. Develop a public promotional campaign encouraging the use of taxis, rideshares, on-demand transit, and other services as alternatives to impaired driving. • Local Police Departments
• Yuba County Sheriff
• Sutter County Sheriff
• California Highway Patrol
• Local Businesses
• Yuba-Sutter Transit
Number of establishments reached. Number of programs established.

Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Improve data collection and reporting on speed, impairment, cell phone use, and distraction for KSI crashes.
• Local Police Departments
• Yuba County Sheriff
• Sutter County Sheriff
• California Highway Patrol
Share of crash records including this data.

Long Term
Long Term
51 68 Yuba-Sutter

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Our commitment: Yuba-Sutter will periodically review the effectiveness of the strategies to identify those that would be helpful to expand and those that could be replaced. Each strategy includes an implementation timeline and evaluation metric(s), and identifies the parties and partnerships needed to be successful.

Action 4
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Partner with community-based organizations such as YABA, Blue Zones, and Civic Thread on educational campaigns
focused on vulnerable road users, such as Safe Routes to School and early driver education.
• Yuba County
• Sutter County
• City of Marysville
• City of Wheatland
• City of Yuba City
• City of Live Oak
• Local community-based organizations (CBOs)
• Local School District
Number of joint campaigns betweeen local agencies and CBOs.

Long Term
52 Yuba County
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Yuba County is rich in history, natural beauty,
and agricultural significance. Covering
approximately 644 square miles, Yuba County
is geographically diverse, with the western
portion consisting of fertile valley land ideal
for farming, while the eastern portion has the
rugged terrain of the Sierra Nevada foothills.

The county is home to the Yuba River, Feather
River, and Bear River, which contribute
to its scenic landscapes and recreational
opportunities.

Agriculture plays a vital role in Yuba County’s
economy, with crops such as rice, peaches, and
walnuts being widely cultivated. The county
also has a strong presence of cattle ranching
and dairy farming. Additionally, Yuba County
is known for its biodiversity, boasting a high
number of native plant species.

CHAPTER 5
Yuba County Crash Analysis This Plan and Our Region
The county is connected to the greater
Sacramento Region by a network of state
facilities that carry high volumes of traffic.

State Route (SR) 70 runs north-south through
the county seat of Marysville, SR 20, provides
east-west access, and SR 65 connects to Beale
Air Force Base and the City of Wheatland to
Roseville, and Rocklin in Placer County.

Yuba County is home to several fairly populous
unincorporated communities that fall under
county jurisdiction. These communities include
Linda, Olivehurst, Arboga, Plumas Lake, Loma
Rica, Browns Valley, and Oregon House, among
others.

Project team conducting walk audits
53 Yuba County
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 5.1 shows locations in Yuba County that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 7 percent of Yuba County’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
41 percent of Yuba County’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities, Yuba
County received a score of 20, where the state
had a score of 23, indicating parity between
Yuba County and the state as a whole.

Figure 5.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty y y py
T
·65
·70
·20
·99
Yu b a Cou n ty
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
·20
Dr
Edward
A 40-year-old male,
relies on carpooling
and walking for his
daily commutes, facing
challenges associated
with poverty, including
limited transportation
options and unsafe
walking conditions. His
day includes traveling
for work and social
activities, as well as
returning home on foot.

A
T
West Linda
54 Yuba County
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Plans
Yuba County has previously made
commitments to roadway safety, as outlined
in the Yuba County General Plan and recently
completed Local Roadway Safety Plan. Refer
to Appendix A for a list of policies and goals
supporting improving roadway safety.

Projects
There are numerous improvement projects
currently underway or planned within
unincorporated Yuba County.

The following roadway safety-related projects
are planned on state facilities owned and
operated by Caltrans: • Install centerline or shoulder rumble strips on State Route 20 at various locations
throughout Yuba County.
• Upgrade crosswalk to ladder type at
various locations on SR 65 and 70 in
southwest Yuba County.
• Upgrade guardrail, signs, Transportation
Management System elements; install
sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, and
acceleration and deceleration lanes;
rehabilitate pavement and drainage
systems along SR 65 between SR 70 and
South Beale Road.
• Upgrade crosswalk to ladder type on
SR 70 near Algodon Road and south of
Plumas Lake Boulevard.

The following safety-related projects are
being designed or in construction on county
roadways: • Addition of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and
bike lanes along Arboga Road, Grand
Avenue, Jay Street, Cottonwood Avenue,
Garden Avenue, and Vine Avenue in
West Linda, in addition to storm drains on
Garden Avenue.
• Curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, and
storm drain along 13 roads in Olivehurst:

Second Ave, Third Ave, Fourth Ave, Fifth
Ave, Sixth Ave, Eighth Ave, Ninth Ave,
Tenth Ave, Eleventh Ave, Western Ave,
Beaver Lane, Canal Street, and Tulsa
Avenue.
• Streetscape improvements on Feather
River Boulevard from Arboga Road to
Alicia Avenue, including new sidewalks,
crosswalks, Class II bike lanes, storm
drains, striping, signage, curbs, gutters,
American Disability Act compliant ramps,
LED street lights, and improved transit
stops.

The following recently completed projects in
Yuba County enhance safety for roadway users,
particularly pedestrians, bicyclists, and children: • Bike path on the western edge of the Plumas Lake community
• Safe Routes to School: Sidewalks,
crosswalks, bike lanes, curbs, and gutters
on 11th Avenue in Olivehurst
55 Yuba County
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan9
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
264 294 324 339
273
317
10 7
7 8
15 13
21 13
10 22
16 19
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
45 45
64 62 60
51 6
2 0
3 4
5 11 5 7
13 7
7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1,972

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
397

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from
the county’s crash data obtained from the
California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database, for the years 2018 to 2023. The
analysis includes all crashes that led to injury
and excludes property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period Yuba County saw
a total of 1,972 crashes that led to some
degree of injury. 82 crashes (four percent of all
injury crashes) involved bicyclists and 148 (six
percent) involved pedestrians. 438 crashes
resulted in a victim being Killed or Severely
Injured (KSI).

Figure 5.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 5.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 5.4: Yuba County Crash Heat Map
56 Yuba County
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Summary
There is a disproportionately greater share
of bicycle and pedestrian crashes among KSI
crashes, as compared to all injury crashes.

Out of 397 KSI crashes, 20 (five percent of
KSI crashes) involved bicyclists, and 50 (13
percent) involved pedestrians. There was a
total of 102 fatalities: 83 vehicle drivers or
passengers, 14 pedestrians, and five bicyclists.

Figure 5.6: Yuba County KSI Crashes
Figure 5.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
1811
60101
327
20 50
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
57 Yuba County
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, hit object (29 percent), broadside (21
percent), and rear-end (20 percent), were the
most common crash types in Yuba County.

Similarly, among KSI crashes, hit object (32
percent) was also the most common type of
crash, followed by overturned (15 percent) and
head-on (15 percent).

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Improper turning (28 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes resulting in
injury, followed by unsafe speed (25 percent)
and Vehicle Right of Way Violation (14
percent).

Improper turning (33 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of KSI crashes followed
by Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence (22
percent) and Unsafe Speed (17 percent).

Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(63 percent), 4 percent occurred during dusk
and dawn, 12 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 21 percent
in the dark with no lighting. 49 percent of KSI
crashes happened in the daytime, 4 percent
occurred during dusk and dawn, and 13
percent occurred in the dark with streetlight
present. A disproportionately greater share of
KSI crashes occurred during nighttime in areas
that lacked lighting, at 33 percent compared to
21 percent of all injury crashes.

Driving Under the Influence
15 percent of all crashes resulting in injury
involved someone driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Notably, this share was larger
for KSI crashes, at 22 percent.

Figure 5.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Figure 5.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 5.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 5.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 29%
21% 20%
12%
7% 6% 5%
1%
32%
12%
9%
15% 15%
5%
11%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Hit Object Broadside Rear End Overturned Head-On Sideswipe Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
28%
25%
14% 14%
4%
2%
13%
33%
17%
7%
22%
8%
5%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Improper
Turning
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Wrong Side of
Road
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
63%
4%
12%
21%
49%
4%
13%
33%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
15%
85%
22%
78%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
58 Yuba County
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Yuba County that had the highest
number of crashes resulting in severe injury or
death (KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes,
are adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have
high potential for severe crashes and thus,
should be prioritized for improvements. The
following is a list of Yuba County’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input, and
community feedback. Figure 5.11 displays Yuba
County’s network of safety corridors, which are
shown in orange. Priority corridors are shown
in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed
explanation of the safety corridor identification
technical methodology. • SR 70 from Yuba River to SR 65 Junction • SR 65 from Morrison Rd/Rancho Rd to Wheatland city limits
• North Beale Rd/Lindhurst Ave from SR 70
to Erle Rd
• Simpson Ln from Yuba River to
Hammonton-Smartsville Rd
• Hammonton-Smartsville Rd from
Simpson Ln to Avondale Ave/Rupert Ave
• Grove Ave from Hammonton Smartsville
Rd to Shoreline Dr
• Olivehurst Ave from Powerline/Chestnut
roundabout to Lindhurst Ave
• McGowan Pkwy from Arboga Rd to
Rancho Rd
• Plumas Arboga Rd from SR 70 to Forty
Mile Rd
• Forty Mile Rd from Rancho Rd to Plumas
Arboga Rd
Safety Corridor Inset:

Safety Corridors
Figure 5.11: Yuba County Safety Corridors
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.
59 Yuba County
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Community Snapshot
Edward’s daily routine highlights the
transportation struggles faced by individuals
living in poverty, as shown in Figure 5.12.

Without access to a personal vehicle, he relies
on carpooling with co-workers to travel nearly
10 miles to his job and later to a nearby bar
and grill for socializing. His return home is on
foot, covering about a mile. This walk, however,
is fraught with safety hazards. The route
along Alicia Avenue lacks sidewalks, has poor
lighting, and offers limited safe crossing points,
making it a dangerous journey.

Although a majority of Yuba County residents
(84 percent) primarily rely on cars for
transportation, a significant portion still travel
on foot (11 percent). Edward’s experience
underscores the broader challenges of
inadequate infrastructure and limited mobility
options in underserved communities, and
how pedestrians should be given greater
consideration when planning and implementing
safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Edward, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by someone without a personal vehicle in unincorporated Yuba County. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 5.12: Yuba County Community Snapshot
·65
·99
Yuba County Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Edward
A 40-year-old male,
relies on carpooling
and walking for his
daily commutes, facing
challenges associated
with poverty, including
limited transportation
options and unsafe
walking conditions. His
day includes traveling
for work and social
activities, as well as
returning home on foot.

Edward does not have
access to a vehicle and
either walks or carpools
throughout his day. His day
starts after getting picked
up by a carpool of coworkers, which takes him to
his job nearly 10 miles away.

After work, Edward
and some co-workers
carpool to a favorite bar
and grill that is not too
far from Edwards house.

After socializing, Edward
walks one mile home,
facing difficulties due to
a lack of sidewalks, poor
lighting, and limited
crossing opportunities
along Alicia Avenue.

A
Legend
Home location
Destinations
Walking
Carpooling
Safety Corridor
Highways
A B C
West Linda
C
B
C
B
60 Yuba County
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Focus Areas
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Yuba County’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking

FOCUS AREA B
Improper Turning Away from
Intersections

FOCUS AREA B
Hit Object
61 Yuba County
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant
contributor to injury crashes, especially and
disproportionately to KSI crashes. Alcohol
impairment was involved in 15 percent (of
Yuba County’s total crashes but accounted for
23 percent of all Yuba County’s KSI crashes.

Figure 5.12 displays all DUI crashes within
unincorporated Yuba County.

Two-thirds of DUI crashes were concentrated
in the southwest portion of the county—many
of them in and near Linda, West Linda, and
Olivehurst—on Hammonton Smartville Road,
North Beale Road, State Routes 65 and
70, Arboga Road, Feather River Boulevard,
Olivehurst Avenue, and Forty Mile Road. The
rest of the crashes were dispersed widely
north of the Yuba River, on SR 70 and SR
49, and Marysville Road, mostly. Local law
enforcement and public works staff identified
the Amphitheater and Casino as probable
influences. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday see
higher crash frequency around 6pm to 3am,
compared to other times of day and days of the
week. Most DUI crashes occurred on county
and state roads where there are posted speed
limits of 55 MPH.

Hit object was the most common type of crash
to result from DUI crashes and accounted
for 48 percent (142 crashes) of them and 42
percent of KSI crashes (40 crashes). These
DUI-hit object crashes were spread across the
county in a pattern similar to that of all DUI
crashes.

The most effective countermeasures for DUI
crashes fall under non-engineering programs
that target education and enforcement.

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
293 (15%) Total Crashes 92 (23%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 5.12: Crashes Involving Driving Under the Influence 62 Yuba County
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Pedestrians and bicyclists are vulnerable
roadway users. Although crashes involving
people walking and biking make up only
eight percent of all crashes, they account for
nearly eighteen percent of all KSI crashes
in unincorporated Yuba County. Figure 5.13
displays all crashes that involved people
walking and biking.

These crashes are concentrated in the
unincorporated communities of West Linda,
Linda, and Olivehurst. There are higher rates of
KSI crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
on arterials such as McGowan Parkway,
Feather River Boulevard, North Beale Road,

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
160 (8%) Total Crashes 70 (18%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
and Forty Mile Road. There are numerous
crashes on arterial segments where retail
businesses and homes are present along either
side of the road:
• Feather River Boulevard, between Alicia
Avenue and SR 70
• North Beale Road, between Silverwood
Street and Hammonton Smartville Road
Mid-block crashes occurred in some areas
where pedestrian crossings are sparse—
particularly on Lindhurst Avenue and
Hammonton Smartville Road.

Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
Figure 5.13: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking 63 Yuba County
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
Potential Countermeasures
Add Sidewalk
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
The following countermeasures reduce risks for
crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists by
making them more visible to drivers, providing
safer and more frequent opportunities to
cross busy roads, and creating dedicated or
protected spaces for their use.
64 Yuba County
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Improper turning remains one of the leading
primary contributors to crashes and accounts
for 552 of Yuba County’s crashes. Moreover,
most of them occurred away from an
intersection, rather than at them. Of those
552 crashes, 383 took place away from an
intersection, making up 19 percent of the
county’s crashes. 99 (25 percent) of Yuba
County’s improper-turning KSI crashes occurred
away from an intersection. Figure 5.14 displays
the locations of these crashes.
58 percent of these crashes led to hit object
and 22 percent to overturned. 70 percent were
traveling at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. In
the moments leading up to them, 44 percent
of parties that were at fault made an unsafe
turning action and 27 percent ran off the

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections
road. This pattern could suggest that highspeed unsafe lane changes, erratic steering, or distracted driving on roads may have led to
these crashes.

SR 70 experienced the highest frequency of
improper turning crashes occurring away
from intersections. These crashes were
highly concentrated along SR 70 between
the northwest limits of Linda and Olivehurst
Avenue and moderately concentrated on SR
70 north of Marysville as well as Hammonton
Smartville Road. The remaining crashes were
mostly dispersed on corridors within the vicinity
of Linda, Oliveshurst, and Wheatland, such as
Feather River Boulevard, in addition to more
rural roads such as SR 20, Marysville Road/
Willow Glen Road, and Loma Rica Road.
383 (19%) Total Crashes 99 (25%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 5.14: Improper Turning Crashes Away from Intersections 65 Yuba County
28 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 29
A combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements,
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and delineators, can help prevent
unsafe turning and roadway departures by
guiding drivers and providing recovery space.

These countermeasures, especially when
paired with speed limit reductions, reduce
crash severity by lowering the kinetic energy
transferred during high-speed impacts, helping
prevent serious injuries.

Potential Countermeasures
Curve Advance Warning Sign Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object
Create/Increase Clear Zone Speed Limit Reduction
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
66 Yuba County
30 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 31
Hit-object crashes emerged as the most
prevalent crash type in unincorporated Yuba
County. This crash type composes 566 (29
percent) of the county’s crashes overall, and
129 (32 percent) of the county’s KSI crashes.

As expected, 96% of all hit-object crashes
involved only one party. Figure 5.15 displays
all hit object crases between 2018 and 2023 in
unincorporated Yuba County.

Two-thirds of this type of crash occurred on
non-state facilities. Many of these county road
hit object crashes occurred in rural eastern
Yuba County on narrow, tree-lined roadways
and near residential areas, mainly Linda and
Olivehurst, where roads are two to four lanes
and many have on-street parking. Leading up
to the crashes, 40 percent of at-fault vehicles
made some unsafe turning movement, such as
abrupt lane changes or erratic steering wheel
maneuvers, and 30 percent ran off the road.

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
566 (29%) Total Crashes 129 (32%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
A smaller share of vehicles were proceeding
straight (19 percent). As a result, most of the
objects hit were fixed objects (80 percent), such
as trees and utility poles on the side of the road;
10 percent were other objects such as items
dropped from a vehicle or a parked vehicle; and
two percent were animals.

Similar to the improper turning crash focus
area, a significant amount of hit object crashes
took place on SR 70, especially between
the northwest limits of Linda and the SR 70
and SR 65 merge. Hit object crashes were
also frequently reported along Hammonton
Smartville Road, SR 20, Marysville Road/
Willow Glen Road, and Loma Rica Road.

Within the unincorporated communities, hit
object crashes were prominent along North
Beale Road and Feather River Boulevard and in
the northern portion of Plumas Lake.

Figure 5.15: Hit Object Crashes
67 Yuba County
32 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 33
Countermeasures like guardrails, clear
zone improvements, and widened or paved
shoulders can help prevent crashes with
objects and provide recovery space. Rumble
strips, safety edge treatments, and delineators
or reflectors enhance driver awareness and
guidance, especially in low-visibility conditions.

Speed limit reductions are especially critical, as
lower speeds directly reduce the kinetic energy
transferred during a crash, which in turn lowers
the risk of severe injury or fatality.

Potential Countermeasures
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Speed Limit Reduction Create/Increase Clear Zone
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
68 Marysville
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Marysville is the county seat of Yuba County,
with a population of nearly 13,000. It lies near
the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers
near Yuba City, which is located just across the
Feather River to the west.

The city features a compact and historically
rich urban layout, shaped by its riverfront
location and legacy as a Gold Rush-era city.

Ellis Lake, a central landmark, is in the heart of
town. The western half of the city features an
older, denser downtown, commercial areas,
and community amenities. The eastern portion
consists of schools, parks, and residential
neighborhoods. State Route 20/10th Street,
State Route 70/E Street, B Street, and 12th
Street are the city’s key corridors, connecting
residents to key destinations throughout the
city and around the region.

CHAPTER 6
Marysville Crash Analysis This Plan and Our Region
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 6.1 shows locations in Marysville that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 10 percent of Marysville’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
35 percent of Marysville’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Marysville received a score of 42, where the
state had a score of 23, indicating that the
population of Marysville experience higher
levels of environmental impacts than the state
as a whole.
69 Marysville
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Figure 6.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty Plans
Marysville has already demonstrated a
commitment to roadway safety through the
adoption of several plans, namely the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan and the Local Roadway
Safety Plan. The city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan establishes goals and policies to support
a robust and safe network for people walking
and biking, expanding access to community
destinations, and supporting education
and enforcement programs that encourage
walking and biking. Similar to this Regional
Safety Action Plan (RSAP), the Marysville
Local Roadway Safety Plan identifies top
crash patterns and locations and recommends
countermeasures and projects to reduce
crashes at top crash locations.

Refer to Appendix A for a comprehensive list of
policies that support the city’s safety goals.

Projects
There are numerous infrastructure
improvement projects currently underway or
planned in Marysville. The following roadway
safety projects are planned on state and local
roadway facilities:
• Extend striping, install traffic lighting and
rumble strips, upgrade existing signs
and “install headlight” signs along SR 20
between the Feather River and E Street,
9th Street between E Street and B Street,
and B Street between 9th Street and 12th
Street.
• Install signs, green pavement markings,
and crosswalks to improve bicyclist and
pedestrian safety on SR 20 between
G Street and 9th Street, and 9th Street
between E Street and D Street.
• Upgrade existing crosswalks to laddertype crosswalks and install signs at the following intersections with E Street: 8th
Street, 7th Street, 6th Street, 5th Street,
4th Street, and 3rd Street.
• Construct a second right turn lane from
Southbound SR 70 to Westbound SR 20
at the 9th Street and B Street intersection.
• Install audible pedestrian push-buttons
and retro-reflective border back-plates on
traffic signal heads at the East 12th and
Ramirez Street intersection.
• As part of the Binney Junction project
along SR 70 between 14th Street and
Cemetery Road, widen the rail underpass,
construct wider sidewalks, curb ramps,
and enhance bike access.

Marysville Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Covi l l a u d S t
22 n d S t
E 1 9 th S t
E 1 6 th S t
1 0 th S t
D S t
Sam p son S t
1 1 th S t
5th St
E 1 8 th S t
E 1 7 th S t
E 1 3 th S t
F S t
8 th S t
9 th S t
C S t
1 4th S t
2 4th St
3rd S t
1 3 th S t
E 1 2 th S t
E 1 5 th S t E 1 4th S t
6 th S t
4th S t
R i d eou tWa y H a l l S t
Joh n son Ave
G l en S t
H S t
B l u e S t
S i card S t
C h es tn u t S t
Yu
b a S t
R am irez S t
Swezy S t
B S t
Freem a n S t
B u ch a n a n S t
Lem on S t
O a k S t
G S t
E S t
Ora n g e S t
M ap l e S t
I S t
W i l l ow S t
H i g h S t
H ob art D r
Va l D r
N ad en e D r
B i zz Joh n son D r
M a rysvi l l e
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s 22 n d S t
E 1 6 th S t
1 0 th S t
H u s ton S t
Covi l l a u d S t
1 1 th S t
E 1 8 th S t
E 1 7 th S t
F S t
Sam p son S t
9 th S t
1 4th S t
2 4th St
5th S t
1 3 th S t
E 1 2 th S t
6 th S t
4th S t 3rd S t
1 2 th S t
R i d eou tWa y H a l l S t
Joh n son Ave
H S t
Ah ern
S t
B l u e S t
S i card S t
C h es tn u t S t
R am irez S t
Swezy S t
B S t
Freem a n S t
B u ch a n a n S t
O a k S t
G S t
E S t
Lem on S t
D S t
C S t
W i l l ow S t
H ob art D r
Va l D r
N ad en e D r
H wy 20
B i zz Joh n son D r
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
70 Marysville
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
295

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
39 KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Marysville saw a
total of 295 crashes that led to some degree
of injury. 39 of those crashes involved at least
one person being killed or severely injured (KSI).
21 crashes (seven percent of all injury crashes)
involved bicyclists and 45 (15 percent) involved
pedestrians.

Marysville saw a downward trend of overall
crashes until the COVID pandemic, after which
it experienced an uptick in overall crashes,
specifically crashes involving bicycles. Post2020, the share of bicycle- and pedestrianinvolved KSI crashes disproportionately grew.

State Route 20 between H Street and E Street,
a crash hotspot, saw 35 crashes in the six-year
period, as SR 20 transitions from the freeway
bridge to Downtown Marysville.
45 33
25 36
48 42
4 3
7 7
5 5
9 7
6 13
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5 3 2 5 6 3 1 1 1 3 2 1
2 4
02468
10 12
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 6.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 6.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 6.4: Marysville Crash Heat Map
71 Marysville
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Summary
39 of Marysville’s injury crashes resulted in
a victim being Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

There was a total of ten fatalities: one was
a bicyclist, another a pedestrian, and eight
that were a vehicle driver or passenger. As
shown in Figure 6.5, KSI crashes involved a
disproportionately larger share of pedestrians
and cyclists, compared to all injury crashes.

Figure 6.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
229
21 45
24 5
10 Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Figure 6.6: Marysville KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
72 Marysville
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, broadside (37 percent), rear end (21
percent), and vehicle/pedestrian (15 percent)
crashes were the most common crash types in
Marysville, making up nearly three-fourths of all
injury crashes. Broadside crashes are typically
the result of a failure to yield to oncoming traffic
that have the right of way. Similarly, broadside
crashes account for 41 percent of KSI crashes,
followed by vehicle/pedestrian (21 percent).

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Unsafe speed (25 percent), vehicle right of
way (17 percent), and traffic signals and signs
(14 percent) were the most common reported
causes of crashes resulting in injury. SR 70, SR
20, and 3rd Street saw a majority of the unsafe
speed crashes.

Driving or bicycling under the influence (21
percent), unsafe speed (18 percent), and
pedestrian violation (15 percent) were the
leading causes of KSI crashes. A cluster of
five KSI crashes occurred on SR 70 between
2nd and 3rd St. Four of these crashes were
attributed to a ‘pedestrian violation.’
Figure 6.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(75 percent), 21 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and three
percent in the dark where streetlight was not
present or working properly. The segment of
5th Street between the underpass and Olive
Street had two crashes that occurred under
dark and no lighting conditions.

A disproportionately greater share of KSI
crashes occurred in the dark at areas lacking
proper lighting, at 10 percent. There was also
a larger share of KSI crashes happening in the
Figure 6.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
69%
6%
21%
3%
54%
8%
28%
10%
KSI Crashes
12%
88%
28%
72%
Injury Crashes
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Unknown
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
dark with streetlight present, at 28 percent
compared to 21 percent for all crashes.

Driving Under the Influence
12 percent of all crashes resulting in injury
involved someone driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs. Notably, 28 percent of KSI
crashes involved a DUI.

Figure 6.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 6.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 37%
21%
15%
7% 6% 6% 4% 3% 1%
41%
10%
21%
5% 5%
13%
5%
0% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Broadside Rear End Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Sideswipe Head-On Hit Object Other Overturned Not Stated 25%
17%
14%
8%
6%
4%
26%
18%
8% 8%
21%
15%
10%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle
Right of Way
Violation
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Pedestrian
Violation
Wrong Side of
Road
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Note: Lighting conditions for two crashes (1
percent) in Marysville were unreported.
73 Marysville
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Marysville that had the highest number
of crashes resulting in severe injury or death
(KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Marysville’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input,
and community feedback. Figure 6.11 displays
Marysville’s network of safety corridors, which
are shown in orange. Priority corridors are
shown in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more
detailed explanation of the safety corridor
identification technical methodology. • 10th Street/SR 20 from the Feather River to E Street/SR 70
• E Street/SR 70 from 14th Street to the
Yuba River
• B Street/SR 70 from the city boundary to
8th Street
• 14th Street from Biz Johnson Drive to B
Street
• 3rd Street from J Street to A Street
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.

Safety Corridors
Figure 6.11: Marysville Safety Corridors
74 Marysville
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Community Snapshot
For Ethan, everyday travel presents a series
of safety challenges that are shaped by the
city’s roadway design and traffic conditions.

Despite the short distances between his home,
children’s schools, workplace, and family
members’ homes, Ethan’s routine requires
multiple crossings of State Routes 20 and 70,
high-speed corridors that cut through the heart
of the city. These highways, while essential for
regional mobility, create significant barriers for
local travel, especially for families with young
children. Figure 6.12 describes Ethan’s routine
in greater detail, highlighting some of the
factors that influence travel choices for him and
his children.

Ethan’s experience reflects the broader safety
concerns faced by many Marysville residents,
where short trips are often made by car not
out of convenience, but out of necessity due
to unsafe walking and biking conditions.

Although a majority of trips are made by car
(82 percent) a significant portion still travel by
foot (15 percent). This mode share should be
given greater consideration when planning and
implementing safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Ethan, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a father in Marysville. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 6.12: Marysville Community Snapshot
22nd St
E 16th St
10th St
Huston St
Covillaud St
11th St
E 18th St
E 17th St
F St
Sampson St
9th St
14th St
24thSt
5th St
13th St
E 12th St
E 15th St
E 14th St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
12th St
Rideout Way Hall St
Johnson Ave
H St
Ahern St
Blue St
Sicard St
Chestnut St
Ramirez St
Swezy St
B St
Freeman St
Buchanan St
Oak St
G St
E St
Lemon St
Willow St
D St
High St
Hobart Dr Val Dr Nadene Dr
Hwy 20
Bizz J ohnson Dr
20 Marysville Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Ethan
A 32-year-old father of three, faces
significant traffic exposure as much of
his daily routine takes place within half
a mile of Highway 20 or 70. Many of his
short trips could be completed walking
or biking but crossing the highway with
young children is a major barrier.

Ethan drives his two
youngest children a third of a
mile to Covillaud Elementary
School, while his oldest walks
to Marysville High School and
across Highway 70. Ethan
would let his kids walk this
distance if they didn’t need to
cross Highway 20.

After dropping off his kids, he
travels a quarter mile to work
at Pacific Gas and Electric. This
short trip is complicated by the
need to cross Highway 70.

After work, Ethan picks up
his youngest kids from their
grandmother’s house, again
facing the challenge of
crossing Highway 20.

Ethan drives 1.9 miles to pick
up his high schooler from a
friend’s house, with his two
youngest kids in tow. This
trip involves crossing both
Highway 20 and Highway 70.

On the way home, a 1.5-mile
drive, Ethan and his three
children must navigate
multiple crossings of both
Highway 20 and Highway 70.

C
Legend
Home location
Destinations
Walking
Driving
Safety Corridor
Highways
A B
A
D
E
A D
C
B
E
75 Marysville
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Marysville’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

Focus Areas

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking
76 Marysville
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
State Route 20 and State Route 70, which run
directly through Marysville, serve not only as
regional connectors but also as primary streets
within the city. These roads are designed for
mobility and speed, yet they also function
as main streets within the city and pass
through areas where people live, shop, walk,
and bike. The result is a mismatch between
the functional design of the roadway and
downtown/city environment, contributing to
elevated crash rates.

In the six-year study period, 163 injury crashes
occurred on SR 70 and SR 20 in Marysville,
which equates to roughly one crash resulting in
injury every 13 days.

Overall, the types of crashes that resulted on
these state highways that double as main
streets in Marysville are mostly broadside (32
percent) and rear end (21 percent) crashes.

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
163 (55%) Total Crashes 25 (64%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Although these were the most common crash
types, hit object crashes (7 percent) under
this focus area made up a disproportionately
larger share of KSI crashes (16 percent of KSI
crashes). The vehicles in these crashes were
hitting fixed objects such as trees and poles on
the side of the road.

Crashes were particularly common on the
following segments:
• 10th Street (SR 20) between I Street and
D Street
• B Street (SR 20 and SR 70) between 9th
Street and East 12th Street
• E Street (SR 70) between 3rd Street and
1st Street.

There were also clusters at the following
intersections with SR 70: 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
Streets.

Figure 6.13: Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets 77 Marysville
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
Potential Countermeasures
The following countermeasures can improve
safety along highway main streets by slowing
vehicle speeds, organizing traffic flow, and
reducing conflict points between drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. Treatments like
bike lanes, sidewalks, medians, and lighting
enhance visibility and protection for vulnerable
users like pedestrians and bicyclists, while
speed management and intersection controls
help lower the likelihood and severity of
crashes. Together, these strategies can create
safer conditions for all roadway users.

Roundabout
Directional Median Openings to
Restrict Left Turns
Traffic Signal
Close Slip Lane
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lanes
Slow Turn Wedge
Lane Narrowing
Street Lighting
Driveway Consolidation
Separated Bikeways
Speed Limit Reduction
Speed Feedback Sign
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
All-Red Signal Time Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Advance Stop Bar
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
78 Marysville
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
89 crashes were recorded at intersections
where the primary contributing factor was
a right-of-way violation. These incidents
predominantly stemmed from drivers failing to
yield to oncoming or cross traffic that legally
possessed the right-of-way. In many cases,
motorists either misjudged the speed and
distance of approaching vehicles or did not
come to a complete stop at the appropriate

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way at Intersections
89 (30%) Total Crashes 6 (15%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
distance from the main thoroughfare. As a
result, the majority of these crashes culminated
in broadside, or T-bone, crashes—an especially
dangerous type of crash. Broadside crashes are
often severe due to the limited protection on the
sides of vehicles, highlighting the importance of
right-of-way compliance at intersections.

Ellis Lake in Marysville
79 Marysville
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
Potential Countermeasures
Most of these crashes occurred in downtown
Marysville on SR 20 and 70, and scattered
along I, J, F, and 5th Streets. A concentration
of crashes occurred on 10th Street/SR 20 east
of Ellis Lake. Intersection right-of-way issues
were prevalent throughout much of downtown
Marysville, especially on high-traffic streets like
10th Street, 5th Street, and 12th Street.

The following countermeasures directly target
right-of-way issues by making intersections
safer, more predictable, and easier to navigate.

Treatments such as roundabouts, traffic
signals, and protected left turns mitigate crash
risks by clarifying priority, and design features
like lane narrowing and intersection tightening
further slow vehicles down toreduce impact
upon collision. High-visibility crosswalks,
bike lanes, and pedestrian beacons enhance
visibility of vulnerable roadway users and rightof-way compliance.

Figure 6.14: Crashes with Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections Raised Median
Close Slip Lane
Roundabout
Intersection Reconstruction and
Tightening
Centerline Hardening
Lane Narrowing
Slow Turn Wedge
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Road Diet
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
High-Visibility Crosswalk Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase Traffic Signal
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection Protected Left Turns
Advance Stop Bar
All-Red Signal Time
80 Marysville
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Driving under the influence remains a
leading cause of severe and fatal crashes in
Marysville, with impaired driving incidents
disproportionately contributing to the city’s
most serious roadway outcomes. While DUIrelated crashes account for only 12 percent (36 crashes) of all crashes in Marysville, they
represent 28 percent (11 crashes) of KSI
crashes. Figure 6.12 illustrates all DUI crashes
that occurred within Marysville.

A concerning trend in DUI-related crashes
is the high incidence of vehicle-pedestrian
crashes, which account for 19 percent of DUI

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
crashes, followed by broadside (17 percent),
and head-on collisions (17 percent). DUI
crashes tend to pose a greater risk to those
involved; one-fourth of DUI crashes where a
driver hit a person walking resulted in severe
injury or death. There is a notable concentration
of these crashes around the downtown core
along SR 20 and SR 70, 5th Street, and 3rd
Street.

Addressing DUI-related crashes most
effectively requires non-engineering strategies,
particularly those focused on education and
enforcement.
36 (12%) Total Crashes 11 (28%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 6.15: Crashes Involving Driving Under the Influence 81 Marysville
28 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 29
Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most
vulnerable users on Marysville’s roadways.

While they represent a smaller share of overall
traffic, they are involved in 22 percent of all
crashes in the city, and account for an alarming
38 percent of KSI crashes. These incidents
disproportionately affect pedestrians, who are
involved in two-thirds of all crashes involving
vulnerable road users.

The high volume of traffic in areas where
people live, shop, walk, and bike play a role
in the frequency of crashes on key corridors
in the city. The majority of crashes involving
people that were walking and biking occurred
along SR 20 and 70, in central Marysville near
downtown and commercial districts. Crashes
were also observed along I, J, and F Streets,

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
66 (22%) Total Crashes 15 (38%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
though less frequently. Notable hotspots
include SR 20 between H Street and Orange
Street, and SR 70 between 3rd Street and
1st Street, where crash concentrations are
especially high. The rest of the crashes took
place further east of Ellis Lake, primarily along
SR 70, as well as on 10th Street and Hall
Street.

Fatalities and severe injuries were concentrated
at the following locations:
• E Street (SR 70) between 3rd Street and
2nd Street
• 3rd Street between H Street and E Street
(SR 70)
• 10th Street (SR 20 between) between G
Street and E Street (SR 70)
Figure 6.16: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
82 Marysville
30 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 31
Potential Countermeasures
The leading contributing factors behind these
crashes were attributed to drivers failing to
yield at crosswalks, pedestrians crossing
outside of designated crossing areas, speeding,
and vehicles/bicycles traveling on the wrong
side of the road. At the
The following countermeasures can reduce
risks for crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists by making them more visible to
drivers, creating dedicated or protected spaces
for their use, and providing safer and more
frequent opportunities to cross busy roads.

Add Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
83 Wheatland
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Wheatland is located in southern Yuba County,
about 40 miles north of Sacramento. The Beale
Air Force Base, Toyota Amphitheatre, and Hard
Rock Hotel & Casino are located nearby. It is the
gateway city to Camp Far West, a regionally
significant recreation area. Wheatland is a
small but growing community with a population
of approximately 3,700 residents. The city’s
roadway network is centered around State
Route 65/D Street, a vital north-south corridor
that bisects town and connects Wheatland to
other parts of the region, such as Marysville
and the greater Sacramento area. Adjacent to
this road is the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).

Spenceville Road is another key corridor,
extending from the middle of town to the east,
and provides access to the Camp Far West
Reservoir and Beale Air Force Base via the
Vassar Lake Gate.

Wheatland is a predominantly residential
community, with about half of the city’s
population living on either side of State Route
65 and UPRR tracks. All of the schools are
situated on the west side and the primary retail
destinations on the east or along the highway.

Wheatland Elementary School and Virginia
School are accessed off Olive Street near SR
65, and Wheatland Union High School and
Bear River Middle School via Wheatland Road.

The historic downtown core is a compact,
walkable district east of the highway that
features a collection of well-preserved 19thand early 20th-century buildings that house local businesses. Most residents must cross
SR 65 multiple times per day either by driving,
biking, or walking to access their destinations.

CHAPTER 7
Wheatland Crash Analysis
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 7.1 shows locations in Wheatland that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 2 percent of Wheatland’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent of Californians.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
none of Wheatland qualifies as an
area of persistent poverty or historically
disadvantaged community, compared to
28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Wheatland received a score of 22, where
the state had a score of 23, indicating parity
between Wheatland and the state as a whole.
84 Wheatland
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Plans
The City of Wheatland has already made
commitments to improving roadway safety
through policies set in the Wheatland General
Plan:
• 2.A.10: The City shall give priority to
street and highway improvements that
increase safety, minimize maintenance
costs, and increase the efficiency of the
street system.
• 2.C.2: The City shall promote street, alley,
and sidewalk maintenance to encourage
their safe use.
• 2.C.4: The City shall require ADA
compliance for existing and proposed
street sidewalks.
• 2.C.5: The City shall promote elderly
friendly roadways, including the use of
bikeways for golf carts and motorized
wheelchairs.

Projects
There are numerous improvement projects
currently underway or planned within
Wheatland. There is a series of safety
improvements planned on state facilities
owned and operated by Caltrans along State
Route 65 between Evergreen Drive and State
Street, including rehabilitating pavement,
adding bike lanes, upgrading facilities to
comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards, constructing a multi-use path,
and enhancing existing crosswalks.

There are newly installed traffic signals at the
State Route 65 and McDevitt Drive intersection.

In addition, improvements are planned at the
intersections of SR 65 & Oakley Lane and SR
65 & Dairy Lane. While both these intersections
are located in unincorporated Yuba County,
they are frequently traveled by Wheatland
residents, with members of the community
expressing concern during the community
engagement process.

Typical Intersection in Wheatland
·65
M a l on e Ave
Sp en cevi l l e R d
H wy 65
Wheatl an d
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s ·65
M a l on e Ave
Sp en cevi l l e R d
H wy 65
Wheatl an d
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Figure 7.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty 85 Wheatland
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
13 13 14 13
11 1
1 1
02468
10 12
14 16
18 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1 1
012
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
73 INJURY CRASH TOTAL 2

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Wheatland saw a
total of 73 crashes that led to some degree of
injury. One crash involved a bicyclist and two
involved pedestrians. In total, there were two
crashes that involved at least one person that
was killed or severely injured (KSI).

There was a concentration of crashes on D
Street/ SR 65 between Main Street and State
Street where cars traveling northbound rearended other vehicles as the posted speed limit drops from 55 MPH to 35 MPH, right before the
signal at Main Street.

Figure 7.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 7.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 7.4:

Wheatland Crash Heat Map
86 Wheatland
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Crash Summary
In the six-year period, there were two crashes
within Wheatland that resulted in severe injury;
there were no fatalities. Both crashes involved
only vehicles, with no pedestrians or cyclists
affected.

Figure 7.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
70 12
2 Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Figure 7.6: Wheatland KSI Crashes
87 Wheatland
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, rear-end crashes were the most
common type of crashes in Wheatland, making
up 62 percent of all crashes resulting in injury.

Most of Wheatland’s crashes occurred on
SR 65, the main corridor in town. Rear-rend
crashes were most common approaching Main
Street, as the speed limit changes from 55 MPH
to 35 MPH.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Unsafe speed (53 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes in
Wheatland. The remaining crashes were
attributed to several other factors, such as
vehicle right of way violation, improper turning,
and driving under the influence, etc. Unsafe
speed and improper turning were the causes
behind one KSI crash each.

Figure 7.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(80 percent), 10 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 10 percent
happened in the dark with no lighting. All
crashes that took place under no lighting
conditions occurred on SR 65, except for
one at the Spenceville Road and Boyd Lane
intersection. Both KSI crashes occurred in
daylight.

Driving Under the Influence
7 percent of crashes (5 crashes) involved
someone driving under the influence of alcohol
or drugs. No KSI crashes involved a DUI.

Figure 7.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 7.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 7.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 62%
10% 10%
5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 0%
50% 50%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Rear End Head-On Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other Not Stated
53%
7% 5% 5% 3%
26%
50%
0%
50%
0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Improper Turning Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
80%
7%
10%
10%
100%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
7%
93%
100%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
88 Wheatland
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Wheatland that had the highest
number of crashes resulting in severe injury or
death (KSI) between 2018 and 2023. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Wheatland’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input,
and community feedback. Figure 7.11 displays
Wheatland’s network of safety corridors, which
are shown in orange. Priority corridors are
shown in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more
detailed explanation of the safety corridor
identification technical methodology. • SR 65 beyond the city limits, from Dry Creek Levee Road to Bear River
• Main Street from SR 65 to Spenceville
Road
• Spenceville Road from Main Street to east
of McCurry Street
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.

Safety Corridors Figure 7.11:

Wheatland Safety Corridors
SR 65/Oakley Lane and SR 65/Dairy Road
Although these two intersections lie outside
Wheatland’s city limits, they are included in
Wheatland’s safety considerations due to
significant safety concerns from Wheatland
residents. Improvements at these sites are
expected to enhance safety and mobility for the
Wheatland community. • SR 65 & Dairy Road • SR 65 & Oakley Lane 89 Wheatland
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Community Snapshot
Wheatland is a small city where many
destinations are within walking or biking
distance. However, infrastructure challenges
limit the feasibility and safety of active
transportation. Veronica, a 66-year-old
resident managing heart disease, is seeking to
incorporate more physical activity into her daily
routine. While walking and biking offer clear
health benefits, she finds the current roadway
conditions discouraging and unsafe, particularly
due to the railroad tracks and lack of shoulders
along Spenceville Road. Addressing these
barriers is essential to supporting healthier,
more active lifestyles for residents like Veronica.

Figure 7.12 outlines the travel mode choices
made by Veronica and challenges that come
with them.

Although a majority of trips are made by car
(75 percent), a significant portion still travel by
foot (18 percent). This mode share should be
given greater consideration when planning and
implementing safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Veronica, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a resident in Wheatland. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 7.12: Wheatland Community Snapshot
Wheatland Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots ·65
Malone Ave
Spenceville Rd
Hwy 65
Veronica
A 66-year-old woman
with adult children, faces
health challenges due to
her heart disease as she
attempts to incorporate
more physical activity into
her daily life.

Veronica drives nearly ¾
of a mile to the Wheatland
Community Center for a
social outing. She would
bike but she does not like
crossing D Street and the
railroad tracks.

After the Community Center,
Veronica swings by the Post
Office which is less than
1/5th of a mile away, an easily
walkable or bikeable distance.

Veronica drives the short ½
mile home, once again an
easily walkable or bikeable
distance.

For recreation, Veronica goes
on a 20-mile bike ride with
friends, but during the ride
she faces difficulties biking
along Camp Beale Highway
and struggles crossing D
Street at Main Street.

Legend
Home location
Destinations
Biking
Driving
Safety Corridor
Highways
C
A B D
C
A
B
D
90 Wheatland
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Focus Areas
State Route 65 is a north-south corridor that
serves as a connector for local traffic as well
as those passing through Wheatland to get to
other parts of the region. This arterial highway
bisects the city and is a road residents must
cross to get to destinations from one side of
town to the other. Between 2018 and 2023, 33
of 73 crashes within Wheatland occurred along
the segment of State Route 65 that serves as a
main street.

Crossing SR 65 presents significant challenges
for people walking, biking, and driving due to
limited and inadequate infrastructure. There are
few signalized intersections, so people needing
to cross SR 65 at non-signalized intersections
33 (45%) Total Injury Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
have to contend with the high-speed vehicles
with little traffic control. Crosswalks only exist
at the two signalized intersections along SR
65 in the downtown core, and sidewalks are
narrow and nonexistent at some locations
along and around the highway, making it a
hostile experience for people traveling on foot.

In addition, the railroad tracks adjacent to
SR 65 present an uncomfortable crossing
experience for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The combination of high-speed traffic and more
active downtown environment can worsen the
likelihood and severity of conflicts. In particular,
crashes were more common in transition zones,
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Wheatland’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

Some of these focus areas pertain to the crashes just outside Wheatland’s northern city limits, particularly where Oakley Lane and Dairy Road intersect Highway 65. These locations remain significant safety concerns for Wheatland residents.

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking
91 Wheatland
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Potential Countermeasures
areas near the edge of a town or city where
drivers are moving from higher-speed rural or
highway environments into lower-speed urban
settings.

Most of the crashes in this focus area (26 out
of the 33 crashes) occurred in transition zones,
with 13 crashes (50 percent) primarily caused
by unsafe speed and 18 crashes (69 percent)
that resulted in rear end crashes. Clusters
of these transition zone crashes occurred
between McDevitt Drive and the Dry Creek
Levee Road on the northern end of the city, and
between Main Street and State Street at the
southern end.

The following countermeasures can improve
safety along highway main streets by slowing
vehicle speeds and reducing conflict points
between drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Treatments like bike lanes, sidewalks, medians,
and lighting enhance visibility and protection
for vulnerable users, while speed management
and intersection controls help lower the
likelihood and severity of crashes.

Figure 7.13: Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets Buffered Bike Lanes
Add Sidewalk
Separated Bikeways
Raised Median
Roundabout
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Speed Limit Reduction
Lane Narrowing
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Advance Stop Bar
All-Way Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Road Diet
Slow Turn Wedge
All-Red Signal Time
Street Lighting
Speed Feedback Sign
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
92 Wheatland
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
In Wheatland, right-of-way violations at
intersections led to six crashes during the study
period, with four of them resulting in broadside
crashes. The leading causes were drivers failing
to yield to vehicles with the right-of-way when
making left turns and neglecting to stop at stop
signs.

Half of the crashes occurred when at-fault
parties from side streets attempted left turns
onto the main road, misjudging the time
available to complete the maneuver safely;
these took place at Wheatland Road & Oakley
Lane, State Route 65 & 2nd Street, and SR 65 &
State Street intersections. The two crashes that
occurred at the E St & 3rd St and C St & 4th
Street ensued when at-fault parties proceeded
straight through the all-way stop intersections
without stopping.

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections
6 (8%) Total Injury Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
SR 65/Oakley Lane and SR 65/Dairy Road
In addition to the six crashes that occurred
within city limits, there were four crashes
attributed to right-of-way violations where
Oakley Lane and Dairy Road intersect SR 65,
just outside of the city. Two of them resulted in
KSI broadside crashes after the at-fault parties
failed to yield when making left turns onto SR

65. Due to the severity of crash outcomes and
ongoing community concerns, these locations
warrant consideration for targeted safety
improvements by the county.

The following countermeasures can reduce
crash risks and severity by making intersections
more predictable and managing speed.

Intersection controls such as roundabouts
and protected left turns clarify priority, and
treatments such as lane narrowing and
intersection tightening further slow vehicles
down, reducing impact upon collision.

Potential Countermeasures
Figure 7.14: Crashes with Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections Roundabout
Raised Median
Intersection Reconstruction and
Tightening
Centerline Hardening
Slow Turn Wedge
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Traffic Signal
Protected Left Turns
Advance Stop Bar
All-Red Signal Time
93 Wheatland
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Figure 7.15: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the
most vulnerable users of our roadways, often
navigating environments not designed with
their safety in mind. In Wheatland, three
crashes occurred that involved a pedestrian or
bicyclist.

Two of the incidents occurred along Spenceville
Road, a two-lane corridor that is generally
unwelcoming to those traveling on foot or
by bicycle, with narrow shoulders and few
pedestrian facilities. One crash took place at
the intersection with McCurry Street, where
a pedestrian was struck while attempting to
cross the wide side street. The second crash
on Spenceville Road involved a bicyclist near
Olive Street, who was sideswiped while
making a left turn, a maneuver made especially

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
3 (4%) Total Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Potential Countermeasures
Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
hazardous by the absence of protected turning
space and the speed of surrounding traffic.

The third incident occurred at the intersection
of Evergreen Drive and Rose Avenue, where
a pedestrian was hit by a northbound vehicle
while attempting a right turn from the east leg
of the intersection.

The following countermeasures help make
vulnerable users more visible and provide them
with dedicated, protected space: high-visibility
crosswalks and signal enhancements such as
pedestrian hybrid beacons help pedestrians
cross safely by reducing exposure time and
improving driver awareness. For bicyclists,
buffered bike lanes and separated bikeways
create safer conditions for turning and through
movements, especially along corridors like
Spenceville Road.

Add Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
94 Wheatland
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
The East Wheatland Expressway will be a new
roadway that provides an alternative to SR 65
to people wanting to reach local destinations
such as Beale Air Force Base, industrial
facilities, and Camp Far West. The expressway
would split off from SR 65 north of the town of
Sheridan, extending north to Spenceville Road
Once completed, the East Wheatland Expressway will divert traffic from State Route 65 through Wheatland. With reduced traffic on SR 65, more safety countermeasures recommended in this plan can be implemented downtown.
and connecting to Jasper Lane just east of
Wheatland. It would require a new bridge over
the Bear River. The proposed project would
address ongoing issues with traffic congestion
on SR 65 through downtown Wheatland,
thus likely decreasing collision likelihood in
downtown.

East Wheatland Expressway

EAST WHEATLAND EXPRESSWAY (EWX)
Project Description
Project Need
The EWX is a new local transportation facility that will connect northern Placer County to southern Yuba County
over the Bear River. The southern connection is near the town of Sheridan, extending north to Spenceville Road just east of the City of Wheatland and south of Beale AFB. The proposed project will address a wide range of safety and traffic concerns, as well as support economic vitality and affordable housing.

Project Details
Project Milestone: PSR-PDS Complete
Project Cost: $110 Million*
*2024 dollars
Reliable Access - Access through the City of Wheatland and to Beale Air Force Base from the south, is currently limited to one crossing of the Bear River along SR-65. This limitation creates a challenging safety issue for emergency vehicle response time and as well as response times to the Base.

Adequate Evacuation Routes - Yuba County and Nevada County Emergency Evacuation Plans both identify SR-65 as a key evacuation route, however, the existing two-lane bridge over the Bear River would experience heavy congestion in the event of an evacuation.

This was proven during the 2017 evacuation of the City of Oroville.

High Accident Rates - Per Caltrans data, the fatality and injury rate for the section of SR-65 from Riosa Rd in Sheridan to Main Street in Key Features
Provides a key local connection while also serving as
Phase 1 of a future SR-65 realignment around
Wheatland (Wheatland Bypass).

Will clear full width of state required right of way for portions that can be utilized for the future Wheatland
Bypass.
95 Sutter County
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Sutter County is a rural region situated in
the heart of California’s Sacramento Valley,
with a population of 100,000. The terrain
is predominantly flat and well-suited for
agriculture, with vast expanses of farmland
producing crops like rice, walnuts, and peaches.

The county is bordered by the Feather River to
the east and the Sacramento River to the west,
both of which play important roles in irrigation
and flood control. The Sutter Buttes add a
unique natural landmark to the county.

Yuba City, the county seat, is the largest city in
Sutter County. Sutter County is also home to the
City of Live Oak and several rural communities
including Sutter, Meridian, Nicolaus, Pleasant
Grove, Rio Oso, and Robbins, among others.

State Routes (SR) 99 and 20 serve as the
primary corridors for freight movement
throughout the county and regional travel,
connecting Sutter County to the greater
Sacramento Region.

CHAPTER 8
Sutter County Crash Analysis This Plan and Our Region
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 8.1 shows locations in Sutter County
that meet the criteria for two community
metrics relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 8 percent of Sutter County’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
51 percent of Sutter County’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Sutter County received a score of 29, where
the state had a score of 23, indicating that the
population of Sutter County experience higher
levels of environmental impacts than the state
as a whole.
96 Sutter County
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Plans
Sutter County has previously made
commitments to roadway safety, as outlined
in the Sutter County General Plan. Refer to
Appendix A for a list of policies and goals
supporting improving roadway safety.

Projects
There are numerous improvement projects
currently underway or planned within
unincorporated Sutter County.

The following roadway safety-related projects
are planned on state facilities owned and
operated by Caltrans:
• Install rumble strips, upgrade signing,
striping, and guardrail, and install
backplates with reflective borders on
to traffic signals along SR 20 from the
community of Meridian to the Feather
River.
• Install traffic signal at the SR 20 and
Humphrey Road intersection.
• Install backplates with reflective borders
on to signal lights; install touch-free
pedestrian signals; and upgrade curb
ramps to American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards at various locations
throughout Sutter County on State Route
20 and State Route 99.
• Install centerline or shoulder rumble strips
on SR 99 at various locations throughout
Sutter County.
• Safety improvements on SR 99 near
Lomo: Eliminate cross traffic access to SR
99 from Encinal Road/Live Oak Boulevard,
add acceleration lanes in proximity to
railroad crossing, and improve access to
the Eager Road Interchange.
• Install audible pedestrian push-buttons,
retroreflective back-plates on traffic signal
heads, video/radar detection camera
system, advanced warning flashing
beacon system, and a pole foundation for
a future signal installation at the SR 99
and Riego Road intersection.
• Upgrade existing crosswalks and install
pedestrian signs at the SR 99 and Bogue
Road intersection.
• Install safety improvements at the SR 99
and Sankey Road intersection.
• Improvements at the SR 99 and
Oswald Road intersection including site
preparation, yellow flashing beacons
installation, electrical work, signage
upgrade, new traffic signal, and incidental
work.
• Upgrade crosswalk at the Southbound SR
70 and Nicolaus Avenue intersection.
• Curve realignment on SR 113 near
Knights Road.
• Improvements to the bridge crossing
the Sutter Bypass at Verona on Garden
Highway, including pavement upgrades,
embankment repairs, striping, traffic
control, and incidental work.
·20
Yuba Ci ty
Live Oak
·65
·70
·99
·20
Su tter Cou n ty
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s Yuba Ci ty
Live Oak
·65
·70
·99
·20
Su tter Cou n ty
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Figure 8.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty 97 Sutter County
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
212 211 197
235 216 212
4 1
2 2
5 5
3 2
5 2
8 4
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
50 48
36 52 47 45
1 0
2 2
1 1
2 3
3 2
3 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1,326

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
301

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Sutter County saw a
total of 1,326 crashes that led to some degree
of injury. 7 crashes involved bicyclists and 16
involved pedestrians. 301 crashes (23 percent
of all injury crashes) resulted in a victim being
Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

Figure 8.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 8.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 8.4: Sutter County Crash Heat Map
98 Sutter County
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Summary
Out of 301 KSI crashes, 7 (2 percent) involved
bicyclists, and 16 (5 percent) involved
pedestrians. There was a total of 83 fatalities.

Figure 8.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
1283
14 29
278
7 16
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Figure 8.6: Sutter County KSI Crashes
99 Sutter County
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, hit object (25 percent), rear end (22
percent), and broadside (20 percent) crashes
were the most common crash types, making
up 67 percent of all injury crashes. Similarly,
among KSI crashes, hit object (26 percent)
was also the most common type of crash,
followed by broadside (17 percent), head-on
(16 percent), and rear end (14 percent). Headon collisions accounted for a disproportionately large share of KSI crashes—while they
represented only 7 percent of all injury crashes,
they made up 16 percent of KSI incidents.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Unsafe speed (25 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes resulting
in injury, followed by improper turning (19
percent), and vehicle right of way violation
(17 percent). Driving or bicycling under the
influence (24 percent) was the leading reported
primary cause of KSI crashes followed by
improper turning (20 percent) and unsafe
speed (17 percent).

Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(64 percent), 9 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 22 percent
in the dark with no lighting. 59 percent of
KSI crashes happened in the daytime, and a
disproportionately greater share of KSI crashes
occurred in the dark, even with streetlights
present, at 37 percent compared to 31 percent
of all injury crashes.

Driving Under the Influence
15 percent of all crashes resulting in injury
involved someone driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Notably, this share was larger
for KSI crashes, at 28 percent.

Figure 8.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Figure 8.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
5% 64%
9%
22%
59%
4%
9%
28%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
15%
85%
28%
72%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
Figure 8.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 8.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 25%
22%
20%
15%
8% 7%
2% 1%
26%
14%
17%
14%
7%
16%
5%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Hit Object Rear End Broadside Overturned Sideswipe Head-on Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
28%
25%
15%
13%
4% 4%
10%
25%
19%
28%
9%
7%
3%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Improper
Turning
Unsafe Speed Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug
Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Wrong Side of
Road
Traffic Signals
and Signs
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
100
Sutter County
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Sutter County that had the highest
number of crashes resulting in severe injury or
death (KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Sutter County’s priority
safety corridors and intersections as identified
through a safety corridor systemic analysis,
task force input, and community feedback.

Figure 8.11 displays Sutter County’s network
of safety corridors, which are shown in orange.

Priority corridors are shown in red. Refer to
Appendix C for a more detailed explanation
of the safety corridor identification technical
methodology.

Corridors • State Route 99 from Franklin Road to
Bogue Road
• Pass Road from West Butte Road to
Acacia Avenue
• Township Road from Sunset Avenue to
Daphne Lane
• George Washington Boulevard from
Bogue Road to Tudor Road
• Nicolaus Avenue from Marcum Road to
SR 70
• Pleasant Grove Road from Wheatland
Road to Howsley Road
• Riego Road from SR 99 to Pleasant Grove
Road
Safety Corridors
Intersections • SR 99 and Bogue Road Intersection • SR 99 and West Catlett Road Intersection Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.

Figure 8.11: Sutter County Safety Corridors
101
Sutter County
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Community Snapshot
Jacob, a resident in unincorporated Sutter
County, does not own a personal vehicle.

Without access to a car, he must rely on
walking, rides from others, and public transit,
which can be unreliable and time-consuming.

This lack of mobility limits his ability to access
work and school, attend appointments, or
manage daily responsibilities efficiently. Public
transportation may not run frequently or reach
all necessary destinations, further lengthening
the time of his trips. The lack of safe
infrastructure to support comfortable walking
and cycling along major highways such as
State Routes 20 and 99 also prevents Jacob
from taking these modes to get around, unless
necessary. Figure 8.12 shows the trips and
travel modes taken to get to his destinations.

Although a majority of trips in unincorporated
Sutter County are made by car (75 percent),
a significant portion still travel on foot (18
percent). Jacob’s experience underscores the
broader challenges of inadequate infrastructure
and limited mobility options in underserved
communities, and how pedestrians should be
given greater consideration when planning and
implementing safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Jacob, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a father without a personal vehicle in unincorporated Sutter County. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 8.12: Sutter County Community Snapshot
65 99
Sutter County Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Jacob
A 36-year-old father of two, faces
transportation challenges while
living in an area of persistent
poverty. His commutes often
involve carpooling or long transit
times, with major highways posing
barriers for walking and biking.

Legend
Home location
Destinations
Carpooling
Transit
Safety Corridor
Highways
Jacob carpools 3.2 miles to
work at Sunsweet Growers
Outlet with co-workers. A key
challenge is navigating the busy
Highway 20 along the way.

For school, Jacob takes
transit to Yuba College, a
journey that takes over an
hour. Jacob is thankful for a
transit shelter but wishes the
journey was a little quicker.

To attend church at Templo
de Alabanza, Jacob uses
both transit and walking,
which takes a little over 45
minutes. The most difficult
portion of the trip is the
additional time it takes to use
transit in the area.

Jacob would like to walk or
bike back home but traveling
along Highway 20 and
crossing Highway 99 are
too difficult and he elects to
carpool with a friend.

A C
B
D
B
A
D
C
102
Sutter County
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Sutter County’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

Focus Areas

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA B
Improper Turning Away from
Intersections

FOCUS AREA B
Hit Object
103
Sutter County
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant
contributor to injury crashes, especially and
disproportionately to KSI crashes. Alcohol
impairment was involved in 16 percent of
unincorporated Sutter County’s total crashes
but accounted for 29 percent of KSI crashes.

Figure 8.13 displays all DUI crashes within
unincorporated Sutter County.

Most of the DUI crashes were concentrated
along State Routes 20, 99, 70, and 113, in
addition to some county roads: Pleasant
Grove Road, Garden Highway, and Pass
Road. Local law enforcement and public
works staff identified the Amphitheater and
Casino as probable influences in some areas.

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday see higher crash
frequency around 6pm to 3am, compared to
other times of day and days of the week. Most
DUI crashes occurred on county and state
facilities where there are posted speed limits of
55 MPH.

Hit object was the most common type of crash
to result from DUI crashes and accounted for
38 percent of crashes; overturned (16 percent)
and head-on crashes (13 percent) were the
second and third most common crash types,
indicating that lane and roadway departure
were common occurrences moments before the
crashes.

The most effective countermeasures for DUI
crashes fall under non-engineering programs
that target education and enforcement.

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
208 (16%) Total Crashes 87 (29%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 8.13: Crashes Involving
DrivingUnder the Influence
104
Sutter County
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
Improper turning remains one of the
leading primary contributors to crashes in
unincorporated Sutter County. Moreover, most
of them occurred away from an intersection,
rather than at them. These improper
turning crashes that occurred away from an
intersection accounted for 23 percent of the
county’s total injury crashes and 22 percent
of its KSI crashes. Figure 8.14 displays the
locations of these crashes.

Crashes under this focus area occurred mainly
on regional corridors such as State Routes 20,
70, 99, and 113. They were highly concentrated
along SR 99. Although less frequent, these
crashes also occurred on county roads: Garden
Highway, Pass Road, Pleasant Grove Road,
and Riego Road. 45 percent of these crashes
led to hit object and 37 percent to overturned.
85 percent of these crashes involved vehicles
traveling at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. In

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections
the moments leading up to them, 46 percent
of parties that were at fault made an unsafe
turning action and 28 percent ran off the road.

This pattern could suggest that high-speed
unsafe lane changes, erratic steering on roads,
or distracted driving may have led to these
crashes, and that a moderate amount led to
roadway departures.
305 (23%) Total Crashes 66 (22%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 8.14: Improper Turning Crashes
Away from Intersections
105
Sutter County
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Potential Countermeasures
Curve Advance Warning Sign Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object
Create/Increase Clear Zone Speed Limit Reduction
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
A combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements,
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and delineators, can help prevent
unsafe turning and roadway departures by
guiding drivers and providing recovery space.

These countermeasures, especially when
paired with speed limit reductions, reduce
crash severity by lowering the kinetic energy
transferred during high-speed impacts, helping
prevent serious injuries.
106
Sutter County
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
Hit-object crashes emerged as the most
prevalent crash type in unincorporated Sutter
County. This crash type makes up 25 percent
of the county’s total injury crashes and 26
percent of its KSI crashes. As expected, 96% of
all hit-object crashes involved only one party.

Figure 8.15 displays all hit object crashes in
unincorporated Sutter County.

Over two-thirds (68 percent) of this type of
crash occurred on non-state facilities, in a
more rural setting where the roads are narrow.

Locations of many of these crashes include
Pleasant Grove Road, Garden Highway, Pass
Road, and Pennington Road. However, SR
99 also experienced a significant number of

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
hit object crashes. Most of the objects that
were hit (85 percent) were fixed objects such
as trees, utility poles, and sometimes fencing
or some other barrier. 75 percent of hit object
crashes involved vehicles that were traveling at
speeds of 50 MPH or higher. Leading up to the
crashes, 41 percent of at-fault vehicles made
some unsafe turning movement, such as erratic
steering wheel maneuvers, and 32 percent ran
off the road.
330 (25%) Total Crashes 78 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 8.15: Hit Object Crashes
107
Sutter County
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Potential Countermeasures
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Speed Limit Reduction Create/Increase Clear Zone
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
Countermeasures like guardrails, clear
zone improvements, and widened or paved
shoulders can help prevent crashes with
objects and provide recovery space. Rumble
strips, safety edge treatments, and delineators
or reflectors enhance driver awareness and
guidance, especially in low-visibility conditions.

Speed limit reductions are especially critical, as
lower speeds directly reduce the kinetic energy
transferred during a crash, which in turn lowers
the risk of severe injury or fatality.
108
Yuba City
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Yuba City, located in the heart of California’s
Sacramento Valley, serves as the county seat
of Sutter County and is the central hub in
the Yuba-Sutter region, along with its sister
city across the river, Marysville. The city
has experienced steady growth and has a
population of about 70,000. Its transportation
network is well-connected and supports both
local and regional mobility. Major roadways
include State Route 99, which runs northsouth through the city and serves as a primary corridor for commuters and freight, and State
Route 20, which provides east-west access
across the region. Within the city, arterial
roads like Franklin Road, Butte House Road,
and Bridge Street facilitate local travel. Public
transportation is available through Yuba-Sutter
Transit, offering fixed-route and paratransit
services.

Yuba City plays a vital role in the Yuba-Sutter
region as an economic and cultural center. It
hosts a diverse range of businesses, from local
shops and restaurants to regional retail centers
and industrial parks. Yuba City provides critical
support to the region’s extensive agricultural
industry. The city is home to the Sunsweet
Cannery, Holt Ag Solutions, Tractor Supply,
Beeler Tractor, Pape Machinery, the YubaSutter Farm Bureau, NorTech Ag, the regional USDA office, and the Cooperative Extension
of the University of California - Climate Smart
Agriculture Program.

Residential areas such as Lincoln East, Butte
Vista, and El Margarita are spread throughout
the city with access to schools, civic facilities,
and other amenities. Commercial activity is
concentrated along SR 20/Colusa Highway,
CHAPTER 9
Yuba City Crash Analysis This Plan and Our City
Bridge Street, and in the historic downtown
along Plumas Street, where shops, restaurants,
and services are located. The city’s strategic
location, combined with its planning framework
and transportation infrastructure, makes it
a key driver of regional growth and a focal
point for community services, commerce, and
connectivity.

Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 9.1 shows locations in Yuba City that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 10 percent of Yuba City’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
52 percent of Yuba City’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Yuba City received a score of 32, where the
state had a score of 23, indicating that the
population of Yuba City experience higher levels
of environmental impacts than the state as a
whole.
109
Yuba City
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Yuba City YubaSutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots ·99
·20
C l ark Ave
B og u e Rd
S Wa l ton Ave
Coop er Ave
Wa sh i n g ton Ave
W i l b u r
Ave
P l u m a s S t
L i ve
O a k
B l vd
G ard en
H wy
Gra y Ave
Jon es Rd
B r i d g e S t
Th arp Rd
E l M argar i ta Rd
Sh a s ta S t
Fra n k l i n Rd S tab l er Ln
S ta fford Wa y
H wy 20
H wy 99
R a i l road Ave
Secon d S t
B S t
B l evi n Rd
Q u een s Ave
B u tte H ou se Rd
H oop er Rd
M a i n S t
L i n co l n Rd
Sh a n g h a i B en d R d
E O n s to tt Fr tg Rd
Park Ave
Tres P i cos D r
Fra n k l i n Ave
Jam i e D r
R oyo R a n ch ero D r
Sa n b orn Rd
N Co l u sa Fron tag e Rd
P orto l a Va l l ey Rd
Wood br i d g e Ave
N Wa l ton Ave
W O n s to tt Fr tg Rd
Yu b a C i ty
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s ·99
·99
·20
C l ark Ave
Coop er Ave
P l u m a s S t
G ard en
H wy
Gra y Ave
B r i d g e S t
E l M argar i ta Rd
Fra n k l i n Rd S tab l er Ln
H wy 20
H wy 99
R a i l road Ave
B S t
B l evi n Rd
Q u een s Ave
S ta fford
Way
B u tte H ou se Rd
Pea se Rd
L i ve
O a k
B l vd
H oop er Rd
Sh a n g h a i B en d R d
E O n s to tt Frtg R d
S Wa l ton Ave
Tres P i cos D r
Fra n k l i n Ave
Jam i e D r
Royo R a n ch ero D r
Sa n b orn Rd
N Co l u sa Fron tag e Rd
P orto l a Va l l ey R d
Wood br i d g e Ave
N Wa l ton Ave
W O n s to tt Frtg R d
Yu b a C i ty
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Plans
CITY OF YUBA CITY 2040 GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
Yuba City has already made commitments to
improving roadway safety, as encapsulated in
the following General Plan Policies:
• CI 1-5: As appropriate, implement traffic
calming measures such as minimum road
right of ways, roundabouts, traffic circles,
and other measures.
• CI 5-1: When feasible, construct complete
streets for new and modified roadways,
plan for usage of the roadway space by
all users, including motor vehicles, transit
vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians
(complete streets).
• CI 7-1: Establish a network of on- and offroadway bicycle routes and encourage their use for commute, recreational,
schools and other trips. Design bike
routes with the safety of cyclists as a
priority.
• CI 7-6: In accordance with Public Works
Standard Details, design new pedestrian
facilities to be accessible to all persons
regardless of ability and ensure that
roadway improvement projects address
mobility or accessibility for bicyclists or
pedestrians.

YUBA CITY LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY
PLAN
The Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) is a strategic framework designed to
improve traffic safety by identifying crash
trends, prioritizing high-risk locations, and
recommending targeted countermeasures to
reduce severe and fatal crashes. The LRSP
identified safety recommendations for the
following corridor segments:
• Walton Avenue Between SR 20 and
Franklin Avenue
• Gray Avenue Between SR 20 and Franklin
Avenue
• Sutter Street/2nd Street/ Garden Highway
Between SR 20 and Franklin Avenue
• Bridge Street Between SR 99 and Shasta
Street
• Live Oak Boulevard Between Pease Road
and Queens Avenue
Figure 9.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty 110
Yuba City
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Projects and Programs
There are numerous infrastructure improvement
projects currently underway or planned in Yuba
City. The following roadway safety projects are
planned on state and local roadway facilities: • Install backplates with reflective borders to signal lights; install touch-free
pedestrian signals; and upgrade curb
ramps to American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards at various locations on
SR 20 and SR 99.
• Install signs and restripe crosswalk to
ladder type at two intersections: SR 99
and Queens Avenue and SR 20/Colusa
Highway and North George Washington
Boulevard
• Install traffic signals at the SR 20/Colusa
Highway and Stafford Way intersection
• Build concrete barriers and pullouts for
maintenance vehicles; upgrade lighting,
signs, and facilities to comply with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards along SR 99 between Encinal
Road/Live Oak Boulevard and SR 20/
Colusa Highway
• Extend striping; install traffic signals,
headlight signs, and rumble strips; and
upgrade existing signs along SR 20
between Central Street and Sutter County
limits.

YUBA CITY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Yuba City’s Safe Routes to School is a
multidisciplinary program aimed at making
streets safer for students to walk and bike to
school and reducing school travel by vehicle.

The plan identifies infrastructure improvements,
safety education initiatives, and other
nonengineering measures at 15 schools in the
Yuba City Unified School District: • Andros Karperos School • April Lane Elementary School • Barry Elementary School • Bridge Street Elementary School • Butte Vista Elementary School • Central Gaither Elementary School • Gray Avenue Middle School • King Avenue Elementary School • Lincoln Elementary School • Lincrest Elementary School • Park Avenue Elementary School • River Valley High • Riverbend Elementary School • Tierra Buena School • Yuba City High 111
Yuba City
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan9
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
265 266
218 225
183
230
15 14
9 15
14 20
20 19
13 13
26 24
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
14 20 23
19 12 14
2 1
2 3
4 4
2 5
6 1
6 4
05 10
15 20
25 30
35 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1,589

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
142

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Yuba City saw a
total of 1,589 crashes that led to some degree
of injury, 87 crashes (five percent of all injury
crashes) that involved bicyclists, and 115
(seven percent) that involved pedestrians. Yuba
City’s crashes account for over half (53 percent)
of Sutter County’s crashes. 142 of Yuba City’s
injury crashes involved at least one person
being killed or severely injured (KSI).

As shown in Figures 9.2 and 9.3, the total
number of yearly crashes decreased from 2019
into 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic,
while the number of KSI crashes increased,
relative to the prior year. Crash trends have
been inconsistent since 2020.

There are several noteworthy corridors with
high crash rates: • About a quarter of all Yuba City crashes took place on State Route 20/Colusa
Highway.
• On SR 20/Colusa Highway between Gray
Avenue and Clark Avenue, eight crashes
involved pedestrians.
• Many rear end crashes occurred where
SR 99 intersects Bridge Street and
Franklin Road, two major intersections.
• 14 crashes occurred at the Garden
Highway and Percy Avenue intersection
alone. A cluster of broadside crashes
occurred on Bridge Street between North
Palora Avenue and North Barrett Road.

Figure 9.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 9.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 9.4: Yuba City Crash Heat Map
Crash Density
112
Yuba City
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Figure 9.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
1387
87 115
102
16 24
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Crash Summary
As shown in Figure 9.5, there is a
disproportionately greater share of bicycle
and pedestrian crashes among KSI crashes,
compared to all injury crashes. Out of 142 KSI
crashes, 16 (11 percent) involved bicyclists,
and 24 (17 percent) involved pedestrians.

There was a total of 16 fatalities: 9 drivers or
passengers, 5 pedestrians, and 2 bicyclists.

Figure 9.6: Yuba City KSI Crashes
Killed or Severely Injured Crashes
113
Yuba City
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, broadside (38 percent) and rear end
(29 percent) crashes were the most common
crash types, making up two thirds of all injury
crashes. Broadside crashes are typically the
result of a failure to yield to oncoming traffic
that has the right of way. Similarly, among
KSI crashes, broadside (37 percent) was also
the most common type of crash, followed by
vehicle/pedestrian (16 percent), and rear end
(14 percent).

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Unsafe speed (25 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes, followed
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(73 percent), 20 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 3 percent in
the dark with no lighting. A disproportionately
greater share of KSI crashes occurred during
nighttime in areas with lighting, at 35 percent.
55 percent of KSI crashes happened in daylight,
and 4 percent took place during the nighttime
in areas that lacked lighting.

Figure 9.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Figure 9.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 9.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 9.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 38%
29%
9% 8% 7%
5%
2% 1% 1%
37%
14%
4%
8%
16%
10%
7%
4%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Broadside Rear End Sideswipe Head-On Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Hit Object Overturned Other Not Stated
25%
19%
13% 13%
9%
3%
19%
13%
15%
6%
11%
18%
11%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Traffic Signals
and Signs
Improper
Turning
Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
10%
90%
25%
75%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
by vehicle right of way violation (19 percent).

Nearly half the crashes attributed to unsafe
speed occurred on state facilities within Yuba
City, with one-third along SR 20—mostly
between Tharp Road and the eastern city
limit—and 15 percent on SR 99. Notably, these
were clustered where SR 99 intersects Bridge
Street and Franklin Avenue. Overall, 85 percent
of all unsafe speed crashes led to rear end
crashes.

Driving or bicycling under the influence (18
percent) was the leading reported primary
cause of KSI crashes followed by vehicle right
of way violation (15 percent) and unsafe speed
(13 percent).

Most of the crashes that took place under the
absence of working streetlights in the dark
happened along the SR 20, SR 99, Garden
Highway/2nd Street, Live Oak Boulevard, and
Pease Road corridors.

Driving Under the Influence
While DUI was involved in 10 percent of all
crashes, it accounted for a significantly higher
proportion of KSI crashes, at 25 percent. 19 out
of 25 DUI KSI crashes led to broadside, rear
end, and hit object crashes.
73%
4%
20%
3%
55%
5%
35%
4%1%
KSI Crashes
Injury Crashes
Unknown
Note: Lighting conditions for five crashes (<1
percent) in Yuba City were unreported.
114
Yuba City
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Yuba City that had the highest number
of crashes resulting in severe injury or death
(KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Yuba City’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input, and
community feedback. Figure 9.11 displays Yuba
City’s network of safety corridors, which are
shown in orange. Priority corridors are shown
in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed
explanation of the safety corridor identification
technical methodology.
• SR 20 from Western Parkway to Feather
River
• SR 99 from Butte House Road to Franklin
Avenue
• Stabler Lane from SR 20 to Queens
Avenue
• Walton Avenue from SR 20 to Lincoln
Road
• Gray Avenue from SR 20 to Franklin
Avenue
• Bridge Street from SR 99 to Shasta Street
Safety Corridors
Figure 9.11: Yuba City Safety Corridors
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.
115
Yuba City
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Community Snapshot
A majority of trips within Yuba City are made
by driving, but one-tenth are done via walking.

Jacqueline, a 28-year-old mother of two, faces
daily transportation and safety challenges as
she commutes primarily on foot. Her routine
includes walking nearly a mile with her twin
boys to Gray Avenue Middle School, where
crossing Highway 99 at Bridge Street presents
a major safety concern. She then walks
another mile to work, navigating the dangerous
crossing at Highway 20 and Gray Avenue. On
her way home, Jacqueline walks 1.25 miles
to buy groceries, again encountering hazards
along and across Highway 99. Although
her final stretch home along Bridge Street is
relatively safer, her daily routes expose her to
significant traffic risks and reflect the broader
challenges of navigating essential errands
without access to safe, reliable transportation.

Figure 9.12 illustrates Jacqueline’s typical daily
trip sequence.

This community snapshot features Jacqueline, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a mother without a personal vehicle in Yuba City. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 9.12: Yuba City Community Snapshot
·20
·99
Clark Ave
Cooper Ave
Plumas St
Garden Hwy
GrayAve
Bridge St
El Margari at Rd
Franklin Rd Stabler Ln
Hwy 20
Hwy 99
Ave Railroad B St
Blevin Rd
Queens Ave
S at f of rd Way
Butte House Rd
Live Oak B vl d
Forbes Ave
Lincoln Rd
Shanghai Bend Rd
EOnstott Frtg Rd
SWalot nAve
JeffersonAve
Picos Dr
Tres
Franklin Ave
Jamie Dr
Royo Ranchero Dr
Sanborn Rd
N Colusa Frontage Rd
Portola Valey l Rd
Woodbridge Av
N
e
Walont Ave
W Onstott Frtg Rd
Yuba City Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Legend
Home location
Destinations
Walking
Safety Corridor
Highways
Jacqueline
A 28-year-old
mother of two, faces
significant traffic
exposure and poverty
as she navigates
her daily commutes,
mostly on foot.

Jacqueline walks nearly a
mile with her twin boys to
Gray Avenue Middle School.

The main challenge on
this leg is safely crossing
Highway 99 at Bridge Street.

On her way to work,
Jacqueline walks another
mile, with the difficulty of
crossing Highway 20 at Gray
Avenue along the way.

To buy groceries on her way
home, she walks 1.25 miles,
facing hazards walking along
and crossing Highway 99.

After the grocery store,
Jacqueline enjoys a short
walk back home, along
Bridge Street.

C
A B D
B
D
A
C
116
Yuba City
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes. Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Yuba City’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

Focus Areas

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking
117
Yuba City
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
State Routes 99 and 20 serve as main streets
within Yuba City, traversing the middle of the
city in a north-south and east-west direction,
respectively. Roads of this nature—arterials
designed not just for local but also regional
mobility and situated along key destinations—
typically have higher crash rates and often
see conflict between the different modes of
transportation. Within the six-year period,
532 total crashes occurred on this road type,
making up 34 percent of Yuba City’s crashes;
42 of these crashes resulted in a fatal or severe
outcome, which account for 30 percent of KSI
crashes.

These roads are heavily utilized in Yuba City by
residents and visitors since they provide access
to shops and businesses and connectivity to

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
532 (34%) Total Crashes 42 (30%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
other parts of the city and region. These roads
are four lanes wide in order to accommodate
the high volumes. Wider roads typically
induce travel at higher speeds and increase
the time needed to safely cross them. The
top leading causes behind the crashes that
happened under this focus area were unsafe
speed (38 percent) and right-of-way violation
(29 percent). The most common crash types
to result were rear end (42 percent) and
broadside (33 percent), crash types that are
typically more severe.

The following countermeasures can improve
safety along highway main streets by slowing
vehicle speeds, organizing traffic flow, and
reducing conflict points between roadway
users.

Figure 9.13: Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets 118
Yuba City
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Potential Countermeasures
Raised Median
Roundabout
All-Way Stop Control
Directional Median Openings to
Restrict Left Turns
Traffic Signal
Close Slip Lane
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Bike Lane
Road Diet
Buffered Bike Lanes
Slow Turn Wedge
Lane Narrowing
Add Sidewalk Street Lighting
Driveway Consolidation
Separated Bikeways
Speed Limit Reduction Speed Feedback Sign
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
All-Red Signal Time Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Advance Stop Bar
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
119
Yuba City
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
In Yuba City, 446 crashes (28 percent of Yuba
City’s total crashes from 2018 to 2023) were
recorded at intersections where the primary
contributing factor was right-of-way violation;
27 resulted in someone being killed or seriously
injured, making up 19 percent of Yuba City’s KSI
crashes.

These incidents predominantly stemmed from
drivers failing to yield to oncoming or cross
traffic that legally possessed the right-of-way.

In many cases, motorists either misjudged
the speed and distance of approaching
vehicles or did not come to a complete stop
at the appropriate distance from the main
thoroughfare. As a result, a majority of these

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections
446 (28%) Total Crashes 27 (19%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
crashes culminated in broadside, or T-bone,
crashes—an especially dangerous type of
crash due to the limited protection on the sides
of vehicles—highlighting the importance of
right-of-way compliance at intersections.

SR 20/Colusa Highway, Bridge Street, Clark
Avenue, Walton Avenue, Gray Avenue, Franklin
Boulevard, and Garden Highway saw the
highest frequency of this type of crash.

The following countermeasures directly target
right-of-way issues by making intersections
safer, more predictable, and easier to navigate.

Figure 9.14: Crashes with Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections 120
Yuba City
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Potential Countermeasures
Raised Median
Close Slip Lane
Roundabout
Intersection Reconstruction and
Tightening
Centerline Hardening
Lane Narrowing
Slow Turn Wedge
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Road Diet
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
High-Visibility Crosswalk Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase Traffic Signal
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection Protected Left Turns
Advance Stop Bar
All-Red Signal Time
121
Yuba City
28 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 29
Driving under the influence remains a
leading cause of severe and fatal crashes
in Yuba City, with impaired driving incidents
disproportionately contributing to the city’s
most serious roadway outcomes. While DUIrelated crashes account for only 10 percent of all crashes in Yuba City, they represent 26
percent of KSI crashes. Figure 9.15 displays all
DUI crashes that occurred in Yuba City.

Crashes are primarily concentrated along
major roadways and intersections, with the
highest densities appearing in the central and
eastern parts of the city. Notable clusters are
visible along SR 20/Colusa Highway, Bridge
Street, and Garden Highway, which serve as
key thoroughfares for local and regional traffic.

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
Intersections such as Queens Avenue and Live
Oak Boulevard also show a significant number
of incidents. Some crashes are scattered
throughout residential neighborhoods, but
these are less frequent. Rear end crashes were
the most common crash type to result from
DUIs, accounting for 33 percent, followed by
broadside (23 percent). DUI-related crashes
tend to pose a greater risk to those involved; in
Yuba City, nearly one-fourth of these crashes
had a KSI outcome.

Addressing DUI-related crashes most
effectively requires non-engineering strategies,
particularly those focused on education and
enforcement.
160 (10%) Total Crashes 37 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 9.15: Crashes Involving Driving Under the Influence 122
Yuba City
30 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 31
Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most
vulnerable users on Yuba City’s roadways.

While they represent a smaller share of overall
traffic, they are involved in 13% of all crashes
in the city, and account for an alarming 28% of
KSI crashes. The leading contributing factors
behind these crashes were attributed to
drivers failing to yield at crosswalks or signal,
pedestrians crossing outside of designated
crossing areas, and traveling on the left side of
the road.

The convergence of high traffic volumes with
areas where people live, shop, walk, and bike
play a role in the frequency of crashes on key
corridors in the city. Central Yuba City has
the highest density of crashes; SR 20/Colusa
Highway, Bridge Street, Walton Avenue,
Gray Avenue, and Clarke Avenue are high

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
201 (13%) Total Crashes 40 (28%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
incidence corridors. Notably, there are dense
clusters of (mostly) pedestrian crashes on SR
20 between Gray Avenue and Clarke Avenue
and Bridge Street between Joann Way and
North Lawrence Avenue, locations within
busy commercial areas that are adjacent to
residential neighborhoods and served by wide,
four-lane roads. There is a series of crashes
right outside Gray Avenue Middle School along
Gray Avenue. Additional crashes occurred
along Garden Highway and Franklin Road.

The following countermeasures reduce risks for
crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists by
making them more visible to drivers, providing
safer and more frequent opportunities to
cross busy roads, and creating dedicated or
protected spaces for their use.

Figure 9.16: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
123
Yuba City
32 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 33
Potential Countermeasures
Add Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
124
Live Oak
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Live Oak is a small city in northeast Sutter
County, about 10 miles north of Yuba City
and 50 miles north of Sacramento. It has
a population of about 9,100. The city is
surrounded by rich farmlands, orchards, the
Feather River, and Sutter Buttes.

State Route 99 bisects the city, serving as
a connection to nearby cities such as Yuba
City. Pennington Road, another key corridor,
traverses east-west through the city. The
transportation system reflects the city’s rural
character, with limited but functional public
transit options such as Yuba-Sutter Transit,
which offers weekday round-trips to nearby
cities like Yuba City and Marysville, along with
several scheduled stops within Live Oak itself.

For those traveling by car, the city is easily
navigable, and recent infrastructure upgrades
to SR 99 have made walking and biking much
more viable in some areas.

CHAPTER 10
Live Oak Crash Analysis This Plan and Our Region
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 10.1 shows locations in Live Oak that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 0.4 percent of Live Oak’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
100 percent of Live Oak’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Live Oak received a score of 31, where the
state had a score of 23, indicating that the
population of Live Oak experience higher levels
of environmental impacts than the state as a
whole.
125
Live Oak
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Projects
There are numerous infrastructure improvement
projects currently underway or planned in Live
Oak on state and local roadway facilities. These
include the development of Class I off-street
bikeways, the construction and reconstruction
of roads with integrated sidewalks and bike
lanes, and streetscape improvements along
SR 99 as part of the Highway 99 Streetscape
Master Plan’s later phases.

Major safety improvements made to the
Highway 99 corridor between Ramsdell Drive
and Ash Street were completed in 2022, as
part of the Highway 99 Streetscape Master
Plan Phases 1 through 3.

Projects
Live Oak has already demonstrated a
commitment to roadway safety through the
adoption of several plans, namely the Highway
99 Streetscape Master Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian
& Trails Plan and Circulation Element of the
Live Oak General Plan. The Highway 99
Streetscape Master Plan is a long-range, multiphase infrastructure and urban design strategy to transform SR 99 through Live Oak into a
safer, more attractive, and multimodal corridor.

The city’s Bicycle, Pedestrian & Trails Plan
establishes policies and identifies projects and
programs to support a robust and safe network
for people walking and biking, connecting
them to community destinations. In addition,
there are several policies within the Circulation
Element that support roadway safety for all
users.

Refer to Appendix A for a comprehensive list of
policies that support the city’s safety goals.
·99
Pen n i n g ton Rd
H wy 99
N
S t
G u m S t
Orch ard Wa y
O S t
Lark i n Rd
L S t
F ir S t
E l m S t
B roadwa y
P S t
Apr i co t S t
R i ch m on d Wa y
Ca n n on Wa y
R i ch ard Ave
N evad a St
D e R ee Ave
Co l em a n Ave
L i ve O a k
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s ·99
H wy 99
N S t
G u m S t
Orch ard Wa y
Lark i n Rd
F ir S t
Pen n i n g ton Rd
B roadwa y
P S t
Apr i co t S t
R i ch m on d Wa y
Ca n n on Wa y
R i ch ard Ave
N evad a
S t
D e R ee Ave
Co l em a n Ave
L i ve O a k
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
Figure 10.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty 126
Live Oak
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Live Oak saw a
total of 108 crashes that led to some degree of
injury, three crashes (three percent of all injury
crashes) involved bicyclists and three (three
percent) involved pedestrians.

State Route 99/Nevada Street, Pennington
Road/Larkin Road, and Live Oak Boulevard/
Elm Street are hotspot intersections that saw a
higher number of crashes than others. Notably,
at the SR 99 and Nevada Street intersection,
there are stop signs on Nevada Street, the side
street, while the main corridor SR 99 is freeflow with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH. The Larkin Road and Pennington Road intersection
is another hotspot location of concern, as it is
near the high school.

Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
22 21
14 15 14 16
2 1
1 1
1 05
10 15
20 25
30 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2 1 1 1
01234
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
108
INJURY CRASH TOTAL 5

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Figure 10.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 10.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 10.4: Live Oak Crash Heat Map
127
Live Oak
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Crash Summary
Five out of 108 injury crashes in Live Oak
resulted in a victim being Killed or Severely
Injured (KSI). There was a total of two
fatalities, both of which were a vehicle driver or
passenger. All KSI crashes occurred on SR 99.

Figure 10.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
102
3 3
4 1
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Figure 10.6: Live Oak KSI Crashes
128
Live Oak
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, broadside (43 percent) and rear end
(32 percent) crashes were the most common
crash types, making up three-fourths of all
injury crashes. Broadside crashes are typically
the result of a failure to yield to oncoming traffic
that have the right of way. Similarly, broadside
crashes account for the majority of KSI crashes
(three of five). The other two KSI crashes were
hit object and vehicle/pedestrian.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Vehicle right of way (27 percent) and unsafe
speed (26 percent) were the leading reported
primary causes of crashes resulting in injury.

Additional causes included traffic signals and
signs, following too closely, improper turning,
and driving on the wrong side of road. Two KSI
crashes were due to vehicle right of way and
two due to unsafe speed. Another KSI crash
was related to a pedestrian violation.

Figure 10.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 10.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 10.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 43%
32%
6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 1%
60%
0% 0%
20%
0%
20%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Broadside Rear End Sideswipe Hit Object Head-On Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Overturned Not Stated
27% 26%
8% 8% 7% 6%
17%
40% 40%
0% 0% 0% 0%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Unsafe Speed Following Too
Closely
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Improper Turning Wrong Side of
Road
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
77%
6%
11%
6%
60%
40%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in daylight
(77 percent), 11 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 6 percent in
the dark where streetlight was not present or
working properly. A disproportionately greater
share of KSI crashes occurred in the dark in
areas lacking proper lighting, at 40 percent,
while the other 60 percent occurred in daylight.
14 out of the 18 crashes that occurred under
dark/no lighting conditions took place before
the SR 99 improvements construction was
completed in 2022.

Driving Under the Influence
Five percent of all crashes involved someone
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

No KSI crashes involved a DUI.
129
Live Oak
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Live Oak that had the highest number
of crashes resulting in severe injury or death
(KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Live Oak’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input, and
community feedback. Figure 10.10 displays
Live Oak’s network of safety corridors, which
are shown in orange. Priority corridors are
shown in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more
detailed explanation of the safety corridor
identification technical methodology. • State Route 99 from northern city limit to southern city limit
• Pennington Road from Live Oak Cemetery
to SR 99
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.

Safety Corridors Figure 10.10: Live Oak Safety Corridors 130
Live Oak
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Community Snapshot
Figure 10.11 illustrates the daily transportation
journey of Susan, a 25-year-old mother of
two, as she navigates her community without
a personal vehicle. The map highlights key
destinations for her: Twins Playhouse Daycare,
Luther Elementary School, Live Oak Park
bus stop, and El Bajio Market, along with the
walking and transit routes she takes. Susan
is met with several challenges in her daily
commute, including dangerous crossings at
major roads and railroad tracks and a lack of
bus stop shelters and lighting, and long walking
distances. Clearly, there is a need for improved
infrastructure and safer, more accessible
transportation options for families like hers.

Although a majority of trips in Live Oak are
made by car (82 percent), a significant portion
still travel on foot (15 percent). Susan’s
experience highlights the broader challenges
of inadequate infrastructure and limited
mobility options in underserved communities,
and how pedestrians should be given greater
consideration when planning and implementing
safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Susan, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a mother without a personal vehicle in Live Oak. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 10.11: Live Oak Community Snapshot
·99
Hwy 99
N St
Gum St
Orchard Way
Larkin Rd
Fir St
Pennington Rd
Broadway
PSt Apricot St Richmond Way
Cannon Way
Richard Ave
Nevada St
DeReeAve
Coleman Ave
Susan walks with her two
daughters just over half a mile
to Twins Playhouse Daycare
and drops off the youngest.

Their main challenge on this leg
is safely crossing Pennington
Road at Luther Road.

She then walks with her oldest
daughter another half mile
to Luther Elementary School
which takes them across
Pennington Road again.

Then Susan heads to work
by waiting at the Live Oak
Park bus stop for the next
bus. Waiting for the bus in an
unsheltered area is a difficulty
in hot and cold weather.

Live Oak Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Susan
A 25-year-old mother of two,
faces transportation challenges
in her daily life, often walking
or using public transit while
managing her young children.

After work, Susan drops by the El
Barjio Market on her way home,
after getting off the bus. She
navigates crossing Pennington
Road at L Street which has posed
challenges before.

On her way home, she walks
nearly a mile while navigating
dangerous crossings at Highway
99 and the railroad tracks with
poor pedestrian lighting.

B
A
D
C
E
Legend
Home location
Destinations
Walking
Transit
Safety Corridor
Highways
AB
C
D
E
131
Live Oak
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Live Oak’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas.

Focus Areas

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections
132
Live Oak
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
State Route 99/Live Oak Boulevard is a northsouth highway that serves as a main street in Live Oak. Major improvements were made to
this corridor within the boundaries of the city
between 2020 and 2022. These upgrades led
to some positive safety outcomes, including a
reduction in overall crash frequency. However,
they also coincided with a gradual increase in
the severity of crash outcomes. A later section
presents a focused case study on the crash
history of and improvements made to State
Route 99.

FOCUS AREA B
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
55 (51%) Total Crashes 3 (60%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 10.12: Crashes on State Highways
Serving as Main Streets
The following countermeasures can improve
safety along highway main streets by slowing
vehicle speeds, organizing traffic flow, and
reducing conflict points between drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. Treatments like
bike lanes, sidewalks, medians, and lighting
enhance visibility and protection for vulnerable
users like pedestrians and bicyclists, while
speed management and intersection controls
help lower the likelihood and severity of
crashes. Together, these strategies can create
safer conditions for all roadway users.
133
Live Oak
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
Potential Countermeasures
Between July 2020 and April 2022, a series
of improvements were constructed along SR
99 between Ash Street and north of Ramsdell
Drive. These recent improvements were
completed under Phases 1 through 3 as part
of the Collaborative Highway 99 Streetscape
Master Plan, a long-range, multi-phase
infrastructure and urban design strategy to
Live Oak Boulevard/State Route 99 Case Study Streetscape and Road Improvement Project Recent safety improvements along the State Route 99/Live Oak Boulevard corridor in Live Oak’s downtown core area, between Nevada Street and Ash Street, serve as a compelling example of how State Highway “main street” improvements with safety countermeasures can lead to meaningful reductions in crash frequency and severity. This $36 million project undertaken by Caltrans enhanced traffic safety and added multimodal improvements for the people walking and biking along this main street. transform SR 99 through Live Oak into a safer,
more attractive, and multimodal corridor.

The roadway was rehabilitated to ensure a
40-year pavement life and improve driving
conditions. Traffic signals were improved at
key intersections of Pennington Road and Elm
Street, and a new traffic signal was installed
State Route 99/Live Oak Boulevard
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
Raised Median
All-Way Stop Control Roundabout
Traffic Signal
Buffered Bike Lanes Bike Lane
Lane Narrowing
Add Sidewalk
Street Lighting
Separated Bikeways
Speed Limit Reduction
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Road Diet
Slow Turn Wedge
Driveway Consolidation Speed Feedback Sign
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
All-Red Signal Time Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Advance Stop Bar
134
Live Oak
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
at Kola Street. The corridor was widened
from two lanes to four lanes with either a
median, two-way left-turn lane or room for
left-turn pockets at intersections. A pedestrianfocused downtown environment was achieved via enhancements in parking, wayfinding
signage, landscaping, and facilities for both
bicyclists and pedestrians. New sidewalks with
bulbouts, curbs, and gutters were constructed,
and improvements were made to existing
ones. Curb ramps were upgraded to meet
current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards, ensuring greater accessibility for
all users. Clay-colored stamped parking bays,
decorative streetlamps, trees, and benches
were added.

Within the study period of 2018 – 2023, a total
of 52 crashes occurred along the segment
of SR 99 that received improvements. The
following information illustrates the crash
reduction successes seen over time as
improvements were implemented along the
corridor segment, along with other changes in
crash trends. To account for the varying time
periods of the three construction stages, crash
history is represented as a crash rate of the
average number of crashes per month.

Upgrades along the corridor include lighting, landscaping, median islands, benches, trash bins, and bicycle racks

BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
(JANUARY 2018 – JUNE 2020)
In the 30 months of the study period before construction began, the segment experienced 30 crashes, for a rate of 1 crash per month. Two of these crashes involved pedestrians, and two led to severe injury—one happening at Elm Street and the other on Ash Street. Clusters of crashes occurred in downtown Live Oak as well as the transition zones, areas closer to the edge of the city where travel speeds are higher as vehicles reached downtown. Rear-end (16 crashes) and broadside (11 crashes) emerged as the most frequent types of crashes that occurred. Unsafe speed (14 crashes), automobile right-of-way violation (six crashes), and following too closely (five crashes) were the primary causes behind pre-construction crashes. Overall, this time period saw crashes clustered around the Ramsdell Drive, Kola Court, Pennington Road, and Elm Street intersections.

AFTER CONSTRUCTION
(MAY 2022 - DECEMBER 2023)
The months following the completion of construction saw a significant reduction in crash rates. There was a total of 8 crashes, for a rate of 0.4 crashes/month. There was a change in crash distribution patterns as more crashes occurred closer to the downtown area, and fewer in the transition zones. Speeding and rear end crashes were no longer the top primary cause and crash type. Instead, broadside became the most prominent type, making up 5 of the 8 crashes, and one of which led to a fatal outcome. 3 broadside crashes occurred at the Nevada, Ivy, and Ash Street intersections, the fatal crash happening at Ivy Street. The other two broadside crashes occurred on driveways between Pennington Road and Elm Street. One was caused by improper turning and the rest by vehicle right-of-way violation.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
(JULY 2020 – APRIL 2022)
In the span of 22 months in which construction took place, there were 14 crash occurrences, none of which involved pedestrians, bicyclists, or severe/ fatal outcomes. Rear-end remained the top resulting crash type, accounting for 7 out of 14 crashes in this time period—3 of which occurred on Elm Street.

Unsafe speed was the primary cause of 6 crashes, improper turning and vehicle right-of-way were each responsible for two crashes. Kola Street, Nevada Street, and Pennington Road experienced more than one crash.

Crash Rate: 1 per month
Crash Rate: 0.6 per month
Crash Rate: 0.4 per month
135
Live Oak
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
Safety enhancements along the State Route 99/Live Oak Boulevard corridor demonstrate the tangible benefits of safety-oriented infrastructure investment.

The project not only upgraded the roadway and improved accessibility and comfort for all users, but also significantly reduced crash frequency and severity—from 1 crash per month before construction to just 0.4 crashes per month after completion. No crashes involving people walking and biking occurred on the corridor once construction started, which can likely be attributed to the addition of adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The improvements combine to create an overall vibrant downtown environment that likely induced traffic calming and a reduction of speed and rear end crashes, and crashes involving bicycle/pedestrian crashes. The new, improved, and continuous sidewalks and crosswalks bolster the feel of a multimodal corridor and signal to drivers that the road is a shared space for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles alike. Clay-colored facilities, roadside landscaping, decorative street lighting, and other aesthetic design elements add visual interest that influences driving behavior by drawing drivers’ attention to their surroundings other than just the road, causing them to slow down their driving. These results underscore the effectiveness of comprehensive safety countermeasures as well as thoughtful streetscape design.

However, the changes in crash trends were not all positive, and there is still work to be done.

Although rear-end crashes were substantially reduced, broadside rose as the most common type of crash after construction completed. Widening the road from two lanes to four lanes might have increased the risk of broadsides by increasing the time and distance needed to cross safely. The vehicles at fault in these crashes were making left and U-turns, and had to cross two lanes of oncoming traffic. This rise in broadside crashes is concerning because broadside crashes typically result in more severe outcomes than rearend crashes, and usually account for a disproportionately greater share of KSI crashes.

There is also increased speeding, which could possibly be attributed to the widening of the highway. As a result, short-term safety improvements along this corridor segment should prioritize addressing speeding and the causes of broadside collisions, particularly improper turning movements and right-of-way violations.

Building upon the improvements completed in
Phases 1 through 3, the Later Phases of the
Collaborative Highway 99 Streetscape Master
Plan will extend safety, mobility, and aesthetic
enhancements to the areas past the northern
and southern limits of the city—identified as
the New Growth Areas—which are planned
for annexation. Later Phase improvements will
focus on creating a safe and inviting complete
streets environment through context-sensitive
design, enhanced landscaping, improved
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and traffic
calming strategies that reflect the community’s
small-town identity while supporting regional
connectivity.

Observed post-construction crash trends
along the Highway 99 corridor highlight
important lessons for future design phases.

These findings underscore both the strategies
that should be reinforced and the design
elements that should be reconsidered as Later
Phase improvements advance in tandem
with the planned development surrounding
Live Oak. Encouragingly, several of the
planned enhancements already align with
Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin (DIB)
94: Complete Streets – Contextual Design
Guidance, which emphasizes context-sensitive,
multimodal safety. For example, the plan’s
strategy to limit ingress and egress along the
corridor directly supports DIB 94 principles
by reducing potential conflict points between
vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. This access
management approach is expected to mitigate
crash risk at driveways and intersections,
(i.e. broadside crashes) while simultaneously
fostering a safer, more predictable travel
environment for all corridor users. The following
improvements are recommendations informed
by the crash patterns that emerged from earlier
improvement phases of Live Oak’s streetscape
improvement project as well as Caltrans’ DIB
94 guidance.

Collaborative Highway 99 Streetscape Master Plan - Later Phases 136
Live Oak
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Collaborative Highway 99 Streetscape Master Plan - Later Phases Improvement Recommendations
Speed Management and Traffic Calming • Narrow lanes where feasible to reduce operating speeds while maintaining freight mobility.
• Provide gateway treatments (landscaping, textured pavements, vertical features, or raised medians) at city entrances to reinforce appropriate speed expectations.
• Install traffic calming elements such as curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, and raised or textured crosswalks at frequent intervals • Implement progressive speed management zones supported by speed feedback signs and roadway design cues to transition drivers from higher rural highway speeds to lower community speeds.

Intersection Safety and Conflict Reduction • Where feasible, consider protected left-turn phasing, roundabouts, or raised medians to address broadside crash risk.
• Provide high-visibility crosswalks, upgraded lighting, and advance warning signage at all major intersections.
• Apply access management strategies, including driveway consolidation, to minimize turning movement conflicts along the corridor.

Multimodal Separation and Protection • Increase the frequency of pedestrian crossings: approximately 500 feet in New Growth Areas, where feasible.

Context-Sensitive Design Application • Where feasible, emphasize human-scaled design, including narrower lane widths, enhanced pedestrian amenities, and consistent streetscape elements, to reinforce low-speed, multimodal travel.
• At community gateways, integrate placemaking features that signal a transition from high-speed highway conditions to a small-town, pedestrianoriented environment. 137
Live Oak
28 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 29
A total of 31 crashes (29 percent) occurred
at intersections where the primary cause
was failure to yield the right-of-way. Of these
31 crashes, 2 resulted in a KSI crash. These
incidents stemmed from drivers failing to
yield to oncoming or cross traffic that legally
possessed the right-of-way. In many cases,
motorists either misjudged the speed and
distance of approaching vehicles or did not
come to a complete stop at the appropriate
distance from the main thoroughfare. As a
result, all but one culminated in a broadside, or
T-bone, crash—an especially dangerous type of
crash. These types of crashes are often severe
due to the limited protection on the sides of
vehicles, highlighting the critical importance of
right-of-way compliance at intersections.

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections
31 (29%) Total Crashes 2 (40%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Crashes with these right-of-way issues tended
to involve vehicles pulling out of driveways, and
intersections where side streets are controlled
by stop signs, while the main thoroughfare was
uncontrolled. Most of these occurred along SR
99 and Pennington Road.

The following countermeasures directly target
right-of-way issues by making intersections
safer, more predictable, and easier to navigate.

Treatments such as roundabouts, traffic
signals, and protected left turns mitigate crash
risks by clarifying priority. Design features like
lane narrowing and intersection tightening
further slow vehicles down, reducing impact
upon collision. High-visibility crosswalks,
bike lanes, and pedestrian beacons enhance
visibility of vulnerable roadway users and rightof-way compliance.

Figure 10.13: Crashes with Right-of-Way
Issues at Intersections
138
Live Oak
30 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 31
Potential Countermeasures
Intersection Reconstruction and
Tightening
Centerline Hardening
Lane Narrowing
Slow Turn Wedge
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Raised Median
Roundabout
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Traffic Signal
Protected Left Turns
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
Advance Stop Bar
All-Red Signal Time
139
Appendix A
Policy Benchmarking & Additional
Policy Considerations
140
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if county/region is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region "For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E’s strategies continuously. Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensure the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help make decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the County make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
80 x
Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts xEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba County LRSP website established Yuba County LRSP website https://www.yubacountysafetyplan.com/ x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
"The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of collisions." Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
1 - Project Background;5 - Emphasis Areas
14, 53 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Detailed KSI analysis was done. Current effort with RSAP. Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 4 - Collision Data and Analysis
33 x
Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Action CD18.1 - "The traffic impact fees will be used to fund improvements that will be needed in the future as development occurs."The General Plan references a traffic impact fee program, but it did not specify a framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 77 x Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Yuba County Policy Benchmarking
141
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Funding sources identified in LRSP
Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
78 x
Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects).

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, numerous other funding sources could be pursued for such projects (See Table 22)" Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
77 x
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Yuba County Action CD 16.2 - "The County will continue to require specific plans to identify funding for transportation facilities needed to serve development within each subject specific plan." The General Plan did not specify safety impact assessments for mitigation.

Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 73 x Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP mentions multiple education initiatives and efforts to promote safer road user behavior.Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly available online x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Yuba County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Yuba County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Goal: A transportation system that is safe for bicycle use, with reduced numbers of bicycle-related collisions Yuba County Bikeway Master Plan Update
https://cms7files.

Goals, Policies, and Actions
26 x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policies 19.4, 19.5, 19.6, 19.8, 20.7 aim to create networks of safe trails/ped infrastructure and bike paths Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 62, 63 x Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Collision avoidance
Funding
Equity first
142
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Yuba County xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policy 19.7 - "The County’s improvement standards and street classification system will be designed to accommodate the full range of locally available travel modes. Intersection dimensions and turning radii should be minimized in areas where high pedestrian and bicycle activity is expected." Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 79 x Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Yuba County x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba County xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Yuba County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of county and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of county's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Yuba County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Yuba County x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speed-based design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for context-appropriate speeds.

Yuba County
Policy CD19.8 - "The County will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive or high-speed traffic, as appropriate. The County will not support street closures, half closures, or other measures that limit connectivity as a way to calm traffic."Policy 20.2 - "New developments in the Valley Growth Boundary shall arrange roads in an interconnected block pattern, so that local pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic do not have to use Arterials to circulate within the neighborhood."The county also has standard plans & specifications: https://www.yuba.org/departments/community_development/public_works/standard_plans/index.php Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 79, 81 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Establish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
Safe Roadways
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
143
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region
Vision Zero Statement mentions striving towards eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries.

City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online
x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No Safe Routes to Schools Program x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
Marysville LRSP Emphasis Area: Making Safety Improvements at the Highest Incident Location City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online
2 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Report identifies and ranks the top collision rate locations within the City, assesses the collision patterns and contributing factors at the highest ranking locations, and recommends countermeasures for those locations.

City of Marysville LRSP Not
available online
3 x
Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region HSIP funding opportunity mentioned. City of Marysville LRSP Not available 9 x Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Marysville x Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Equity first
Chapter/
Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful
Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Core Element Category
Marysville Policy Benchmarking
144
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section Core Element Category Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Educational measures identified in plan. City of Marysville LRSP Not available online
x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Marysville x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Marysville "Where possible increase frequency and visual presence of patrol activity in highspeed incident areas." City of Marysville LRSP Not available online

11.2 37 x
Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region BP Plan identifies safety countermeasures for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Marysville Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan https://www.fraqmd.org/files/486e35bb9/Final+++Marysville-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Plan-2016-A x Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policies and goals were set to improve mobility via bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Marysville Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan https://www.fraqmd.org/files/486e35bb9/Final+++Marysville-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Plan-2016-A x Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Marysville xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Marysville x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Marysville xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Marysville x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Marysville x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Marysville x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Marysville Roadway design measures to manage speed were listed. City of Marysville LRSP Not available online 11.2 37 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Action item: Continue to conduct training targeted at responding to speed related collisions.

City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online

11.2 37 x
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
145
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section Core Element Category Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xShare data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
146
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xConvene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No current SRTS program. xEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xProvide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xInstitutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Related policy: "2.A.10. The City shall give priority to street and highway improvements that increase safety, minimize maintenance costs, and increase the efficiency of the street system" Wheatland General Plan
https://e4ki
3oz9tby.exactdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/General-PlanTransportat ion and Circulation Element 2-5 x ? Funding
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful
Engagement
Data and analysis
Wheatland Policy Benchmarking
147
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Wheatland; Yuba County Related policy: "2.A.6. The City shall require an analysis of the effects of traffic from proposed major development projects. Each such project shall construct or fund improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of traffic from the project. Such improvements may include a fair share of improvements that provide benefits to others." Wheatland General Plan
https://e4ki3oz9tby.exactdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/General-PlanPolicyDocumentAdopted-7- Transportation and Circulation Element
2-5 x ?
148
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xPerform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Wheatland; Yuba County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Wheatland; Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Wheatland; Yuba County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Wheatland; Yuba County x Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Equity first
149
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Wheatland; Yuba County Wheatland has street design criteria, last revised in 2011 https://www.wheatl
and.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Complete-WheatlandPublic-WorksStandards-8-12-2011R.pdf x
Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Wheatland; Yuba County x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Wheatland; Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
150
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if jurisdiction is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish a process for residents to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Focus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects).

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Sutter County Policy Benchmarking
151
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Sutter County Policy "M 1.2. Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to enhance safety, access, and mobility for all travelers including people with special needs, recognizing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system."Implementation: "M 2-E Condition new development to finance and construct appropriate circulation improvements necessary to mitigate a project’s transportation impacts including pedestrian and bicycle mobility, safety, and level of service-related impacts. Collect the fair share cost of required circulation improvements through established fees, and/or construction estimates of needed improvements, as appropriate, where construction is not practical at the time of development." Sutter County General Plan, Chapter 6 pg 9
https://www.sutterc
ounty.org/government/countydepartments/developmentservices/planningservices/generalplan ?
Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Sutter County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Sutter County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Sutter County x Use functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions (evaluated at a network scale for network-based prioritization).

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Sutter County x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Equity first
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
152
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Sutter County x Provide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Sutter County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of county and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of county's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Sutter County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Sutter County x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Sutter County Sutter County Improvement Standards last revised in 2010. Could update to focus on speed management. Sutter County Improvement Standards, Chapter 4: Streets https://www.sutterc ounty.org/home/sh owpublisheddocum ent/2598/63755485 6376670000
x
Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Establish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region x Connect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
153
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Commitment through City LRSP. Current effort with RSAP. x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP was finalized in October 2023, and integrates the Safe System Approach concepts into the development of the plan. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan https://cms3 Ch. 3 18 x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP identifies what implementation of the plan entails. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 102
x
Identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program and convene an inter-agency working group that discusses safety projects and initiatives. The working group includes a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. Actively work to identify and overcome barriers to coordination across departments and agencies.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
Stakeholder group was formed to ensure a local persepective was maintained in the LRSP planning effort. LRSP implementation entails identifying a roadway safety champion who is the plan's main advocate and is the city's point of contact for safety efforts. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan
Ch. 3, Ch. 7 20, 94
x
Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP encourages outreach and education be done to inform users of safe roadway use.Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan
x
Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts Safe Routes to School Program implemented. Yuba City Safe Routes To School Plan https://cms3.revize.com/revize/yubacity/Document%20Center/Departments/Public%20Works/E x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan
Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP
Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, modespecific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP applies a data-driven approach to safety analysis.Also current effort with RSAP. Ch. 5 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP Implementation Action: Include a safety data reporting option in the 'Report an Issue' section of the My Yuba City mobile app" Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 94 x Focus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter RegionUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba City LRSP identifies funding opportunities. y
Roadway Safety Plan
x
Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Circulation Element guiding policy: "Develop a system of sidewalks and bikeways that promote safe walking and bicycle riding for transportation and recreation." Yuba City General Plan 5-18
x
Development
review
Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Yuba City; Sutter County x Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Data and analysis
Funding
Meaningful
Engagement
Yuba City Policy Benchmarking
154
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Clearly define equity in the safety plan and include equity considerations throughout the emphasis areas and strategies. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xIncorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Equity first
155
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP Countermeasure: Establish and enforce communications and outreach supporting enforcement. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 5 74
x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
Implementation Action: "Rolling out safety projects as pilots presents the opportunity for the City to gather valuable public and stakeholder feedback to make improvements and adjustments before moving on with similar projects." Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 96
x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Yuba City x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Yuba City LRSP suggested countermeasures focused on deterrence through enforcement for alcohol and drug-impaired driving. Ch. 5 74 x
Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region

1. City of Yuba City General Plan contains policies regarding bicycle safety, and calls out specific projects such as the provision of bicycle paths or lanes on bridges and overpasses2. Planned installation of over 190 sharrows per Yuba City website City of Yuba City General Plan; Yuba City website https://www.yubacity.net/city_hall/departments/parks___recreation/recreation x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP makes countermeasure recommendations based on common collision sites and other variables Yuba City also completed a Bicycle Master Plan in 2011.

Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan https://cms3.revize.com/revize/yubacity/Document%20Cent x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba City LRSP identified that unsafe speed was a common primary collision factor, and suggested road diets among other proven countermeasures.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 6 72
x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Yuba City xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Yuba City x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Yuba City x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Yuba City x
Data Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Yuba City x
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy
reduction
Policies and
tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
156
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Design and
operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Yuba City LRSP Implementation Action: "Create new standards for typical maintenance that reflect LRSP project goals." Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 96 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Is Yuba City doing anything on this front? x Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xShare data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
157
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XConvene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No current SRTS program. XEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XProvide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XInstitutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Live Oak; Sutter County X Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Equity first
Meaningful
Engagement
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Data and analysis
Funding
Live Oak Policy Benchmarking
158
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Live Oak; Sutter County X Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Live Oak; Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region X Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for, and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible. " Live Oak 2030 General Plan
https://ww
w.liveoakcity.org/home/showpublisheddocume
CIRC 26 X
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region XProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Live Oak; Sutter County X Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Live Oak; Sutter County X Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Live Oak; Sutter County X Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Live Oak; Sutter County X Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
159
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Live Oak; Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
X
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region XConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
160
Additional Local Policy Considerations
Beyond the policies considered in the Safe System Policy Benchmarking assessment, there are a range of transportation, land use, and housing policies in the Yuba-Sutter region partner agencies’ General Plans they may, directly or indirectly, influence roadway safety outcomes. The following goals and policies bolster a Safe System by addressing the built environment or socioeconomic factors that have an impact on roadway safety, such as influencing types and amounts of vehicle travel, thus reducing exposure.

Yuba County 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CD19.6: New developments shall provide attractive streetscapes with street trees and sidewalks, planting strips, transit shelters, benches, and pedestrian-scale lighting, as required by County standards, as well as safe and frequent crosswalks along roadways, particularly in areas expected to have higher pedestrian traffic.

Policy CD19.8: The County will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive or high-speed traffic, as appropriate. The County will not support street closures, half closures, or other measures that limit connectivity as a way to calm traffic.

RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal CD1: Provide for efficient valley development patterns Goal CD2: Promote growth and reinvestment in existing developed unincorporated communities Goal CD4: Accessible, convenient, and successful community retail, service, and employment centers
Goal CD5: Valley Neighborhoods provide a long-term, high quality of life for the County’s existing and future residents
Goal CD6: Provide higher-density housing, neighborhood services, and retail in pedestrian- friendly Neighborhood Centers
Goal CD7: Revitalize Yuba County’s Mixed-Use Corridors to better serve existing Valley Neighborhoods
Goal CD8: Promote high-quality neighborhood design that ensures pedestrian comfort and convenience
RELEVANT HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal H-1: Provide adequate sites to meet housing needs among all income groups. 161
Goal H-2: Assist in the provision of affordable housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Goal H-3: Remove constraints to the availability and affordability of housing for all income groups.

Goal H-5: Preserve affordable housing.

Goal H-6: Ensure equal housing opportunity for all county residents.

Marysville 2050 General Plan
Draft not available online as of June 2025.

Live Oak 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible.

Policy CIRC-2.2: The City and Redevelopment Agency will prioritize transportation investments that better connect neighborhoods to major destinations, with safer and more convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit stops and routes.

Policy CIRC-2.4: The City will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive traffic, as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-3.5: In areas with high pedestrian activity, streets should be relatively narrow and curb radii should be designed to promote pedestrian safety and convenience, while also ensuring adequate emergency access.

Sutter County 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT MOBILITY ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy M 1.2: Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to enhance safety, access, and mobility for all travelers including people with special needs, recognizing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.

Policy M 1.3: Rights-of-Way. Secure adequate right-of-way to allow for the planning, design, and operation of transportation systems that provide safe access for all users.

Policy M 5.1: Prepare a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that supports implementation of a comprehensive, safe, and convenient system of commuter and recreational routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
162
RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal LU 1: Promote the efficient and sensitive use of lands to protect and enhance Sutter County’s quality of life and meet the needs of existing and future residents and businesses.

Goal LU 4: Facilitate orderly, well-planned, sustainable, and efficient growth that balances aesthetic, considerations.

Goal LU 8: Facilitate well planned large-scale mixed-use residential, industrial, and commercial development, bringing housing and jobs to South Sutter County consistent with the terms of advisory Measure M.

RELEVANT HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES:

Goal H 1: Provide for an adequate supply of new housing to meet the needs of present and future Sutter County residents incorporating a variety of housing types and densities that accommodate all income groups.

Policy H 1.1: Adequate Supply of Land Suitable for Housing. Identify and maintain an adequate supply of residential land with appropriate zoning classifications, land use designations, development standards, infrastructure, and public services to accommodate the County’s fair share of regional housing needs, including housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Goal H 2: Facilitate the development of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of lowerincome households in the County.

Goal H 3: Remove governmental constraints, address accessibility needs, and provide a regulatory framework to encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate all income groups.

Goal H 4: Provide housing for special needs groups, including persons with disabilities, seniors, farmworkers, persons experiencing homelessness, and extremely low-income households.

Goal H 6: Promote equal housing opportunities and affirmatively further fair housing for all residents of Sutter County.

Wheatland General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 2.A.10: The City shall give priority to street and highway improvements that increase safety, minimize maintenance costs, and increase the efficiency of the street system.

Policy 2.A.6: The City shall require an analysis of the effects of traffic from proposed major development projects. Each such project shall construct or fund improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of traffic from the project. Such improvements may include a fair share of improvements that provide benefits to others.
163
RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal 1.B: To provide adequate land in a range of residential densities to accommodate the housing needs of all income groups expected to reside in Wheatland.

Goal 1.C: To provide for new residential development in planned neighborhoods that are designed to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Goal 1.G: To support development of employment uses to meet the present and future needs of Wheatland residents for jobs and to maintain Wheatland’s economic vitality.

Goal 4.A: Provide for the city’s regional share of new housing for all income groups Goal 4.C: Meet the special housing needs of homeless persons, seniors, large families, disabled persons, and farmworkers.

Yuba City General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 5.2-I-7: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Policy 5.2-I-21: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include roundabouts, traffic circles, and other traffic calming devices among these measures.

Policy 5.4-I-1: Establish a network of on- and off-roadway bicycle routes and encourage their use for commute, recreational, and other trips. Design bike routes with the safety of cyclists as a priority.

Policy 5.4-I-4: Provide bicycle lanes with a minimum width of five feet (six feet along all parkways) on new streets and existing streets whenever they are widened to more than two travel lanes.

Policy 5.4-I-7: Increase bicycle safety by:
• Sweeping and repairing bicycle lanes and paths on a regular basis; • Ensuring that bikeways are delineated and signed in accordance with Caltrans' standards, and lighting is provided, where needed;
• Providing bicycle paths or lanes on bridges and overpasses; • Ensuring that all new and improved streets have bicycle-safe drainage grates and are free of hazards such as uneven pavement and gravel;
• Provide adequate signage and markings warning vehicular traffic of the existence of merging or crossing bicycle traffic where bike routes and paths make transitions into or across roadways; and
• Work with the Yuba City Unified School District to promote classes on bicycle safety in the schools.

Policy 5.4-I-8: Give bikes equal treatment in terms of provisions for safety and comfort on arterials and collectors as motor vehicles.
164
Policy 5.4-I-10 Provide for pedestrian-friendly zones in conjunction with the development, redevelopment, and design of mixed-use neighborhood core areas, the Downtown area, schools, parks, and other high use areas by:
• Providing intersection "bump outs" to reduce walking distances across streets in the Downtown and other high use areas;
• Providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use; • Constructing adequately lit and safe access through subdivision sites. • The following land use policies bolster a Safe System by addressing the built environment or socioeconomic factors that have an impact on roadway safety:

RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 3.4-G-1: Maintain a well-defined compact urban form, with a defined urban growth boundary and urban development intensities on land designated for urban uses.

Policy 3.4-G-2: Promote a balanced land use program that increases the ability of people to live and work in the city.

Policy 3.4-G-3: Promote development patterns that maximize residents’ accessibility to parks, open space, and shopping areas.

Live Oak 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible.

Policy CIRC-2.2: The City and Redevelopment Agency will prioritize transportation investments that better connect neighborhoods to major destinations, with safer and more convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit stops and routes.

Policy CIRC-2.4: The City will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive traffic, as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-3.5: In areas with high pedestrian activity, streets should be relatively narrow and curb radii should be designed to promote pedestrian safety and convenience, while also ensuring adequate emergency access.
165
Federal and State Safety Policies and
Guidelines
Federal Policy Considerations
The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) incorporated the Safe System Approach as part of its most recent National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), adopted in January 2022. This NRSS is the first national commitment to the goal of zero fatalities on America’s roadways, and names the Safe System Approach as the way to accomplish that goal. Federal transportation officials have since unveiled a number of policies and programs geared towards the application and implementation of the Safe System Approach at the state and local levels.

Safe Streets and Roads for All
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program was established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2022, centered around the Department of Transportation’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on America’s roadways. Over its five-year duration ending in approximately 2026, it will provide $5 billion in grant funding to develop and implement safety plans and projects.

The SS4A grant program provides funding for local agencies to create Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (CSAPs). It also provides funding to implement safety projects, but only to those agencies that have an adopted CSAP or an equivalent. In order to qualify as a CSAP (and allow an agency to be eligible for implementation planning grant funding), a plan must meet a nine-point criteria as set forth by the Department of Transportation. They include an official commitment and goal to eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries; the creation of a standing task force or working group that will lead and monitor the implementation of the plan; data-driven safety analysis; public engagement and intergovernmental collaboration; consideration of equity in the planning process; assessment of current policies and guidelines to identify changes that will better prioritize safety; identification of a comprehensive set of projects and strategies that address safety issues; posting of the plan online along with description of how future progress will be measured; and that the plan would be updated every five years.

Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy, created by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2024, provides guidance in contextualizing and assessing infrastructure-based countermeasures and strategies on their alignment with the principles of the Safe System Approach. 166
The Hierarchy classifies countermeasures into four tiers, from most to least aligned with Safe System principles. These tiers are:

1. Removing severe conflicts, which can act to eliminate high-risk conditions that involve users with different speeds or moving in different directions sharing space. This tier can include countermeasures that remove potential points of conflicts (for example, removing conflicting turning movements), and those that separate vulnerable users from vehicles in space (for example, protecting people biking through a separated bike lane).

2. Reducing vehicle speeds, which reduces the kinetic energy present within systems and thereby reduces the severity of crashes that do occur. As driver behavior, especially when it comes to speed, is highly influenced by roadway features, countermeasures that reduce prevailing speeds can include lane narrowing and features that channelize vehicle traffic such as median islands.

3. Managing conflicts in time, which covers instances (such as intersections) where space needs to be shared between different users, but where they can be separated in time. An example is the Leading Pedestrian Interval, which allows people walking to have a ”head start” interval at a signalized intersection before conflicting vehicle traffic enters the crosswalk.

4. Increasing attentiveness and awareness, which involves alerting users to conflicts and potential risks, can involve such countermeasures as intersection daylighting and warning signage.

Crucially, the Hierarchy prioritizes improvements and countermeasures that make physical changes to the system for the whole population as more effective than measures that rely on roadway users and individual decisions. This is consistent with the Safe System Approach’s central premise that humans make mistakes, and that the roadway system should be designed to accommodate them through redundant and proactive interventions.

In addition to presenting this tiered hierarchy as a framework for understanding countermeasures as they relate to the principles of the Safe System Approach, the guidance also presents examples of both common and novel countermeasures that fall under each tier.

Safe System Approach for Speed Management
Speeding continues to be one of the leading causes of collisions across the country, especially those causing fatalities and severe injuries, and the relationship between higher speeds and increased collision severity is well-documented. The FHWA’s 2023 report on the Safe System Approach for Speed Management provides targeted recommendations around speed management. The report notes the need for agencies to place safety and the prevention of injury collisions (as opposed to throughput or travel times) as the highest priority when it comes to speed setting on roadways, and highlights the need to change the physical design and context of the roadway beyond merely changing regulatory speed limits in order to achieve target speeds.

The report outlines a five-stage framework to speed management that is consistent with the Safe System Approach. The process begins with establishing a vision and building consensus within the community to manage speeds; the creation of a strategic safety plan, such as a Vision Zero plan or Local Roadway Safety Plan, can serve this purpose. Second, speed data should be collected and analyzed, which can help both guide the rest of the process and provide the backing to build public support. Third, locations for speed management should be prioritized proactively, taking into account both collision and speeding history as 167
well as contextual factors (such as the presence of vulnerable users or traffic generators like schools and commercial areas). Countermeasures can then be selected for prioritized locations. Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation should be conducted to ensure efficacy and allow for flexibility and adjustment. The report also provides real-world case studies of how these principles were applied in practice.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists The Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, released by the FHWA in 2021, emphasizes the importance of protecting pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable users, under the Safe System Approach. The Primer details the considerations surrounding pedestrians and bicyclists under each of the five elements of the Safe System Approach – Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Vehicles, Safe Road Users, and Post-Crash Care. It also provides strategies and actions that can be taken at the Federal, state, and local levels towards implementing the Safe System Approach. Also included is an appendix on benchmarking policies, programs, and practices for Safe System consistency. The benchmarking used for City of Sacramento is based on this benchmarking tool.

Other National Guidance
In addition to policy and guidance from Federal agencies, other national-level documents provide additional guidance towards applying and implementing the Safe System Approach for local agencies.

The Safe Systems Pyramid
The Safe Systems Pyramid is a new framework for traffic safety proposed in a 2023 paper which adapts the Health Impact Pyramid framework into the Safe Systems Pyramid for roadway safety practitioners.

Building on established public health practice, the Safe Systems Pyramid illustrates how interventions that have the largest reach and require the least personal effort will be the most impactful.

In addition to identifying the kinetic energy transfer as the cause of injury, the Safe Systems Pyramid also relates energy to exposure. It explains how the many possible safety interventions differ in their effectiveness at reducing risk in the transportation system by prioritizing interventions that reduce exposure to kinetic energy transfer at the system level. Those that require more individual effort, such as driver education programs, have the least impact on improving system-wide safety. Meanwhile, those that change the quality of people’s lives and the built environment in which they travel more broadly, such as affordable housing near transit, zoning reform, traffic calming, and limiting crossing distances at intersections, have the largest impacts on safety.
168
Source: David Ederer, Rachael Thompson Panik, Nisha Botchwey, and Kari Watkins. The Safe Systems Pyramid: A new framework for traffic safety, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100905. Graphic from Vision Zero Network, https://visionzeronetwork.org/applying-the-health-impact-pyramid-to-roadway-safety/ At the top of the Safe System Pyramid is education, which generally correspond to Tier 4 of the Safe System Hierarchy, and encompasses driver education programs and campaigns – for example, asking drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit. As the authors of the paper note, “the need to urge behavioral change is symptomatic of failure to establish contexts in which healthy choices are default actions,” and education programs are thus considered to be most reliant on individual behavior and least effective in producing improvements.

Below education on the Pyramid are active and latent safety measures, which generally correspond to Tier 3 of the Hierarchy. Active safety measures encompass such countermeasures as warning signals and signs, as well as in-vehicle devices such as seatbelts and collision warnings. These safety measures are effective when used, but rely on individual opt-in (for example, for a driver to react to signage or to a collision warning) to function. Latent safety measures encompass countermeasures such as signal timing modifications such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) that create redundancy, as well as vehicle features such as lane departure prevention and automated emergency braking. Latent measures are considered more effective than active measures, as they require less individual opt-in, but their efficacy is still limited by the fact that they are applied individually. For example, while automated braking is superior to a warning signal that warns the driver to manually brake, only those who choose and have the means to drive a vehicle with the feature will have access to this technology.

Further down on the pyramid is the built environment level, which corresponds to Tiers 1 and 2 of the Hierarchy, and refers to physical alterations to the roadway that promotes slower speeds, physically separate vulnerable users, and reduce the number of high-risk conflicts. Such interventions can also improve the experience for walking and biking, and reduce the number of vehicle trips by encouraging mode shift. Unlike the higher levels of the pyramid, changes to the environment creates contexts that 169
encourage safer user behaviors (for example, narrower lanes that induce lower speeds) and are thus less dependent on active user participation and are more effective.

Finally, the socioeconomic factors level lies at the base of the pyramid. Typically, roadway safety interventions do not go beyond the roadway infrastructure, but today’s safety outcomes are inexorably linked by socioeconomic factors of the places that our roadways serve. Across the country, communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to the most dangerous roadways that feature high speeds, high traffic volumes, and outdated design and safety features. Moreover, many communities across the country also trapped by a lack of viable alternative transportation options as a result of car dependency, a crisis that is likely going to persist as the national phenomenon of the suburbanization of poverty continues. These are overarching socioeconomic factors that dictate urban form and the built environment, which in turn dictate safety outcomes. This category of interventions is often considered outside the traditional purview of transportation professionals, as they must come in the form of policy around land use, zoning, and economics that go beyond (but work in tandem with) transportation policy. However, they also must be considered when attempting to address roadway safety, as these socioeconomic factors form the root causes of roadway safety issues.

The pyramid should be seen as a structure for prioritizing the roadway design and operations tools that will have the most impact for safety while also collaborating outside the safety silo with other agency and community stakeholders to engage in upstream and more wide-ranging root cause topics.

NCHRP 1036: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Guide
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)’s Report 1036, the Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Guide, was developed in 2023 as a tool for practitioners to use in the development of roadway cross-sections that better assess the tradeoffs that are involved in the allocation of the limited width of a roadway. The guide begins with the premise that roadway space is scarce, and trade-offs are inevitable, and provides guidance for planning roadway cross-sections that center community priorities for that limited space. The guidelines also infuse Safe System considerations by establishing minimum floors for safety standards, such as the provisions of pedestrian and bike facilities and minimum widths for sidewalks and bike lanes. Finally, the guide discusses approaches for community engagement and operational analysis to facilitate the decision-making process consistent with the goals and minimum standards outlined in the guide. The guide also includes a companion Excel spreadsheet that can be used for new roadway and retrofit planning.

California Policy Considerations
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), like Federal authorities, has also adopted the Safe System Approach and committed to Vision Zero. Similarly, recently legislation at the State level has supported prioritization and cross-department collaboration consistent with the Safe Systems Pyramid strategies and hierarchy. Several State Senate and Assembly Bills and Caltrans Directors’ Policies (DPs) have been essential policy building blocks to support the ongoing Safe System pivot in California. 170
AB 43
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was passed in 2021 to provide additional flexibility to local jurisdictions to set speed limits on their roadways. Specifically, it offers them a means to lower speed limits on additional corridors. Cities now have increasing flexibility to enforce context-sensitive speed limits.

AB 43 features the following five major components, focused on giving local jurisdictions more flexibility in setting speed limits, especially regarding vulnerable road users:
• Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS): An option to extend enforceable time period • Post E&TS: An agency can elect to retain current or immediately prior speed limit • Speed Limit Reduction: Reduction of additional 5 mph based on several factors, including designation of local “Safety Corridors”
• Prima Facie Speed Limits: Options for 15 and 25 mph in certain areas depending on context • Business Activity Districts: Option for 20 or 25 mph
In particular, in this Regional Safety Action Plan, the designation of “Safety Corridors” is applied to roadways where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur, identifying specific locations or corridor-level segments with high crash occurrences and stratified by mode. AB 43 stipulates that a jurisdiction’s set of safety corridors must account for at least 25 percent of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) crashes and must comprise 20 percent of its streets or less.

If a jurisdiction, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit on a roadway segment is higher than reasonable or safe, they may declare a default speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour if that segment is designated as a safety corridor.

DP 36
In Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP) 36, made effective in 2022, the agency committed to eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes by the year 2050, and committed to achieving this goal through the application of the Safe System Approach.

DP 37
DP 37, issued in 2021, establishes creating complete streets that support people walking, biking, taking transit, and accessing passenger rail. It recognizes these priorities as a means of advancing state goals in climate and the environment, in public health, and in equity and repairing harm to underserved communities. It also recognizes complete streets as valuable community spaces that can boost economic vitality and resiliency. To these ends, it directs that “all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.” 171
Caltrans Intersection Safety and Operations Assessment Process (ISOAP) What is ISOAP?
The Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) is a performance-based, datadriven framework developed by Caltrans to evaluate and select intersection improvement alternatives. It incorporates the Safe System Approach to improve safety and operations for all road users. ISOAP’s purpose is to screen and identify the most viable intersection control and geometric design alternatives, ensuring they fit within the surrounding land use context and available resources. It replaces the prior Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process, aiming to reduce severe crashes and support Caltrans’ long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

Note: ISOAP applications can differ between land development and infrastructure projects (e.g., interchanges, corridor improvements) processed through Caltrans’ standard project development phases (PID and PA/ED).

Safe System Approach
The Safe System Approach is a safety framework used in ISOAP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

It accepts that human errors are inevitable and designs road systems to minimize harm.

CORE PRINCIPLES
• Zero Fatalities Goal – Safety is prioritized above all. • Human Error Is Expected – Roads must be forgiving.
• Human Vulnerability – Designs account for physical limits. • Shared Responsibility – Safety is a collective effort. • Redundancy – Multiple safety layers protect users.
• Proactive & Reactive Safety – Prevent crashes and reduce severity.

KEY ELEMENTS
• Safe Road Users – Education and enforcement.
• Safe Vehicles – Crash avoidance technologies.
• Safe Speeds – Lower speeds reduce crash impact.
• Safe Roads – Infrastructure that reduces conflict points. • Post-Crash Care – Emergency response and trauma care.

In ISOAP, this approach guides intersection design by emphasizing conflict reduction, speed management, and multimodal safety.

When is ISOAP Required?
ISOAP is required if a land development project proposes the following improvements to the State Highway System (SHS):
• Connecting a new public road, private road, or high-volume (average daily traffic volumes of 1,000 or greater) driveway to a state highway or a new interchange to a freeway. • Changing the type of traffic control, such as from stop-control to signal-control or from a twoway stop to all-way stop. • Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon at an intersection. • Making major physical changes to intersection approaches, including at ramp terminals, such as adding a leg to an intersection or widening to provide an additional through or turn lane. 172
Note that development projects entitled prior to ISOAP adoption are not exempt from the process, unless an ICE evaluation was previously prepared and approved by Caltrans.

Development projects often propose right-turn in/right-turn out driveways on state highways. ISOAP is not required for these driveways if the driveway approach volume is less than 1,000 vehicles per day.

ISOAP Process Summary
STAGE 1: SCREENING AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
This stage identifies viable intersection strategies early in the project development process, typically during the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase.
• Determine ISOAP Applicability: ISOAP is required for new intersections or major modifications (e.g., traffic control changes, new legs, pedestrian hybrid beacons). Exceptions must be approved by Caltrans HQ.
• Define Project Outcomes, Place Type, and Design Vehicle • Outcomes may include safety improvements, multimodal access, or traffic calming. • Place types (urban, suburban, rural) influence design. • Design vehicle selection depends on truck access needs. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Assessment: Evaluate current and future needs using Complete Streets guidance. Consider accessibility, school zones, and senior housing. • Right-of-Way and Operational Feasibility: Use tools like CAP-X and VJust to assess footprint and multimodal capacity. LOS is no longer a primary metric; use Daily Person Hours of Delay (DPHD) or other MOEs.
• Transit and Freight Assessment: Ensure intersection accommodates transit stops, queuing, and turning movements for large vehicles.
• Initial Safety Assessment: Use tools like SPICE, SSI methodology, and crash modification factors to compare strategies.
• Eliminate Infeasible Strategies: Remove options with insurmountable environmental, safety, or cost barriers.
• Document Findings: Complete the Stage 1 ISOAP form/documentation. If only one viable strategy remains, it becomes the recommendation. Otherwise, proceed to Stage 2.

STAGE 2: DETAILED ANALYSIS
• Detailed Safety Analysis: Use the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to predict crash frequency/severity and calculate safety-related costs.
• Detailed Operational Analysis: Use tools like Synchro, SIDRA, VISSIM, and Highway Capacity Software. Include multimodal data and forecast volumes. • Functional Sketches and Performance Checks: Prepare conceptual layouts showing lanes, pedestrian/bike facilities, and transit stops. Conduct geometric checks (e.g., sight distance, roundabout fastest path).
• Cost Estimate and Right-of-Way Impacts: Include construction, maintenance, and crash costs.

Consider drainage, utilities, and staging impacts.
• Performance-Based Analysis Matrix: Compare strategies using safety, operations, cost, and benefit-cost ratio. Consider equity and Safe System principles. • Document Final Recommendation: Submit the Stage 2 ISOAP form/documentation. The selected strategy may not be the cheapest but must align with safety and community goals. 173
1 Appendix B: Community Engagement
Materials & Feedback
Community Listening Sessions Summary
Introduction
In close collaboration with local communities, the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan (YSRSAP) was launched with the primary goal of improving roadway safety throughout the region. This comprehensive initiative is designed to evaluate existing transportation conditions and identify critical safety concerns that affect all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit riders. By thoroughly assessing the locations and causes of traffic-related hazards, the plan seeks to implement targeted interventions that will lead to safer streets, a reduction in traffic-related injuries and fatalities, and an overall improvement in quality of life for residents.

The development of the YSRSAP was made possible through an $800,000 grant awarded in 2023 to the Yuba County Department of Public Works by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This funding supports a collaborative planning process that includes Yuba County, Sutter County, and the incorporated cities of Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, and Live Oak. Central to the planning effort is the commitment to transparency, community involvement, and data-driven decision-making.

To ensure that the plan reflects the perspectives and needs of those who live and travel within the region, the project team organized a series of public listening sessions. These sessions served as a vital platform for community members to engage directly with the planning process, learn about proposed safety strategies, and provide meaningful input that will shape the final recommendations.

Listening Session Overview
From May 1 through May 14, 2025, the YSRSAP project team hosted a total of four in-person community listening sessions across the YubaSutter region. Each session ran from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. and was strategically scheduled and located to maximize accessibility and encourage participation from a diverse cross-section of residents.

Community Meeting
Directional Sign
Marysville Health & Human
Services Center, May 1st
Yuba City Gauche Aquatic Park
Meeting Room, May 7th
174
2 These listening sessions provided an open and welcoming environment where attendees could learn more about the
safety action plan, meet with members of the project team, and voice their observations, concerns, and ideas about local transportation safety. The input gathered during these
sessions plays an essential role in shaping the priorities of the plan and ensuring that the solutions developed are
responsive to the specific needs of the communities
involved.

The sessions took place at the following locations:
• Thursday, May 1: Marysville Health & Human Services
Building
• Wednesday, May 7: Yuba City Gauche Aquatic Park Meeting Room • Tuesday, May 13: Live Oak Community Center
• Wednesday, May 14: Wheatland Community Center
Each event was promoted through multiple channels, including flyers, local news outlets, social media, and direct outreach to community groups, with the goal of ensuring broad awareness and encouraging robust attendance.

Event Format and Engagement
Each listening session followed a relaxed, open-house format that encouraged free movement and informal dialogue. Upon arrival, attendees were greeted by project team members and offered complimentary items such as bottled water, bicycle safety accessories, and small treats like candy to create a friendly and inclusive atmosphere.

The venue layout included a series of display boards arranged throughout the room, each highlighting different components of the safety action plan. These exhibits covered a wide range of topics, including key goals of the plan, data on current roadway conditions, maps of high-priority safety areas, and preliminary recommendations for improvement. The visual displays were designed to be easy to understand and accessible to a general audience, encouraging thoughtful discussion and feedback.

Live Oak Community Center, May
13th
Wheatland Community Center, May
14th
Awareness Lawn Sign
175
3 Project team members were stationed at each board to answer questions, explain technical details, and engage in one-on-one conversations. This personal interaction helped foster trust and allowed participants to share firsthand experiences and local insights, which are critical to developing solutions that are both effective and community-centered.

Stations and Board Exhibits
The listening sessions featured several themed stations and informational boards, each addressing a unique aspect of the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan. The following section provides a detailed overview of the content presented at these stations.

Information Board:
176
4 Plan Voting Board & Feedback:
177
5 Marysville Boards & Feedback:
178
6 Yuba City Boards & Feedback:
179
7 Live Oak Boards:
180
8 Wheatland Boards & Feedback:
181
9 Yuba County Boards & Feedback:
182
10 Sutter County Boards & Feedback:
183
11 Interactive Web Map

SOCIAL PINPOINT
184
12 185
13 Biking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
1130 North Beale Road, Linda
This entire area is unsafe for bikes and peds. Bike infrastructure is unprotected and poorly delineated.

Signal crossings are poorly marked, timed, poor lighting, and poor beg buttons. The traffic is heavy here and there needs to be much more signs, beacons, and protected intersections.

YABA
1800 Erle Road, Linda
Erle Road is unsafe for bicycles and pedestrians due to the 55mph+ speeds and commercial truck traffic traveling at 55mph+. There is no clear recovery zone for the established speed and the bike lane is undesignated and has no clear delineation, protection, or buffer zone.

YABA
1548 Erle Road, Linda
Bicycles traveling between the retail center near Walmart and the Edgewater subdivision along Erle Road face several problems and risks. Erle Road does not have bi-directional bike lanes but instead routes all bike traffic along the north side of the road. The speed limit on Elre Rd is 55+ mph and a designated commercial truck route. The bike lane has no delineation as a bike lane, no safety features such as barriers or buffers. It is actually a shoulder all the way to the Erle Rd overcrossing where it ends. Vehicles use the shoulder as a turn lane onto Lindhurst Avenue northbound. Coming Southbound from Lindhurst, cyclists must share the left turn lane with motorists to go eastbound on Erle Rd from the overcrossing. This keeps cyclists going with the flow of traffic but there are no bicycle delineations, markings, designated areas, or guidance to help motorists understand the road is shared.

YABA
1012 5th Street, Marysville
Bicycles traveling in both directions are forced onto the sidewalk here. This is unsafe for several reasons due to lack of markings, signs, space, and speed differentials. Eastbound cyclists are dumped into J Street going the wrong way off of a sidewalk into right turning southbound traffic, which results in collisions between right turning vehicles and eastbound bicycles.

YABA
468 Bridge Street, Yuba City
Eastbound and westbound traffic at Plumas St are traveling at a higher rate of speed than the 85th percentile because of the perceived speed of the facility over the 5th Street bridge. There have been KSI's at this intersection to include a serious (SI) of a minor child who was walking her bicycle. There is no traffic calming coming off the bridge.

YABA
248 Bridge Street, Yuba City
I was eastbound (against traffic) on my bike because this is the only bike lane connecting to an eastbound crossing of the 5th St bridge. At this curve I was nearly hit head-on by a Yuba City Fire Engine that was driving over the limit line in the bicycle lane. Had I not been paying attention and not moved to the curb I would have been (probably) fatally hit. The driver was not paying attention. The fire engine was not speeding or driving to an emergency. It was simply in the bike lane. There are no barriers for this bike lane but there should be.
635 Sutter Street, Yuba City Southbound Sutter St after coming off of the 5th Street Bridge is an unsafe merge into traffic without a bicycle lane on Sutter Street. YABA
186
14 Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
641 Sutter Street, Yuba City
This intersection is an unsafe cluster/diversion for cyclists after being routed off the bridge. Cyclists changing direction to northbound from an westbound crossing are forced to cross traffic on the wrong side, against the flow of vehicle traffic where there is no designated bike lane northbound on Sutter Street. To continue westbound, cyclists must transition to an unprotected bike lane on 5th street that ends at Shasta Street.
639 Sutter Street, Yuba City
5th Street Bridge forces bicycles off of 5th Street and relegates them to one side of the bridge for both directions without a safe protected way to continue on 5th Street even though there is a designated bike lane.

YABA
1112 Simpson Lane, Linda
Simpson Lane overcrossing is the only "local (county)" connecting road to Marysville from Linda and the residential areas south of the Yuba River. The only other crossing is at E Street Bridge where Caltrans has provided no safe route. Simpson Lane is a high speed (55 mph +) two-lane commercial truck route facility with inadequate clear recovery, zero traffic controls, zero designated bike or ped facility, and zero lighting or passive speed control signs. This facility is dangerous for all users, especially bicycle and pedestrians trying to access Marysville services.

YABA
505 6th Street, Marysville
6th Street between Yuba Street and J Street is a designated bicycle boulevard. The entire road is shared with bicycles. There are not enough signs and sharrows telling motorists to slow down and to share this road.

YABA
California Highway 70, Linda
There is no designated bicycle lane into Marysville from Linda/Olivehurst. SR70 crossing is completely deficient in bike/ped facilities. Many many bike/ped crossings per day, including motorized wheelchairs within 1-2 feet proximity of high speed semi truck and vehicle traffic on one side and a 30" high rail barrier over the side of the bridge. No lighting, no connectivity for bike/ped/rolling users. No ADA, no signs, no beacons, no safety barriers. Bridge walkway is only 38" wide.

YABA
1277 Simpson Lane, Linda
Very unsafe due to high speed truck and vehicle traffic 60mph and no barrier protection in the clear recovery zone which serves as unofficial bike and ped lane, no lighting, no signs, no delineation, no beacons or traffic calming, no ped crossings, and highway speeds in very close proximity to bicycle traffic. Simpson Lane is the only river crossing into Marysville beside the State Highway at E Street. I ride Simpson Lane and have had several very close calls.
zerovmt
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City No hay suficiente espacio en las calles principales para bicicletas, hace falta un carril especifico para ciclistas. Lisa
187
15 Walking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
1526 Mcgowan Parkway, Arboga I propose to build a sidewalk to be able to walk from the gas station to the Mac Gowan park so people who needs to take the public bus at the bus station can walk safely.

Walking
safely
Arboga Road, Olivehurst
Speed Limit on Arboga Rd between McGowan Pkwy and Ella Ave is currently 55 mph. There is a stop sign at McGowan and a stop sign at Ella. There are six crosswalks and four left turn options in this stretch of road. Speed limit is excessive (but may have been appropriate in the past before housing developments were built). Many drivers seem to drive about 45 mph. Suggestion: reduce speed limit to 45 mph.

Michael
ScullyLinder
1148 North Beale Road, Linda Bike and Peds are at risk in this entire area. Poor lighting, poor signalized intersections, poor delineated markings, lack of signage and beaconized crossings, etc. Very high risk area. YABA 1830 B Street, Marysville
There have been KSI's here involving students due to the amount and high speeds of state highway traffic.

There are not enough traffic calming measures in the school zone. Caltrans Binny Junction project build alternative did not adequately address the KSI's and preventative measures. Caltrans proposes to increase the speed limit to 45mph here.

YABA
12913 Rices Crossing Road, Oregon
House
I propose to build a sidewalk to be able to walk from the gas station to the Mac Gowan park so people who needs to take the public bus at the bus station can walk safely.

Walking
safely
13857 Phoenix Ave, Oregon House
Concerning the section of Rices Crossing Road south of Rices Texas Hill Road: There is no pedestrian lane, nor space for pedestrians, on this section. Could there be better signage to warn drivers, and/or post a speed limit?
Rodney
Carter
9872 Texas Hill Road, Oregon
House
Need an oval walking track so the community has some where safe to walk.

We have the space - 5 acres of community space available Margaret
Fowler
1429 Phillips Road, Yuba City This is a public K-10 school it needs a well established walking path Margaret Fowler
1830 B Street, Marysville Crosswalk for children in front of elementary Bshackle 1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City
Marysville Charter kids cross this intersection of a busy highway to go to the center across the street to use as a gym since their school does not have one. I worry how fast people drive on this highway that a kid may get hit. Is there anyway we can make this safer for kids who cross multiple times a day.

Sal
1830 North Beale Road, Linda
The neighborhood is not well lit at all. Very unsafe for walks in the evening. In addition there has been several car break in as well as thefts and with proper lighting some of these crimes would not occur as lighting would be a deterrent.

E.McKnight
1500 North Beale Road, Linda A flashing beacon here will really help getting vehicles to stop and allow me to cross and get to nearby stores across the street. JG
188
16 Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
2371 North Beale Road, Marysville I feel a flashing beacon here will help me and others cross N. Beale Rd from the apartments and other homes to the nearby plaza. Resident X
3120 Forty Mile Road, Wheatland The intersection of N. Beale Rd and Goldfields Pkwy is really dark. I feel unsafe walking when its dark out. I would like to suggest lighting at the intersection and along N. Beale Rd. Resident X 1526 Mcgowan Parkway, Arboga
I have often seen pedestrians walking on the east side of Forty Mile Rd when there is a concert at the Toyota Amphitheatre. To avoid parking at the Amphitheatre, concert-goers will park at the Hard Rock Cafe and walk. After the concert seems really unsafe considering the lack of lighting.

Mr. W
189
17 Walking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen name
9201c Larkin Road, Live Oak,
California 95953, United States
Cars often drive dangerously beyond the 35 speed limit here, especially when coming northbound into Live Oak on Larkin. There is a speed limit change from 55 to 35mph a little before the River Valley nursing home, but most are going over 55 and continue to go that speed past the nursing home. There is a lot of traffic coming in and out of the nursing home parking lot and speeding on Larkin makes this area very dangerous. I have also seen wreckless speeders crash into the backs of cars that have slowed down or stopped on the road waiting to turn into the homes on Larkin. There are a couple of speed change warning signs and a radar warning, but it seems nobody cares. Maybe a slight speed bump and flashing lights could help?
1764 Tierra Buena Road, Yuba
City Drivers do a rolling stop or at times not stop at all.

California Highway 65,
Wheatland
The bottlenecked traffic that has to get through Wheatland is a safety concern. All of the new homes/apartments =more traffic. In the event of an emergency there is NO way to safely get out. There’s not even passing lanes. Stop being greedy and find a way to re-route the 65 or add lanes.

A concerned
Wheatland
citizen
126 12th Street, Marysville
There is heavy traffic congestion in this area between 07:20 am - 07:45 am. Typically, most people turning left onto B ST, from 12th ST, also need to quickly merge for the upcoming turn on 9th ST. There are merging issues and this contributes to the growing traffic on B ST.

Brittney
3986 Wheatland Road,
Wheatland
Big dip in the road. This has gotten worse and worse over the last couple years. Even traveling at posted speed limit this dip is cause for concern. Please look into repairing it. Darren 985 Hillcrest Avenue, Yuba City Yuba City Hwy 20 at Shasta St intersection, median divide the visibility is extremely poor and very low height. Jo
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City Queens Ave overpass, 2 stoplights cause bottleneck traffic during peak commute hours. This endangers traffic on northbound West Onstott Rd and also the kids E-Learning access On Queens Ave Jo 425 9th Street, Marysville Speed bumps need reflective because they are hard to see Mark Hubble 13623 Rices Crossing Road,
Oregon House
There have been several crashes at the intersection of Marysville Road and Rices Crossing Road, some fatal. I was involved in one of them. Visibility is poor on both approaches to the intersection. The traffic can be heavy. Some drivers approach the intersection at speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. The speed limit isn't posted there, so drivers can assume it is still 55 miles per hour, as it is on both approaches to the intersection. A few seconds of inattention can therefore result in a violent collision at the intersection. Such collisions have occurred a number of times.

Henry Knapp
231 South Walton Avenue, Yuba
City
There needs to be a turn lane here. Traffic backs up excessively when drivers try to make a left turn into the Berkshire neighborhood. Often times its a full stop in traffic nearly causing collisions. Anonymous 190
18 Nearest Address Comment Screen name
1289 Lincoln Road, Yuba City
Left turn lane is not long enough. Cars often miss the signal due to access to the turn lane being blocked.

This has resulted in cars using the oncoming traffic lane as a way to bypass traffic that is going straight. I have seen collisions happen here because of this.

Anonymous
Pasado Road, Olivehurst Need to add traffic lights, its almost impossible to turn left on Erle Rd. due to ongoing traffic..

Plumas Arboga Road, Arboga So many accidents at this intersection. Needs a light or lighted stop signs immediately 3992 Wheatland Road,
Wheatland
Seems like a pipe or culvert is broke and the road has settled. Big drop in the road that has continually gotten worse. Ashley Ferreira
1649 Broadway Road, Arboga Trying to navigate through this area during school drop offs & pickup times. The road gets blocked in several directions. Many local residents can not even leave their homes during school hours. carrway 12510 Rices Crossing Road,
Oregon House
"Rices Crossing is narrow in places, and people have run off the side of the road. The biggest concern, however, is emergency egress in case of a wildfire. As a Director of the Dobbins/Oregon House Fire Protection District, I anticipate that emergency egress issues will severely impact the ability of the Fire district to respond to an emergency. See this link for a compilation of letters sent to Yuba County about Rices Crossing Road: https://foothillwatercoalition.org/records/links/24-12-30_wf_letters.html Charles Sharp
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City Hay demaciados carros en esta pequeña ciudad. Deberia haber mas transporte publico Hilda 1548 Erle Road, Linda North bound cars here often make their own lane to make a right turn on to Erle Rd. New striping is necessary also see a lot of kids on bikes on the road on Lindhurst Ave Private 1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City
Recorrer la pequeña ciudad de Yuba es todo un reto y toma demaciado tiempo. Hay demaciados semaforos, las glorietas creo pueden ser mejor opcion para las calles principales en vez de tanta luz. De igual manera en zonas residenciales puede funcionar mejor Stop signs y detectores de velocidad en diferentes zonas.

Lisa
1311 Oswald Road, Yuba City
I have seen many many crash’s and also have been a victim of a crash right in the section of the road.

People travel way to fast and many have been killed her due to traffic accidents. They’re should be a light here.
1991 Mcgowan Parkway,
Olivehurst
Crash happened on December 25, 2024. unknown cause however it was a two car collision. This is a four way stop intersection and can sometimes be challenging when school ends for the day and traffic piles up with kids walking home after school.

Olivehurst
Resident
191
Appendix C
Safety Corridor Background &
Technical Methodology
192
1 Appendix C: Safety Corridor Background
and Technical Methodology
This section discusses the methodology used for the identification of safety corridors, the roads that had the highest number and risk of crashes resulting in severe injury or death.