Agenda packet — Livingston City Council, February 26, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

202
However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of DUI collisions occurred
outside these time periods as well.

Non-engineering interventions will need to
be the primary means of addressing these
challenges, but may be supplemented with
the listed engineering countermeasures that
aim to make roadway designs more forgiving
in general.

Driving Under The Influence
Driving under the influence is a significant
contributor to injury collisions, especially and
disproportionately to collisions that cause
someone to be killed or severely injured (KSI).

DUIs are clustered around the weekend and
around nighttime. Across the region, 54% of
all DUI collisions occurred on Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, and 65% occurred in the dark.

KSIs
4 (80%)
0 (0%)
1 (13%)
Injury
8 (21%)
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A

Page 209 ends

P~•
. --
T T
203
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Hunt Rd
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Figure 3.9
Profile A Collisions
City of Gustine
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 210 ends

•
•
A
c{
0 I -----i~L--++-W--
1 ~ --, -----t-l
0 ~_1__1____£~
0 -
I
--I
0 ----,
~
204
A substantial number of collisions are
occurring in the nighttime across the region.

Based on the percentage of nighttime
collisions, meaningful progress toward
reducing collisions will require improvements
that enhance nighttime visibility such as
lighting, retroreflective signage, and sightline
improvements.

Dark Conditions KSIs
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
All
11 (28%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B

Page 211 ends

205
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Hunt Rd
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Figure 3.10
Profile B Collisions
City of Gustine
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 212 ends

•
•
A
c{
0 I -----i~L--++-W--
1 ~ --, -----t-l
_!__ 0 ! '---1-------1-- 1 ~_[_~
0 -
I
--I
0 ----,
~
-
206
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can be
confusing for drivers in side street stop-controlled
intersections. Accurately judging and using a
gap in traffic can also be challenging. Similar
to permissive left-turn operations, high traffic
volumes, high speeds, and limited visibility due to
roadway width on the major crossing are factors
that also contribute to risk at these locations.

Side street stop-controlled intersections often are
accompanied by either an uncontrolled crossing
of the major roadway or no crossing altogether.

A long series of side street stop-controlled
intersections will thus likely create long stretches
of the major roadway without protected crossings
for people walking, biking or otherwise needing
to cross the major street.

Gustine saw a total of 13 collisions at
side-street stop-controlled intersections,
accounting for one third of all injury crashes
within the city. All 13 occurred on the shared
alignment of State Routes 33 and 140 along
South Avenue and Jensen Road between
Sullivan Avenue and 4th Street, which features
no control devices of any kind within that
stretch. Of the collisions, 3 were KSIs and none
involved bicycles or pedestrians. The top PCFs
were speeding, accounting for 38% of all such
collisions, followed by vehicle right-of-way
violations at 31%.

Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
Injury
13 (33%)

PROFILE C

Page 213 ends

■
207
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Hunt Rd
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Figure 3.11
Profile C Collisions
City of Gustine
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 214 ends

•
•
A
-
I I ~ __, f----l-
-1--0 ! '---+-----'-- 1~_1_.I_____(__
0 ----,
~ -
-
1 208
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
All
13 (33%)
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail

PROFILE C

Page 215 ends

■
00 209
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

Many roadways around the region feature
more vehicle travel lanes than their demand
necessitates, which can influence driver
behavior towards higher speeds. Moreover,
many of the region’s roadways feature travel
lanes that are wider (often significantly so)
than the maximum of 11ft recommended by
Caltrans, which is another major contributor to
speeding behavior. High speeds on roadways
not only pose risks for vehicles, but also make
them less comfortable to walk or ride along and
to cross for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Speeding is a major contributor to injury
collisions in the region. It is cited as the primary
collision factor for nearly a quarter of all injury
collisions in the study area, as well as 14% of all
KSI collisions. It is also important to note that
speeding can also be a factor in other collisions
where it is not cited as the primary collision
factor, and that the number of speeding-related
collisions in the region is likely higher.

Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Lane
Narrowing
Separated
Bikeway
Speed Hump
or Speed Table
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Raised
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Restripe
Crosswalk
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Speed Legends
on Pavement at
Neighborhood
Entries
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Neighborhood
Traffic Circle
Back-In
Angled
Parking
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
KSIs
20%
Injury
25%

PROFILE D

Page 216 ends

Q!)
m
3 City of Gustine

Page 217 ends

Priority Locations
and Project Concepts
The locations in Gustine with the most collision
records, which also aligns with risk factors
identified by collision profiles, are presented
in the following table. These locations are
all located along alignments of SR 33 and SR
140 through the City. As such, these locations
all fall on Caltrans facilities. Of these, the
intersection of South Avenue and 4th Street is
already receiving safety improvements in the
form of an under-construction roundabout.

These locations are intended to be addressed
in the medium- to long-term, within the next
5-15 years, subject to additional study, the
availability of funding, and coordination with
Caltrans.

Due to the small sample size of Gustines’
collision records, no non-Caltrans facilities
could be flagged based on collision history. As
the City continues to coordinate with Caltrans
on safety improvements on Caltrans facilities
in Gustine, this LRSP also seeks to provide
the City with actionable project concepts
for City-owned roadways that can proceed
independent of that coordination. These
concepts were developed with proactive
safety improvements in mind, and targets two
locations in the City near schools that were
selected based on community feedback, walk
audit findings, and alignment with collision
profiles.

Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
South Ave/
West Ave 5 1 C
This intersection is side-street stop-controlled, with the main road (South Ave) lacking any stop or signal control between the south end of town and 4th St
Yes
South Ave/
4th St 3 1 C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled, with only southbound traffic on 4th St being free-flow Yes SR 140/
East Ave 3 0
C The intersection is stop-controlled
F Yes 2nd Ave intersects East Ave immediately south of the intersection at an oblique angle
D SR 140 has high speeds (posted speed limit of 45 MPH)

Page 218 ends

212
Both Meredith Avenue and Grove Avenue are
residential streets with posted speed limits of
25 MPH, and respectively provide east-west
and north-south crosstown connectivity. Their
intersection is located adjacent to Gustine
Elementary School, whose two primary points
of access are located just south and east of the
intersection, respectively.

The intersection is currently all-way stopcontrolled. It does not have marked crosswalk on all four legs. A Class I shared-use path on the
north side of Meredith Avenue terminates at
the northwest corner of the intersection and
does not connect to a marked crosswalk. Adding
marked crosswalks will better serve the Class I
path, as well as provide increased accessibility to
the school. The City also plans to construct a new
Class I path along Grove Avenue in the future,
and additional marked crosswalks would serve
that future connection as well. In addition,
curb extensions at the intersection could be
considered to boost the visibility of crosswalk
users, reduce crossing distances, and reduce
the visual width of the roadways.

In addition to the intersection itself, there is a
mid-block crosswalk across Meredith Avenue a
half-block east of the intersection, also serving
the elementary school. Meredith Avenue
features travel lanes wider than 12 feet, which
can contribute to higher vehicular speeds and
reduced visibility of pedestrians on the side of
the road waiting to cross. A median pedestrian
refuge island for the mid-block crosswalk
would shorten the crossing distance, improve
pedestrian visibility, and slow vehicle speeds.

Raising the crosswalk to sidewalk level can be
considered as a longer-term improvement.

Install missing
crosswalks and
curb extensions

GROVE AVE

MEREDITH AVE
N
Install a median pedestrian
refuge island and consider a
raised crosswalk in the long term
Due to the small sample size
of Gustine’s collision records,
this project was identified
systemically as a proactive
safety improvement.

Collision History
No
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
D
Intersection of

GROVE AVENUE AND

MEREDITH AVENUE

Page 219 ends

213
The intersection serves as the northern gateway
for downtown Gustine’s main commercial
corridor along 5th Street. The side-street stopcontrolled intersection has a large footprint – while both intersecting roadways feature one
lane in each direction, their cross-sections are
each over 50 feet wide due to the presence
of angled parking on both sides of the street.

This can lead to visibility issues. The crosswalks
at this intersection are also narrower than
prescribed by current best practices, and
substantially narrower than those present at
the intersections north and south of it.

The intersection could be improved by
converting the intersection into a roundabout.

This would allow for the creation of fullwidth crosswalks, allow for more even traffic flow through the intersection, and reduce
likelihood of collisions. The roundabout would
also serve as a northern gateway to the
downtown area.
1ST AVE
5TH ST

NORTH AVE
N
Due to the small sample size
of Gustine’s collision records,
this project was identified
systemically as a proactive
safety improvement.

Collision History
No
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
C
Intersection of
1ST AVENUE
AND 5TH STREET
D
Install
roundabout

Page 220 ends

City of Livingston
1

Page 221 ends

Collision Analysis
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety
Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to
“consider a wide range of data sources to get
an overall picture of the safety needs.” To this
end, this Local Roadway Safety Plan is datadriven and synthesizes findings from collison records alongside input from key stakeholders, a
technical advisory group, and staff.

Collision records on roadways in Livingston from
2015 to 2022 were investigated to describe
historic collision trends and identify high-risk
locations. This information acts as a primary
resource for this Plan, providing the underlying
data to support key analyses.

The data-driven process for the creation of
this Plan includes:
• Examination of Collision Trends
Review of collision statistics to evaluate
when, where, and why collisions occur and
who is involved.
• Development of a High-Injury Network
Identification of roadways where most
injury collisions are concentrated for
targeted intervention.
• Development of Collision Profiles of
Emphasis
Identification of the most prevalent
collision types and contexts based on a
combination of collision factors.
• Creation of a Countermeasure Toolbox
Identification of effective, nationally
proven countermeasures applicable to
different collision profiles.
• Identification of Priority Project Locations
Identification of locations suitable for
project implementation based on collision
density and community verification.

The following section presents findings from
the first of these stages of data analysis,
identifying collision patterns and trends.

Page 222 ends

216
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdown
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 1
2 3
4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdowns over Time
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 4.2
KSI Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
A Note on the Data Source
This analysis utilizes data on injury
collisions from 2015 through 2022
available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of
August 2023. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), but
excludes collisions that cause property
damage only (PDO) and no injuries.

Geographically, the data includes all
collisions that occur within the City of
Livingston. The data excludes collisions
on Route 99, as it is a controlled-access
roadway (i.e. freeway), but includes
collisions on all other roadways,
including State highways and other
Caltrans-maintained roadways as well as
privately-maintained roadways.

While collision databases like TIMS
remain the best source of collision data,
they have been found to have certain
reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking,
on bicycles, or on motorcycles
are less likely to be reported than
collisions with people driving
• Property damage only collisions are
less likely to be reported compared
to more severe collisions
• Younger victims are less likely to
report collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions may be
underreported
Race, income, immigration status, and
English proficiency may also impact
reporting, but there is limited research
on these factors.

Figure 4.1
Injury Collisions by Year,
2015-2022

Page 223 ends

I Pl 1111 I I I --1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
217
Figure 4.3
Collision
Mode Share
by Severity,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Modal Breakdowns by Percent
88%
3%
9%
Vehicle Bike Ped
71%
29%
Vehicle Bike Ped
Injury Collisions
by Percent
71%
29%
Vehicle Bike Ped
KSI Collisions
Collisions by Year and by Mode
The table below provides a summary of
the number of collisions in Livingston
by mode and severity within the
dataset, which includes all collisions
that resulted in injury or fatality. From
2015 to 2022, there were a total of 205
injury collisions, of which 14 were KSI
collisions: collisions where someone was
killed or severely injured.

Collision Summary Total KSI
Total 205 14
Bicycle 7 0
Pedestrian 18 4
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the temporal
trends of collisions in Livingston. As
shown, the annual number of injury
collisions in Livingston has fluctuated
through the study period, with a peak
in 2020 and 2021 that coincide with the
peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a
drop in 2022. This is in line with national
trends in 2020 and 2021, during and
after the initial wave of the pandemic,
where roadway safety outcomes
worsened despite travel restrictions and
decreases in traffic volume. The number
of KSI collisions per year over the study
period has also fluctuated, but hovers
around two per year.

People walking or biking are particularly
vulnerable in the event of a collision,
as they lack the protection afforded to
them by being inside a motor vehicle.

As a result, collisions involving people
walking or biking are more likely to
result in injury and fatality. As shown in
Figure 4.3, people walking and biking are
involved in 12% of all injury collisions,
but 29% of KSI collisions.

Page 224 ends

218
Collisions by Collision Type
Figure 4.4 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that fall into each collision
type. As shown, the most common collision
types across all injury collisions in Livingston
are broadside collisions at 28%, rear-end
collisions at 23%, and sideswipe collisions at
14%.

Taking a closer look at KSI collisions shows a
different breakdown. Broadside collisions are
also the most common type of KSI collisions, at
36%, followed by vehicle-pedestrian collisions
at 21%, and rear-end collisions at 14%.

This illustrates the disproportionate impact
in severity that collision type can play. For
example, while side-swipes account for a large
share of overall collisions, they are generally
less likely to result in fatalities and severe
injuries. By contrast, broadsides are more
represented amongst KSI collisions, as they
typically involve more kinetic energy and result
in more serious collision outcomes.

This also further illustrates the significantly
disproportionate impact people walking
face in the event of a collision, as vehiclepedestrian collisions are significantly overrepresented in the KSI collision record.

Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 4.5 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that are classified under each
Primary Collision Factor (PCF). PCFs are cited
by the responding officer and are based on
that person’s judgment of what contributed to
the collision. It is important to note that PCFs
do not include contextual information about
the design aspects of the collision location
that could have been primary or secondary
contributors to a collision.

In Livingston, the most common PCFs are
Vehicle Right of Way Violation at 28% of
collisions, Unsafe Speed at 17%, and Driving/
Biking Under the Influence (DUI) at 14%.

Taking a closer look at KSI collisions shows
a different PCF breakdown percentage. The
most common PCFs for KSI collisions are DUI
at 29%, Vehicle Right of Way Violation at 21%,
Pedestrian-Related at 14%, Unsafe Speed at
14%, and Improper Turning at 14%.

Page 225 ends

219
Collision Type
10%
14%
23%
28%
9%
1%
8% 7%
0%
7%
14%
36%
7%
0%
21%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Head-On Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle- Other Pedestrian
Rear-End
PCF
28%
17%
14% 13%
8%
4%
5%
11%
21%
14%
29%
14%
0% 0%
14%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle Right Other
of Way
Violation
DUI Wrong
Side of
Road
Signals
and Signs
Pedestrian- Related*
Figure 4.4
Share of Injury Collisions by Collision Type, 2015-2022 Figure 4.5
Share of Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2015-2022 * Note on Pedestrian PCF Categories
The “Pedestrian-Related” category shown here combines two PCF categories: “Pedestrian Violation” and “Pedestrian Right of Way Violation.” The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, where the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances, and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected to not show the distinction in these tallies, and instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions

Page 226 ends

220
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Figure 4.6 illustrates the share of collisions
in the study period that occur at night*.

Nighttime collisions and issues around lighting
are top concerns for Livingston. As shown,
nighttime collisions account for a large share
of collisions overall, and are even more
overrepresented among KSI collisions. 29%
of all injury collisions occurred at night where
streetlights were present and a further 4%
occurred where streetlights were not present
or present but not functioning, accounting
for a third of all injury collisions. Those
percentages jump further to 50% and 21%
for KSI collisions, respectively, amounting
to almost three-quarters of all KSI collisions
occurring in the dark.

Collisions that occur during nighttime also
disproportionately affect people walking. 39%
of pedestrian-involved collisions occurred at
night where streetlights were present and a
further 17% occurred where streetlights were
not present or present but not functioning,
accounting for a majority of pedestrianinvolved collisions.

The concern around lighting is especially
relevant given Livingston’s small-town context
and rural surroundings. Nighttime collisions
represent a third of the injury collision record
and nearly three-quarters of the KSI collision
record, indicating a clear need for focus on
the issue. There continue to be locations
without functional street lighting in the City,
and collisions at those locations represent
a significant share of the collision record.

Furthermore, even where streetlights were
present, the quality of the lighting can vary
widely. Factors that may contribute to the
quality of streetlights include lights being
insufficiently bright, placed too widely apart,
or poor quality of lighting for people walking
on the sidewalk, as streetlights are often
designed primarily for vehicles in travel lanes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Figure 4.7 illustrates the share of collisions of
various types in the study period that involved
at least one party driving under the influence
(DUI). Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
of increased crash severity. As shown, the
number of DUI collisions are overrepresented
amongst KSI collisions. While 15% of all
injury collisions involve drugs or alcohol in
Livingston, 29% of KSI collisions do.

These percentages reflect the portion of
collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. Driving under the influence may
not always be listed as the primary collision
factor even if a driver is found to be under the
influence.
* Nighttime collisions are defined as those collisions
whose lighting information is not reported as "daylight".

Page 227 ends

221
Lighting
4%
29%
a Nighttime Daytime
21%
50%
a Nighttime Daytimea N
All Collisions KSI Collisions Pedes
Injury Collisions
Lighting
e
21%
50%
a Nighttime Daytime
17%
39%
a Nighttime Daytime
KSI Collisions Pedestrian Collisions
KSI Collisions
e
17%
39%
a Nighttime Daytime
Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
DUI
85%
15%
Vehicle Bike
Figure 4.7
DUI Collisions,
2015-2022
DUI Collisions
Other Collisions
DUI
85%
15%
Vehicle Bike
71%
29%
Vehicle Bike
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 4.6
Nighttime
Collisions,
2015-2022
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime Collisions,
Streetlights Working
Nighttime Collisions, Streetlights
Not Present or Not Working

Page 228 ends

222
99 99
B St 99
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Livingston-Cressley Rd
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 4.8
High Injury Network
City of Livingston
N
High Injury Network
From the collision data, a High Injury Network
was developed to identify the roadways in
Livingston with the highest levels of injury
collisions, as shown on Figure 4.8.

The High Injury Network consists of just 10%
of the roadway network in Livingston, but is
the site of the majority of injury collisions. Of
the 205 collisions that occurred during the
study period, 114, or 56%, were located along
the network. Fourteen of these study period
collisions were KSIs, of which eleven, or 79%,
were located along the network.

Page 229 ends

0 _.I'-
-
r -
A
I
I
223

Page 230 ends

224
Equity Considerations
Both Merced County and the larger Central
Valley region have historically been subject
to underinvestment and marginalization. As
a result, most of the region, including most
areas within the six cities covered by this
Plan, are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and Federal
governments.

The federal government has introduced
a number of tools used to identify
disadvantaged communities. In particular, two
of these, the Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool (CEJST) and the Equitable
Transportation Communities (ETC) Explorer,
are of particular note, as they see extensive
use by the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) in delineating
disadvantaged areas, especially as part of
grant funding opportunities.

Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool (CEJST)
The Climate and Economic Justice Screening
Tool (CEJST) is maintained by the Federal
Council on Environmental Quality and used
by many Federal programs as a means of
identifying disadvantaged communities.

Census tracts are screened based on a variety
of factors, including climate, energy, health,
housing, transportation, legacy pollution,
waste, and workforce development.

Equitable Transportation
Communities (ETC) Explorer
USDOT created Equitable Transportation
Communities (ETC) Explorer as part of its
Justice40 initiative to complement the
CEJST by providing additional insight into
transportation factors specifically. The ETC
Explorer is meant to capture the cumulative
burden of underinvestment in transportation
in a community.

Figure 4.9 shows areas in Livingston identified
as disadvantaged under these two criterion.

As shown, the entirety of Livingston, and all
unincorporated areas around it, are identified
as disadvantaged by the CEJST. In addition,
many of the unincorporated areas immediately
adjacent to city limits are also identified as
disadvantaged by the ETC Explorer.

Page 231 ends

225
99 99
B St 99
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Livingston-Cressley Rd
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 4.9
CEJST and ETC Explorer Results
City of Livingston
identified as disadvantaged by CEJST
identified as disadvantaged by ETC Explorer
identified as disadvantaged by both

Page 232 ends

2 City of Livingston

Page 233 ends

Collision Profiles
Through a systemic analysis of collision
records, collision profiles were identified
to represent the most significant patterns
behind injury collisions � and especially KSI
collisions � in the region. Seven such profiles,
identified with the letters “A” through “G”
were identified across the region, with each
one applicable to one, several, or all of the
communities covered by this LRSP.

Livingston is covered by four of these profiles:

A. Driving Under The Influence
B. Dark Conditions
C. Side Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
D. Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
The following pages contain cutsheets that
present each collision profile, along with the
following information:
• Description and associated information
about each profile
• Number of collisions associated, including
number of KSI collisions among those
(note that profiles are not mutually
exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple
profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• A map of collision locations
Engineering countermeasures that can
potentially address these collisions are also
presented with each profile. The full suite of
engineering countermeasures can be found in
Chapter 3 of Volume I.

Page 234 ends

228
However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of DUI collisions occurred
outside these time periods as well.

DUIs are clustered around the weekend and
around nighttime. Across the region, 54% of
all DUI collisions occurred on Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, and 65% occurred in the dark.

KSIs
4 (29%)
0 (0%)
3 (9%)
Injury
35 (17%)
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A

Page 235 ends

P~•
. --
T T
229
99 99
B St 99
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Livingston-Cressley Rd
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 4.10
Profile A Collisions
City of Livingston
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 236 ends

•
•
0 l_
r --,
• -----1 7
lJ-r_l i ~
~ -
--r i
~
I
j I
---r---,--- h ~
,...........__ ~-7-1 l
230
A substantial number of collisions are
occurring in the nighttime across the region.

Dark Conditions KSIs
10 (71%)
1 (1%)
10 (15%)
Injury
68 (33%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B

Page 237 ends

231
99 99
B St 99
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Livingston-Cressley Rd
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 4.11
Profile B Collisions
City of Livingston
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 238 ends

•
•
\ A---
---
l_
r --,
0 t----- • -----.----+---.___.__.___ • .
2¥-' 1------'---1--'· · ~ . --+--+--I t--~ -+--1-----1
---t-~__L__L_f=~-1....I.~...L.j ~ -~7
r
T
-
232
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can be
confusing for drivers in side street stop-controlled
intersections. Accurately judging and using a
gap in traffic can also be challenging. Similar
to permissive left-turn operations, high traffic
volumes, high speeds, and limited visibility due to
roadway width on the major crossing are factors
that also contribute to risk at these locations.

Side street stop-controlled intersections often are
accompanied by either an uncontrolled crossing
of the major roadway or no crossing altogether.

A long series of side street stop-controlled
intersections will thus likely create long stretches
of the major roadway without protected
crossings for people walking, biking or otherwise
needing to cross the major street.

Livingston saw a total of 61 collisions at sidestreet stop-controlled intersections, accounting for nearly 30% of all injury crashes within the
city. These incidents typically occur at the
intersections of major thoroughfares like F
Street and Walnut Avenue with residential
streets. Of the collisions, 4 were KSIs and 11
involved bicycles or pedestrians. The top PCFs
were speeding, accounting for 30% of all such
collisions, followed by vehicle right-of-way
violations at 20% and DUIs at 13%.

Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
4 (29%)
2 (3%)
9 (15%)
Injury
61 (30%)

PROFILE C

Page 239 ends

■
233
99 99
B St 99
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Livingston-Cressley Rd
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 4.12
Profile C Collisions
City of Livingston
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 240 ends

•
•
f
0 T
7 .. I l~j
I I I I · - ~f -
234
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
4 (29%)
2 (3%)
9 (15%)
Injury
61 (30%)
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail

PROFILE C

Page 241 ends

■
00 235
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

PROFILE D

Page 242 ends

Q!)
m
3 City of Livingston

Page 243 ends

Priority Locations
and Project Concepts
A set of locations to prioritize safety
improvements were identified based on
collision history as well as alignment with
collision profiles, which are summarized in
the previous chapters. These locations are
presented in the following table, and are
intended to be addressed in the medium- to
long-term, within the next 5-15 years, subject
to further study, the availability of funding, and
Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
Campbell
Blvd/
Hammatt
Ave
15 1
C The intersection is stop-controlled
Yes
D
Intersecting roadways are high speed (posted speed
limits of 40-45 MPH). The wide turn radii and slip lanes at the intersection can enable higher turning speeds. The intersection is located close to a freeway interchange.

Campbell
Blvd/
Main St
11 1 D
Campbell Blvd is high-speed (posted speed limit of 45
MPH), while Main St has a wide cross-section (5 lanes) on the northern leg
No
Main St/
Davis St 9 0 D Main St is wide (5 lanes), and high -speed (posted speed limit of 35 MPH) in context of the surrounding land uses No coordination with Caltrans. A project concept
was developed for the locations along Main
Street, whose limits extend beyond these
locations to proactively address additional
safety risks at surrounding locations. This
concept project is presented in the following
pages to demonstrate how the principles
outlined in this LRSP can be implemented to
address identified safety risk factors.

Page 244 ends

238 N

MAIN ST/SWAN ST
Install high visibility crosswalks,
advance stop bars, and roundabout

MAIN ST/CAMPBELL BLVD
Install roundabout

OLIVE AVE

SWAN ST

CAMPBELL BLVD

MAIN ST

SWAN ST TO OLIVE AVE
Install separated bike
lane or multi-use path.

Install and/or widen
sidewalk. At intersections,
install ADA compliant
curbs, pedestrian refuge
islands, and lighting.

NUT TREE RD

MAIN STREET
from Campbell Boulevard
to Olive Avenue
17 all collisions
0 bike collisions
3 pedestrian collisions
1 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
C D

OLDS AVE

CAMPBELL BLVD TO SWAN ST
Road diet to one lane
in each direction with
a center left turn lane
widen the sidewalk
throughout the segment.

Improve lighting along
the stretch.

Page 245 ends

239
This stretch of Main Street north of SR 99 serves
as an extension of the downtown commercial
area to the south of the freeway. However,
unlike the stretch south of SR 99, it has not
received the same pedestrian-friendly upgrades
and reconfiguration, including sidewalk
widenings, curb extensions at intersections,
and lighting improvements. This stretch of
Main Street carries two through lanes per
direction and a center turn lane. It is a route for
commuter traffic as well as heavy vehicles from
the Foster Farms facility. The multi-lane roadway
and wide turn radii along this stretch, intended
to support freight traffic, has also created an
environment conducive to high vehicle speeds
and difficult to navigate for people walking and
biking sharing the roadway.

In the short term, the corridor could be
improved by targeted maintenance to address
conditions that currently detracts from the
pedestrian experience, including roadway
rutting and overgrown plants invading sidewalk
space. The existing marked crosswalk at Swan
Street could be enhanced with high visibility
markings and advance stop bars.

In the long term, the lighting and sidewalk
improvements along the section of Main Street
south of SR 99 can be used as a template
and applied to this stretch as well. At the
Campbell Boulevard intersection, a single lane
roundabout would help manage reduce the
likelihood of collisions and create a gateway,
while serving traffic flow. The roundabout
would be designed to be large enough to
accommodate heavy freight vehicles. The
increased throughput with the roundabout,
especially for turning movements, can enable
a simpler three-lane cross-section (one
through each direction and center turn lane)
from Campbell Boulevard to Swan Street. Any
excess roadway width can be used to widen
sidewalks, which will also reduce crossing
distances across Main Street. The Swan
Street intersection can also be converted to
roundabout operations, similar to Campbell
Boulevard.

As another long-term effort, Main Street from
Swan Street to Olive Avenue can be targeted
for improvement by widening the existing
sidewalks or adding a separated bike lanes
or multi-use path, extending the three-lane
road diet through this stretch, and enhancing
the existing marked crosswalks at Celia Drive
and Nut Tree Road with ADA compliant curbs,
pedestrian refuge islands, and additional
lighting.

Page 246 ends

City of Los Banos
1

Page 247 ends

Collision records on roadways in Los Banos from
2015 to 2022 were investigated to describe
historic collision trends and identify high-risk
locations. This information acts as a primary
resource for this Plan, providing the underlying
data to support key analyses.

The following section presents findings from
the first of these stages of data analysis,
identifying collision patterns and trends.

Page 248 ends

242
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdown
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdowns over Time
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 5.2
KSI Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 5.1
Injury Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
A Note on the Data Source
This analysis utilizes data on injury
collisions from 2015 through 2022
available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of
August 2023. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), but
excludes collisions that cause property
damage only (PDO) and no injuries.

Geographically, the data includes all
collisions that occur within the City of
Los Banos. The data includes collisions
on all roadways, including State highways
and other Caltrans-maintained roadways
as well as privately-maintained roadways.

Page 249 ends

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
243
Figure 5.3
Collision
Mode Share
by Severity,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Modal Breakdowns by Percent
84%
6%
10%
Vehicle Bike Ped
8% 64%
28%
Vehicle Bike Ped
Injury Collisions
by Percent
8% 64%
28%
Vehicle Bike Ped
KSI Collisions
Collisions by Year and by Mode
The table below provides a summary
of the number of collisions in Los
Banos by mode and severity within the
dataset, which includes all collisions that
resulted in injury or fatality. From 2015
to 2022, there were a total of 1,143
injury collisions, of which 128 were KSI
collisions: collisions where someone was
killed or severely injured.

Collision Summary Total KSI
Total 1,143 128
Bicycle 73 10
Pedestrian 105 35
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the temporal
trends of collisions in Los Banos. As
shown, the annual number of injury
collisions in Los Banos has been on
a general upward trajectory through
the study period. The number of KSI
collisions per year over the study period
saw a significant increase in 2018, and
has plateaued in the years since.

People walking or biking are particularly
vulnerable in the event of a collision,
as they lack the protection afforded to
them by being inside a motor vehicle.

As a result, collisions involving people
walking or biking are more likely to
result in injury and fatality. As shown in
Figure 5.3, people walking and biking are
involved in 16% of all injury collisions,
but 36% of KSI collisions.

Page 250 ends

244
Collisions by Collision Type
Figure 5.4 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that fall into each collision
type. As shown, the most common collision
types across all injury collisions in Los Banos
are broadside collisions and rear-end collisions
at 32% each. However, KSI collisions show
a different breakdown. Vehicle-pedestrian
collisions are the most common, at 26%,
followed by broadside collisions at 23%, and
rear-end collisions at 14%.

This illustrates the disproportionate impact
in severity that collision type can play. For
example, while rear-ends account for a large
share of overall collisions, they are generally
less likely to result in fatalities and severe
injuries. By contrast, broadsides are more
represented amongst KSI collisions, as they
typically involve more kinetic energy and result
in more serious collision outcomes.

Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 5.5 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that are classified under each
Primary Collision Factor (PCF). PCFs are cited
by the responding officer and are based on
that person’s judgment of what contributed to
the collision. It is important to note that PCFs
do not include contextual information about
the design aspects of the collision location
that could have been primary or secondary
contributors to a collision.

In Los Banos, the most common PCFs are
Unsafe Speed at 28% of collisions, Vehicle
Right of Way Violations at 25%, and Improper
Turning at 15%.

The most common PCFs for KSI collisions are
Pedestrian-Related at 24%, Improper Turning
and Unsafe Speed at 16% each, and Vehicle

Page 251 ends

245
Collision Type
8% 7%
32% 32%
6%
1%
8%
5%
10%
5%
14%
23%
12%
2%
26%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Head-On Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle- Other Pedestrian
Rear-End
PCF
28%
25%
15%
9%
7%
2%
7% 6%
16% 15% 16%
5%
14%
2%
24%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle Right Other
of Way
Violation
DUI Wrong
Side of
Road
Signals
and
Signs
Pedestrian- Related*
Figure 5.4
Share of Injury Collisions by Collision Type, 2015-2022 Figure 5.5
Share of Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2015-2022 * Note on Pedestrian PCF Categories
The “Pedestrian-Related” category shown here combines two PCF categories: “Pedestrian Violation” and “Pedestrian Right of Way Violation.” The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, where the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances, and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected to not show the distinction in these tallies, and instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions

Page 252 ends

246
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Figure 5.6 illustrates the share of collisions
in the study period that occur at night*.

As shown, nighttime collisions are
overrepresented among KSI collisions. While
26% of all injury collisions occurred at night
where streetlights were present and a further
4% occurred where streetlights were not
present or present but not functioning, those
percentages jump to 39% and 10% for KSI
collisions, respectively.

Collisions that occur during nighttime also
disproportionately affect people walking. 39%
of pedestrian injury collisions occurred at
night where streetlights were present and a
further 10% occurred where streetlights were
not present or present but not functioning,
the same proportions as overall KSI collisions.

The percentages for pedestrian KSI collisions
are higher still, at 60% and 20%, respectively.

The concern around lighting is especially
relevant given Los Banos’ small-town context
and rural surroundings. There continues to
be locations without functional street lighting
in the City, and collisions at those locations
are well-represented in the KSI collision
record. Even where streetlights were present,
the quality of the lighting can vary widely.

Factors that may contribute to the quality of
streetlights include lights being insufficiently
bright, placed too widely apart, or poor quality
of lighting for people walking on the sidewalk,
as streetlights are often designed primarily for
vehicles in travel lanes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Figure 5.7 illustrates the share of collisions of
various types in the study period that involved
at least one party driving under the influence
(DUI). Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
of increased crash severity. As shown, the
number of DUI collisions are overrepresented
amongst KSI collisions. While 8% of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol in Los Banos,
19% of KSI collisions do.

Page 253 ends

247
Figure 5.7
DUI Collisions,
2015-2022
DUI
92%
8%
Vehicle Bike
19%
Vehicle
Injury Collisions
DUI
92%
8%
Vehicle Bike
81%
19%
Vehicle Bike
KSI Collisions
Lighting
4%
26%
a Nighttime Daytime
10%
39%
a a a aa
All Collisions KSI Collisions Pedestria
Injury Collisions
Lighting
4%
26%
Nighttime Daytime
10%
39%
a a a a
10%
a a a
All Collisions KSI Collisions Pedestrian Co
KSI Collisions
39%
a
10%
39%
a a a a
ons Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
Figure 5.6
Nighttime Collisions, 2015-2022
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Working
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Not Present
or Not
Working
Lighting
Unknown
Lighting
me
10%
39%
a a a a
20%
60%
a a a a
KSI Collisions Pedestrian KSIs
Pedestrian
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions

Page 254 ends

248
High Injury Network
From the collision data, a High Injury Network
was developed to identify the roadways in Los
Banos with the highest levels of injury collisions,
as shown on Figure 5.9.

The High Injury Network consists of just 8% of
the roadway network in Los Banos, but is the
site of the vast majority of injury collisions.
1,143 collisions occurred during the study
period. Of these, 763, or 67%, were located
along the network. 128 of these study period
collisions were KSIs, of which 85, or 66%, were
located along the network.

Collisions by Pedestrian Location
Figure 5.8 illustrates for pedestrian-involved
collisions the location of the pedestrian(s)
at the time of collision. The most common
location for pedestrians at the time of collision
is crossing the street, whether at a marked
crosswalk (41%) or not (30%). This is followed
by walking in or along the shoulder of the
roadway, at 18%. These percentages are
mirrored for pedestrian KSI collisions, with
crossing not at a crosswalk being the most
common location at 43%, followed by walking
in or along the shoulder of the roadway at
26%, and crossing at crosswalks at 23%.

Furthermore, 8% of pedestrian-involved
collisions and 6% of pedestrian -involved KSI
collisions occurred with the pedestrian(s) not
on the roadway at all.

This data points to the importance of ensuring
that existing crosswalks are safe and properly
protect users, and that pedestrian desire lines
currently unserved by sidewalks and existing
crosswalks are properly served.

Pedestrian Location
41%
2%
30%
18%
8%
2%
23%
0%
43%
26%
6%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Crossing at
Intersection
Crosswalk
Crossing at
Midblock
Crosswalk
In Road or
Shoulder
Crossing Not in Road Other
Not at
Crosswalk
Figure 5.8
Share of
PedestrianInvolved
Injury
Collisions by
Pedestrian
Location
at Time of
Collision,
2015-2022
Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions

Page 255 ends

249
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
165
165
Figure 5.9
High Injury Network
City of Los Banos
N
33 33 152 152

Page 256 ends

---
f
l
I ~
I
I
I
I0
I
I
7 / I I I O
I I I 11 I I I I L l - f - t - _/ -
I I I _J I
) ~I i I- ~ [_
[_ ,J_ I I
250
Equity Considerations
Both Merced County and the larger Central
Valley region have historically been subject
to underinvestment and marginalization. As
a result, most of the region, including most
areas within the six cities covered by this
Plan, are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and Federal
governments.

Census tracts are screened based on a variety
of factors, including climate, energy, health,
housing, transportation, legacy pollution,
waste, and workforce development.

Figure 5.10 shows areas in Los Banos
identified as disadvantaged under these
two criterion. As shown, almost the entirety
of Los Banos, as well as all surrounding
unincorporated areas, is identified as
disadvantaged by the CEJST, with the singular
exception of an area in the southwest of
the city, situated west of Mercey Springs
Road, between Pacheco Boulevard and
Pioneer Road. In addition, almost all of the
built-up areas of Los Banos outside of the
aforementioned area between Pacheco
Boulevard and Pioneer Road are identified as
disadvantaged by the ETC Explorer as well.

The vast majority of collisions in Los Banos
occur within these disadvantaged areas,
including 96% of all injury collisions and 98%
of all KSI collisions.

Page 257 ends

251
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
165
165
Figure 5.10
CEJST and ETC Explorer Results
City of Los Banos
N
33 33 152 152
identified as disadvantaged by CEJST
identified as disadvantaged by ETC Explorer
identified as disadvantaged by both

Page 258 ends

~~
~ 1/ /,
~ /,
/I
-....L///
~
~~
00,~ _,,,_,,,_.c,
w
w
w A
2 City of Los Banos

Page 259 ends

Los Banos is covered by six of these profiles:

A. Driving Under The Influence
B. Dark Conditions
C. Side Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
D. Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
E. Driveway Clusters on Arterials
F. Non-Standard Intersection Geometry
The following pages contain cutsheets that
present each collision profile, along with the
following information:
• Description and associated information
about each profile
• Number of collisions associated, including
number of KSI collisions among those
(note that profiles are not mutually
exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple
profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• A map of collision locations
Engineering countermeasures that can
potentially address these collisions are also
presented with each profile. The full suite of
engineering countermeasures can be found in
Chapter 3 of Volume I.

Page 260 ends

254
However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of DUI collisions occurred
outside these time periods as well.

DUIs are clustered around the weekend and
around nighttime. Across the region, 54% of
all DUI collisions occurred on Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, and 65% occurred in the dark.

KSIs
26 (20%)
3 (3%)
15 (14%)
Injury
105
(9%)
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A

Page 261 ends

P~•
. --
T T
255
Overland Ave H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St 7th St
7th St
B St
33 165
33 33 33
165
165
N
Figure 5.11
Profile A Collisions
City of Los Banos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 262 ends

,_
A
.1_ ___ __
--
-,
f
\
I
I
I
I
I
rr
I - , I ~ I
•
I
I
r
I...

I
I
I
I
- --l
0 0
I
I I I
I l I
r I I
I I I
256
A substantial number of collisions are
occurring in the nighttime across the region.

Dark Conditions KSIs
64 (50%)
17 (5%)
53 (16%)
Injury
339
(30%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B

Page 263 ends

257
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
33 165
33 33 33
165
165
N
Figure 5.12
Profile B Collisions
City of Los Banos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 264 ends

,_
A
.1_ ___ __
--
I o
-,
f
\
I
I

I I I I
I
I
I - --l
0 -1
rr
I -
I I L
J I - - --- ----- .
•
I
I
r
I...
1 '
-• I I
I I I
I l I
r I I
I I I
I
•
I
• I
. - ' - --· f
- I
f ~ ,
r
Q I
L~-. -1- i -
-f- ~ r - I
I_< -
258
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can
be confusing for drivers in side street
stop-controlled intersections. Accurately
judging and using a gap in traffic can also be
challenging. Similar to permissive left-turn
operations, high traffic volumes, high speeds,
and limited visibility due to roadway width
on the major crossing are factors that also
contribute to risk at these locations.

Side street stop-controlled intersections often
are accompanied by either an uncontrolled
crossing of the major roadway or no crossing
altogether. A long series of side street stopcontrolled intersections will thus likely create long stretches of the major roadway without
protected crossings for people walking, biking
or otherwise needing to cross the major street.

Los Banos saw a total of 338 collisions at sidestreet stop-controlled intersections, accounting for nearly 30% of all injury crashes within the
city. Concentrations of such incidents were at
major arteries such as I Street and Pacheco
Boulevard, but also many of the smaller
crosstown collector routes in the city. Of the
collisions, 37 were KSIs and 58 involved bicycles
or pedestrians. The top PCFs were vehicle rightof-way violations, accounting for 39% of all such collisions, followed by speeding at 21% and
improper turning at 12%.

Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
37 (50%)
28 (8%)
30 (9%)
Injury
338
(30%)

PROFILE C

Page 265 ends

■
259
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
33 165
33 33 33
165
165
N
Figure 5.13
Profile C Collisions
City of Los Banos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 266 ends

•
t--lri 1 0 -•~ I
r
l l
I
I
I
I
I t f
I I I
1 I I
f"'I
0 I
•
0 J_
Li- r - t- I
_J_ ~ /_
I / I I I r-+-
260
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
37 (50%)
28 (8%)
30 (9%)
Injury
338
(30%)

PROFILE C

Page 267 ends

■
00 261
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

PROFILE D

Page 268 ends

Q!)
m
262
Los Banos features many instances of the land
use typology of suburban, parking-fronted
shopping centers along high-speed, multilane arterials that feature frequent driveway ingresses and egresses. Frequent interactions
between fast-moving arterial traffic with
slow traffic turning from or to driveways is a
significant risk factor, with left turns to or from
such driveways being particularly conflictprone. Higher densities of these driveways add additional complexity and risk.

These contexts are particularly problematic
for people walking and biking, who must also
interact with frequent driveway crossings
while traveling on sidewalks or bike facilities
in such areas. These areas are also likely to
feature higher volumes of walking and biking,
as they are often significant destinations
featuring essential retail and services.

In Los Banos, this typology is found along
Pacheco Boulevard through most of its length
across town. A total of 172 collisions occurred
at driveway clusters along Pacheco Boulevard,
9 of which involved bicycles or pedestrians;
18 of these collisions were KSIs. Nearly threequarters of these collisions involved either speeding or violating another vehicle’s rightof-way as the PCF.

The engineering countermeasures below
should be supplemented with land use
improvements, such as enhancing pedestrian
access through parking lots and changes to
land use that feature more street-fronted
development.

Driveway Clusters
on Arterials
KSIs
18 (14%)
2 (1%)
7 (4%)
Injury
172
(15%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Road
Diet
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Lane
Narrowing
Bike Lane
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Segment
Lighting
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
SharedUse Path
Co-Locate
Bus Stops and
Pedestrian
Crossings
Striping
Through
Intersection
Raised
Median
Refuge
Island
Splitter
Island
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Raised
Crosswalk
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Median
Guardrail

PROFILE E

Page 269 ends

00 263
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
33 165
33 33 33
165
165
N
Figure 5.14
Profile E Collisions
City of Los Banos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 270 ends

I
-1l_ J I • -------1--,--
•
A
I
L ~ ---------
l
I 7
I
I
I
I
I
I0
-
f -----:...L,...-
: - • 0
1 , - --=:::::::: o ::c..
7 I I I 0
l L
/ I / Li- r - t - 1 -
) 1/(_J ~ I f" I I- I I I -
i - ,----+- I / I
264
Los Banos features a number of intersections
with more than four legs and/or roadways
intersecting at non-right angles, which
contributes to limited visibility, especially for
turning traffic. Moreover, these intersections
tend to be large by virtue of their geometry,
which lengthens crossing distances and makes
them especially difficult to navigate for people
biking and walking. They also can feature slip
lanes for certain turning movements that allow
free flow turning traffic to proceed at higher
speeds, which poses additional risk for people
walking and biking as well conflicting traffic.

In Los Banos, prominent examples of such
intersections include, among others, that of
6th Street and Pacheco Boulevard; as well as
intersections along I Street between Illinois
Street and K Street, where it curves. There
are a total of 48 collisions in Los Banos at
intersections with non-standard geometries, of
which 4 are KSI collisions and 14 involve bikes
and pedestrians. Vehicle right-of-way violations
are the top PCF, followed by speeding and
improper turning.

Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
KSIs
4 (3%)
3 (6%)
11 (23%)
Injury
48 (4%)

PROFILE F

Page 271 ends

265
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
H St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
33 165
33 33 33
165
165
N
Figure 5.15
Profile F Collisions
City of Los Banos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 272 ends

I I
~j I I
I
I
I •
• 7 I - "'l.... I
A 0
~ L_ ------
I
\ __ l;/
I o
t-.--1- 7
I
I
l L
I I I 0
/ I / Li- r - t -+ -
) I ! l _J_ '"1 I [" I I ,,--J f- [ ,-J , / I
266
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
Bike
Box
Bike
Detection
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Extend
Green Time
For Bikes
Centerline
Hardening
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Protected
Intersection
Bicycle
Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Intersection
Lighting
Lane
Narrowing
Roundabout
Signal
Separated
Bikeway
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
All-Way
Stop
Control
Floating Transit
Island or Bus
Boarding Island
Raised
Intersection
Straighten
Crosswalk
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Countdown
Timer
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Supplemental
Signal Heads
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Prohibit
Left Turn
Prohibit
Right-Turnon-Red
Separate
Right-Turn
Phasing
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Upgrade
Signal
Head
Protected
Left Turns
Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Pedestrian
Scramble
Striping
Through
Intersection
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Wayfinding
Close or
Reconfigure
Approaches
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
KSIs
4 (3%)
3 (6%)
11 (23%)
Injury
48 (4%)

PROFILE F

Page 273 ends

~
- ~~· 00 ••I
• ff a
El ~
H+ ~
!fj'I a,HI ~ ~
rt)
ft) §·~
267

Page 274 ends

3 City of Los Banos

Page 275 ends

Priority Locations
and Project Concepts
A set of locations to prioritize safety
improvements were identified based on
collision history and alignment with collision
profiles. Of the locations meeting these criteria
in Los Banos that saw the highest number of
injury and KSI collisions, the lion’s share are
along Pacheco Boulevard, a Caltrans facility
that carries SR 33 and SR 152. Nine of the top
ten and sixteen of the top twenty locations
were located along Pacheco Boulevard. Due
to the length of the corridor, the magnitude
of the collision numbers, complexities arising
from the corridor’s dual role as both one of
Los Banos’ main commercial corridors and
a major state highway, and the necessity for
extensive coordination with Caltrans to deliver
safety improvements on a Caltrans facility, it is
recommended that safety improvements along
Pacheco Boulevard be implemented in the longterm, pending further corridor-specific study.

The table below lists additional locations
around Los Banos not along Pacheco Boulevard
that meet these criteria. One such location, the
intersection of SR 165 with Dove Street, has
safety improvements under design as of the
writing of this LRSP. The remaining locations
can be addressed in the medium- to longterm, within the next 5-15 years, subject to further study, the availability of funding, and
coordination with Caltrans. The following pages
present two project concepts that demonstrate
how the principles outlined in this LRSP can be
implemented to address identified safety risk
factors: one for the intersection of K Street and
6th Street, and another for the intersection of
Stonewood Drive and Overland Avenue. Both
concepts extend beyond these intersections
to proactively address additional safety risks at
surrounding locations.

Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
Willmot Ave/
SR 165 19 3
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled Yes
D SR 165 has high speeds (posted speed limit of 45 MPH) Overland Ave/
Stonewood Dr 15 1 D Intersection has a wide cross-section due to a large median and travel lanes wider than 12ft. No K St/6th St 14 2
E Intersection is in a downtown context with adjacent
driveways in close proximity
No
D
Traffic from Pacheco Blvd sometimes do not slow
sufficiently for the downtown context. Travel lanes are wider than 12ft, which can encourage speeding
Dove/SR 165 13 0
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled Yes
D SR 165 has high speeds (posted speed limit of 45 MPH)

Page 276 ends

270
N

PACHECO BLVD
M ST
K ST
K ST FROM 5TH TO 7TH ST
Install centerline and edgeline
pavement markings, and bike
lanes throughout the segment. At
intersections, install advanced stop
bars, high-visibility crosswalks,
and pedestrian refuge islands to
reduce crossing distances.
5TH ST FROM M TO H ST &
6TH ST FROM PACHECHO BLVD TO H ST
Install centerline and edgeline pavement
markings, advanced stop bars, high-visibility
crosswalks, and pedestrian refuge islands.

K ST/6TH ST
Convert to traffic
circle operations.

If signal operations
are retained, install
curb extensions,
fit the signals with
retroflective plates
and implement a
leading pedestrian
interval if feasible.
6TH ST/M ST &
6th ST/ALLEYWAY
Install curb
extension and
raised crosswalk.
6TH ST
7TH ST
5TH ST
H ST
3RD ST

DOWNTOWN

LOS BANOS
5th Street, 6th Street, and K Street
17 all collisions
0 bike collisions
3 pedestrian collisions
1 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
C D
4TH ST

Page 277 ends

271
The intersection serves as the southern gateway
for downtown Los Banos’ main commercial
corridor along 6th Street; the east leg of K Street
also serves Westside Union Elementary School.

The intersection has a large footprint – both of
the intersecting roadways are over 50ft wide
despite the two roadways only having one lane
in each direction. 6th Street is wide enough to
support angled parking on both sides of the
street, and K Street, despite not having angled
parking, is of similar width. These roadway crosssections lead to impaired visibility of pedestrians on sidewalks and long crossing distances – these
characteristics can increase the likelihood of
collisions particularly for people walking and
biking. The wide roadways are also conducive
to high vehicle speeds – also a consideration
for this particular location, as 6th Street is the
main route traffic from Pacheco Boulevard, the
arterial state highway that carries both local and
long-distance traffic through the city, uses to
reach downtown. This intersection lies less than a
quarter-mile north of Pacheco Boulevard, where
the posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Currently, 6th
Street has few characteristics that would cue
motorists to the need to slow their speeds to the
posted speed of 25 MPH as they transition from
a highway context to a downtown main street.

Finally, there are numerous driveway ingresses
and egresses within close proximity of this
intersection, including one on the west leg of K
Street just 20 feet from the intersection.

Curb extensions at the intersections that limits
the cross-sections to two lanes on both roadways
can improve visibility, reduce pedestrian
crossing distances, and help slow traffic
coming from Pacheco Boulevard by providing
a visual cue of the transition to a downtown
context. Implementing a mini roundabout or
neighborhood traffic circle is an alternative
option to curb extensions. Those would also help
manage vehicle speeds and would eliminate
severe turning conflicts. The driveway along the
west leg of K Street closest to the intersection can
be targeted for closure, as it is currently too close
to the intersection, and there is another driveway
further west providing the same access.

If the intersection is maintained as a signal
control, the signal at the intersection could
be mounted on a mast arm and be fitted with
retroflective plates to improve visibility. Review
of the pedestrian walk times to confirm they
are consistent with CA MUTCD requirements
and provide adequate crossing times. A leading
pedestrian interval could be implemented
to increase pedestrian visibility, especially
to turning vehicles. Advanced stop bars and
upgrading the crosswalk to a high-visibility or
stamped design can further increase visibility.

Improvements can be made to roadways
around the intersection and downtown more
broadly as well. K Street from 5th Street to 7th
Street can be improved by adding centerline
and edgeline pavement markings throughout
(as opposed to only at intersections) to
delineate the travel lanes and visually narrow
the roadway. Bike lanes could be added using
the excess lane width as well. The section
between 6th and 7th Streets can also be wide
enough to be restriped to create an additional,
separated eastbound lane to serve pick-up and
drop-off traffic for Westside Union Elementary
School, pending study and support from school
officials. At intersections, crosswalks can be
upgraded with high-visibility markings and
advanced stop bars to improve visibility, as well
as by adding pedestrian refuge islands that
reduce crossing distances for pedestrians, and
also slow vehicle speeds.

Similar treatments, including painted
centerlines and edgelines, high-visibility
crosswalks, advanced stop bars, and pedestrian
refuge islands, can also be applied to 5th
Street between M Street and H Street, and
to 6th Street between Pacheco Boulevard
and H Street. Additionally, upgrading the two
crosswalks across 6th Street between Pacheco
Boulevard and K Street (at M Street and an
alleyway, respectively) to raised crosswalks and
adding accompanying curb extensions that
are as deep as the angled on-street parking
can further slow vehicles on 6th Street as they
approach downtown.

Page 278 ends

272

STONEWOOD DR

OVERLAND AVE
N

CORRIDOR WIDE
Narrow the travel lanes
to add a buffer to the
bike lanes create a Class
IIB buffered bike lane

OVERLAND DR/

STONEWOOD DR
Install
roundabout,
curb extensions,
and median
pedestrian
refuge islands.

MARSALA ST

WILMOT AVE

SANTA BARBARA ST
13 all collisions
1 bike collisions
0 pedestrian collisions
1 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
D
Intersection of

OVERLAND AVENUE AND

STONEWOOD DRIVE

MERSEY SPRINGS RD

Page 279 ends

273
This intersection between Overland Avenue
and Stonewood Drive serves two well-used
crosstown routes. Both roadways carry
one through lane, one parking lane, and a
Class II bike lane in each direction; Overland
Avenue also features left-turn pockets at the
intersection, while Stonewood Drive features
a planted center median. The intersection,
which features all-way stop-control, has a large
cross-section disproportionate with the number
of lanes it serves, which reduces visibility for
vehicles and lengthens crossing distances.

The intersection itself is sufficiently large to
convert to roundabout operations, which will
also be operationally more efficient than the
current all-way stop-controlled operations. This
will also create median pedestrian refuges at
the entrances to the roundabout, which will
reduce the crossing distance exposure.

While this intersection was chosen due to
its high number of collision records, these
recommendations can be applied systemically
to the entire Stonewood Drive corridor, which
features the same design issues surrounding
lanes wider than the recommended 12 ft and
intersections with long crossing distances. The
corridor can be improved by restriping to widen
the existing bike lanes, while also upgrade them
to Class IIB buffered bike lanes by providing a
painted buffer. These improvements can be
made by simply narrowing the existing travel
lane and without removing the parking lane.

Doing so would create a brand-new Class IIB
buffered bike lane corridor without changing
parking or vehicular throughput. Narrowing
the vehicular lanes can also reduce vehicular
speeds through the corridor. Furthermore, for
the segment of the corridor north of Overland
Avenue where the median is present, crossing
distances can be shortened for crosswalk legs
across Stonewood Drive by creating median
pedestrian refuges by extending the nose of the
medians. In addition, curb extensions at the
corners of the intersections that are as deep
as the parking lane can also reduce crossing
distances and improve visibility.

Page 280 ends

City of Merced
1

Page 281 ends

Collision records on roadways in Merced from
2015 to 2022 were investigated to describe
historic collision trends and identify high-risk
locations. This information acts as a primary
resource for this Plan, providing the underlying
data to support key analyses.

The following section presents findings from
the first of these stages of data analysis,
identifying collision patterns and trends.

Page 282 ends

276
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdown
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdowns over Time
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 6.2
KSI Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 6.1
Injury Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
A Note on the Data Source
This analysis utilizes data on injury
collisions from 2015 through 2022
available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of
August 2023. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), but
excludes collisions that cause property
damage only (PDO) and no injuries.

Geographically, the data includes all
collisions that occur within the City of
Merced, as well as along Bellevue Road
and Lake Road between the city limits
and the UC Merced campus, which are
projected to be annexed into the City in
the near future.

The data excludes collisions on Route
99, as it is a controlled-access roadway
(i.e. freeway), but includes collisions
on all other roadways, including State
highways and other Caltrans-maintained
roadways as well as privately-maintained
roadways.

Page 283 ends

■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
277
Figure 6.3
Collision
Mode Share
by Severity,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Modal Breakdowns by Percent
79%
10%
11%
Vehicle Bike Ped
53%
15%
32%
Vehicle Bike Ped
Injury Collisions
by Percent
53%
15%
32%
Vehicle Bike Ped
KSI Collisions
Collisions by Year and by Mode
The table below provides a summary of
the number of collisions in Merced by
mode and severity within the dataset,
which includes all collisions that
resulted in injury or fatality. From 2015
to 2022, there were a total of 3,363
injury collisions, of which 325 were KSI
collisions: collisions where someone was
killed or severely injured.

Collision Summary Total KSI
Total 3,363 325
Bicycle 328 49
Pedestrian 358 103
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the temporal
trends of collisions in Merced. As shown,
the annual number of injury collisions in
Merced has fluctuated, but with a slight
upward trajectory through the study
period. The number of KSI collisions per
year, on the other hand, has steadily
and significantly increased during the
study period, rising from 20 per year
in 2015 to 50 to 60 per year in recent
years. This upward trend has continued
despite the COVID-19 pandemic. This is
in line with national trends in 2020 and
2021, during and after the initial wave
of the pandemic, where the number of
collisions, especially KSI collisions, have
increased despite travel restrictions and
decreases in traffic volume.

People walking or biking are particularly
vulnerable in the event of a collision,
as they lack the protection afforded to
them by being inside a motor vehicle.

As a result, collisions involving people
walking or biking are more likely to
result in injury and fatality. As shown in
Figure 6.3, people walking and biking are
involved in 21% of all injury collisions,
but 47% of KSI collisions.

Page 284 ends

278
Collisions by Collision Type
Figure 6.4 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that fall into each collision
type. As shown, the most common collision
types across all injury collisions in Merced
are broadside collisions at 40% and rear-end
collisions at 24%. However, KSI collisions show
a different breakdown. Vehicle-pedestrian
collisions are the most common, at 30%,
followed by broadside collisions at 27%.

This also further illustrates the significantly
disproportionate impact people walking
face in the event of a collision, as vehiclepedestrian collisions are the single most common collision type in the KSI collision
record, despite it not being a leading collision
type amongst all injury collisions.

Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 6.5 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that are classified under each
Primary Collision Factor (PCF). PCFs are cited
by the responding officer and are based on
that person’s judgment of what contributed to
the collision. It is important to note that PCFs
do not include contextual information about
the design aspects of the collision location
that could have been primary or secondary
contributors to a collision.

In Merced, the most common PCFs are Vehicle
Right of Way Violations and Unsafe Speed, at
22% of collisions each. The most common PCF
for KSI collisions is Pedestrian-Related, at 21%,
once again showing the overrepresentation
of pedestrian-involved collisions in the KSI
collision record.

Page 285 ends

279
Collision Type
8%
6%
24%
40%
7% 2%
10%
3%
12%
3%
8%
27%
12%
5%
30%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Head-On Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle- Other Pedestrian
Rear-End
PCF
22% 22%
12%
11%
8%
4%
2%
8%
11%
13%
14%
7%
9%
15%
4%
2%
21%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle Right Other
of Way
Violation
DUI Wrong
Side of
Road
Signals
and Signs
Pedestrian- Related* Unsafe Lane
Change
Figure 6.4
Share of Injury Collisions by Collision Type, 2015-2022 Figure 6.5
Share of Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2015-2022 * Note on Pedestrian PCF Categories
The “Pedestrian-Related” category shown here combines two PCF categories: “Pedestrian Violation” and “Pedestrian Right of Way Violation.” The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, where the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances, and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected to not show the distinction in these tallies, and instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions

Page 286 ends

280
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Figure 6.6 illustrates the share of collisions
in the study period that occur at night*.

As shown, nighttime collisions are
overrepresented among KSI collisions. While
27% of all injury collisions occurred at night
where streetlights were present and a further
4% occurred where streetlights were not
present or present but not functioning, those
percentages jump to 47% and 8% for KSI
collisions, respectively.

Collisions that occur during nighttime also
disproportionately affect people walking. 43%
of pedestrian injury collisions occurred at
night where streetlights were present and a
further 8% occurred where streetlights were
not present or present but not functioning, a
similar proportion as overall KSI collisions. The
percentages for pedestrian KSI collisions are
higher still, at 58% and 11%, respectively.

The concern around lighting is especially
relevant given Merced’s geographic context,
being home to many areas of suburban sprawl
and of rural-urban interface. There continue to
be locations without functional street lighting
in the City, and collisions at those locations
are well-represented in the KSI collision
record. Even where streetlights were present,
the quality of the lighting can vary widely.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Figure 6.7 illustrates the share of collisions of
various types in the study period that involved
at least one party driving under the influence
(DUI). Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
of increased crash severity. As shown, the
number of DUI collisions are overrepresented
amongst KSI collisions. While 9% of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol in Merced,
21% of KSI collisions do.

Page 287 ends

281
Figure 6.7
DUI Collisions,
2015-2022
DUI
91%
9%
Vehicle Bike
21%
Vehicle
Injury Collisions
DUI
91%
9%
Vehicle Bike
79%
21%
Vehicle Bike
KSI Collisions
Lighting
4%
27%
a Nighttime Daytime
8%
47%
a Nighttime Daytimea Nigh
All Collisions KSI Collisions Pedestria
Injury Collisions
Lighting
4%
27%
Nighttime Daytime
8%
47%
a Nighttime Daytime
8%
a Nighttime
All Collisions KSI Collisions Pedestrian Co
KSI Collisions
47%
Daytime
8%
43%
a Nighttime Daytime
ons Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
Figure 6.6
Nighttime Collisions, 2015-2022
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Working
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Not Present
or Not
Working
Lighting
me
8%
47%
a Nighttime Daytime
11%
58%
a Nighttime Daytime
KSI Collisions Pedestrian KSIs
Pedestrian
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions

Page 288 ends

282
Pedestrian Location
Crossing at
Intersection
Crosswalk
Crossing at
Midblock
Crosswalk
In Road or
Shoulder
Crossing Not in Road Other
Not at
Crosswalk
39%
2%
38%
16%
4% 1%
24%
1%
42%
27%
5% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Figure 6.8 45%
Share of
PedestrianInvolved
Injury
Collisions by
Pedestrian
Location
at Time of
Collision,
2015-2022
Collisions by Pedestrian Location
Figure 6.8 illustrates for pedestrian-involved
collisions the location of the pedestrian(s)
at the time of collision. The most common
location for pedestrians at the time of collision
is crossing the street, whether at a marked
crosswalk (39%) or not (38%). This is followed
by walking in or along the shoulder of the
roadway, at 16%. For pedestrian KSI collisions,
crossing not at a crosswalk was the most
common location at 42%, followed by walking
in or along the shoulder of the roadway at 27%,
and crossing at crosswalks at 24%.

This data points to the importance of ensuring
that existing crosswalks are safe and properly
protect users. It is also crucial to ensure
pedestrian desire lines currently unserved by
sidewalks and existing crosswalks are properly
served - for example, ensuring that all legs
of intersections feature crosswalks - to avoid
having pedestrians resort to walking in road or
crossing where no crossing facilities exist.

Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
High Injury Network
From the collision data, a High Injury Network
was developed to identify the roadways in the
City of Merced with the highest levels of injury
collisions, as shown on Figure 6.9.

The High Injury Network consists of just 10%
of the roadway network in the City of Merced,
but is the site of the vast majority of injury
collisions. 3,363 collisions occurred during the
study period. Of these, 2,307, or 69%, were
located along the network. 325 of these study
period collisions were KSIs, of which 214, or
66%, were located along the network.

Page 289 ends

283
Figure 6.9
High Injury Network
City of Merced
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N 99
99 59
140
140

Page 290 ends

I
-· +
_J_'
/__.__ 0 -
I ~ r
~jL
l~i~
~ I
______.,___ 0 I
I
I
J
-
T ,.
-i - I
1 ~ r T
r
~-) ______J,_I --~-~
284
Equity Considerations
Both Merced County and the larger Central
Valley region have historically been subject
to underinvestment and marginalization. As
a result, most of the region, including most
areas within the six cities covered by this
Plan, are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and Federal
governments.

Census tracts are screened based on a variety
of factors, including climate, energy, health,
housing, transportation, legacy pollution,
waste, and workforce development.

Figure 5.10 shows areas in the City of Merced
identified as disadvantaged under these two
criterion. As shown, most of the City, along
with much of the surrounding unincorporated
areas, is identified as disadvantaged by the
CEJST. The exceptions are areas in the city’s
southeastern and southwestern corners, as
well as the quadrant of the city north of Bear
Creek and east of G Street. In addition, most
of the built-up areas in the city identified as
disadvantaged by the CEJST are also identified
similarly by the ETC Explorer.

The vast majority of collisions in the City of
Merced occur within these disadvantaged areas,
including 93% of all injury collisions and 90% of
all KSI collisions.

Page 291 ends

285
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
99 99
59 140
140
Figure 6.10
CEJST and ETC Explorer Results
City of Merced
N
identified as disadvantaged by CEJST
identified as disadvantaged by ETC Explorer
identified as disadvantaged by both

Page 292 ends

A
2 City of Merced

Page 293 ends

Through a systemic analysis of collision
records, collision profiles were identified
to represent the most significant patterns
behind injury collisions � and especially KSI
collisions � in the region. Seven such profiles,
identified with the letters “A” through “G”
were identified across the region, with each
one applicable to one, several, or all of the
communities covered by this LRSP.

The City of Merced is covered by all seven of
these profiles:

A. Driving Under The Influence
B. Dark Conditions
C. Side Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
D. Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
E. Driveway Clusters on Arterials
F. Non-Standard Intersection Geometry
G. Permissive Left Turns At
Signalized Intersections
Collision Profiles
The following pages contain cutsheets that
present each collision profile, along with the
following information:
• Description and associated information
about each profile
• Number of collisions associated, including
number of KSI collisions among those
(note that profiles are not mutually
exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple
profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• A map of collision locations
Engineering countermeasures that can
potentially address these collisions are also
presented with each profile. The full suite of
engineering countermeasures can be found in
Chapter 3 of Volume I.

Page 294 ends

288
dark. However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of DUI collisions occurred
outside these time periods as well.

Driving Under The Influence
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Driving under the influence is a significant
contributor to injury collisions, especially and
disproportionately to collisions that cause
someone to be killed or severely injured (KSI).

DUIs are clustered around the weekend
and around nighttime. Across the region,
54% of all DUI collisions occurred on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday, and 65% occurred in the
KSIs
86 (27%)
23 (6%)
50 (13%)
Injury
338
(12%)
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A

Page 295 ends

P~•
. --
T T
289
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
Figure 6.11
Profile A Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
99 99
59 140
140

Page 296 ends

•
•
T-'-
~ I
,~
~ -,
I j 0
I
r
T
)
•
7-
r • -----I
L
--~
I
~r
I I
lfl
r1
c_J\
T
r
r j ____, -=-,'f -
290
A substantial number of collisions are occurring
in the nighttime across the region. Based on the
percentage of nighttime collisions, meaningful
progress toward reducing collisions will require
improvements that enhance nighttime visibility
such as lighting, retroreflective signage, and
sightline improvements.

Dark Conditions
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
KSIs
179
(55%)
103
(10%)
184
(17%)
Injury
1,069
(32%)
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B

Page 297 ends

291
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
Figure 6.12
Profile B Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
99 99
59 140
140

Page 298 ends

•
•
Al
~
~
r i Q
0 f
\_
•
t
I
r
- I • .I.a tr • r I\ __.___~ ~ 1 I -- ~~ s::::,wc=-=--~ - ~ I ·~· I I -~-,--..,..._.,..--,-~ l' ' ~ ~ :i::::"-1--r-,I I ""-t:1,-l__!_!l...__ ~ ~ - j ~
..
-1i
_[_ r---------r-----f--- 1
j - j
292
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
87 (27%)
89 (11%)
100
(12%)
Injury
843
(25%)
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can
be confusing for drivers in side street stopcontrolled intersections. Accurately judging and using a gap in traffic can also be challenging.

Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
high traffic volumes, high speeds, and limited
visibility due to roadway width on the major
crossing are factors that also contribute to risk
at these locations.

The City of Merced saw a total of 843 collisions
at side-street stop-controlled intersections,
representing a quarter of all injury crashes
within the city and distributed across all major
arterials through the city. Of these, 87 were KSIs
and 189 involved bicycles or pedestrians. The
top PCFs were vehicle right-of-way violations,
accounting for a third of all such collisions,
followed by speeding at 19% and improper
turning at 10%.

PROFILE C

Page 299 ends

■
293
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
Figure 6.13
Profile C Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
99 99
59 140
140

Page 300 ends

•
•
Al 0
I
~ I r i Q -
~(.£/'a I ;__ I ~ -..,._,,~
I ..1..-i
t
I
f
t
1 l _[ ~1i
..
\__
),------+- 1
294
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
87 (27%)
89 (11%)
100
(12%)
Injury
843
(25%)

PROFILE C

Page 301 ends

■
00 295
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

PROFILE D

Page 302 ends

Q!)
m
296
Merced features many instances of the land
use typology of suburban, parking-fronted
shopping centers along high-speed, multilane arterials that feature frequent driveway ingresses and egresses. Frequent interactions
between fast-moving arterial traffic with
slow traffic turning from or to driveways is a
significant risk factor, with left turns to or from
such driveways being particularly conflictprone. Higher densities of these driveways add additional complexity and risk. These contexts
are particularly problematic for people walking
and biking, who must also interact with
frequent driveway crossings while traveling on
sidewalks or bike facilities in such areas. These
areas are also likely to feature higher volumes
of walking and biking, as they are often
significant destinations featuring essential
retail and services.

In Merced, this typology is found around the
city. Significant clusters include 16th Street
at either end of Downtown, Olive Avenue, SR
59 in the south side of town, and SR 140 on
the east side of town, among others. A total
of 322 collisions occurred at these driveway
clusters, including 37 KSI collisions and 77
collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists.

The predominant PCFs were speeding, rightof-way violations, and improper turning, accounting for more than two-thirds of these
collisions.

Driveway Clusters
on Arterials
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
KSIs
37 (11%)
30 (9%)
48 (15%)
Injury
322
(10%)
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Road
Diet
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Lane
Narrowing
Bike Lane
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Segment
Lighting
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
SharedUse Path
Co-Locate
Bus Stops and
Pedestrian
Crossings
Striping
Through
Intersection
Raised
Median
Refuge
Island
Splitter
Island
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Raised
Crosswalk
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Median
Guardrail

PROFILE E

Page 303 ends

wr C
------
297
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
N
Figure 6.14
Profile E Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions

Page 304 ends

/ _ _,)
•
•
Af •
f
I l
I
\r
L =-7~
_l
~ '
~J~ I
~~~
<j_,.1
T~ 7\
r 1
~ ! ~ I
-=---- I f I
,J r- I
L___ .. _ I
I ~-t
lj; -
-~
[
t--
j
l
i:,
298
Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
KSIs
16 (5%)
15 (10%)
16 (11%)
Injury
143
(4%)
Merced features a number of intersections
with more than four legs and/or roadways
intersecting at non-right angles, which
contributes to limited visibility, especially for
turning traffic. Moreover, these intersections
tend to be large by virtue of their geometry,
which lengthens crossing distances and makes
them especially difficult to navigate for people
biking and walking. They also can feature slip
lanes for certain turning movements that allow
free flow turning traffic to proceed at higher
speeds, which poses additional risk for people
walking and biking as well conflicting traffic.

In Merced, many such intersections lie along
SR 140, including both its interchanges with SR

99. Childs Avenue and West Avenue also has a
number of these intersections. A total of 143
collisions in the city occurred at intersections
with non-standard geometries. Of these, 16
were KSI collisions, and 31 involved bicycles
and pedestrians. The top violation category was
speeding at 27%, followed by vehicle right-ofway violations and signals and signs violations at 17% each.

PROFILE F

Page 305 ends

299
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
N
Figure 6.15
Profile F Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
99 99
59 140
140

Page 306 ends

•
•
_ A_
I
I
f
0 • 1
-1i
_[_ -r--~- 1
j
.. _
\_
I
rj ~
! ~ ! - I ---✓ r=r- r
I r ~ Q ,~-,----
- j
300
Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
Bike
Box
Bike
Detection
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Extend
Green Time
For Bikes
Centerline
Hardening
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Protected
Intersection
Bicycle
Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Intersection
Lighting
Lane
Narrowing
Roundabout
Signal
Separated
Bikeway
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
All-Way
Stop
Control
Floating Transit
Island or Bus
Boarding Island
Raised
Intersection
Straighten
Crosswalk
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Countdown
Timer
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
KSIs
16 (5%)
15 (10%)
16 (11%)
Injury
143
(4%)
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Supplemental
Signal Heads
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Prohibit
Left Turn
Prohibit
Right-Turnon-Red
Separate
Right-Turn
Phasing
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Upgrade
Signal
Head
Protected
Left Turns
Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Pedestrian
Scramble
Striping
Through
Intersection
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Wayfinding
Close or
Reconfigure
Approaches
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE F

Page 307 ends

~
- ~~· 00 ••I
• ff a
El ~
H+ ~
!fj'I a,HI ~ ~
rt)
ft) §·~
301

Page 308 ends

302
The City of Merced is home to a number
of signalized intersections with permissive
rather than protected left turn signal phasing.

These locations are located along busy arterial
corridors and other high-traffic areas, and many
are along multi-lane arterials.

The question of who has right-of-way can
be confusing for drivers in a permissive left
turn situation; it can also be challenging for
motorists to accurately judge a gap in oncoming
traffic. High traffic volumes, high vehicle
speeds, and visibility issues stemming from
wide, multi-lane roadways are contributing risk
factors under this configuration. Additionally,
permissive left turn configurations also pose
risk factors for pedestrians, who do not have a
fully-protected crossing phase and who rely on
motorists to see them and then properly yield
the right of way to them.

There is geographic disparity in the distribution
of signal types – all of the fully-protected
signalized intersections are located north of SR
99 or at one of its interchanges, meaning there
are no fully-protected signalized intersections
in the south side of the city. Moreover, while
this profile is specific to the City of Merced, the
issue of confusion over right-of-way and/or
accurately judging a gap in traffic is very much
a regional issue. Vehicle right-of-way violations
are the leading PCF for collisions around
the region, accounting for a quarter of total
collisions.

Permissive Left Turns At
Signalized Intersections
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Supplemental
Signal Heads
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Prohibit
Left Turn
Prohibit
Right-Turnon-Red
Separate
Right-Turn
Phasing
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Upgrade
Signal
Head
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Protected
Intersection
Flashing
Yellow
Turn Phase
Protected
Left Turns
Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase
Striping
Through
Intersection
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Pedestrian
Scramble
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
KSIs
38 (12%)
52 (10%)
76 (14%)
Injury
536
(16%)

PROFILE G

Page 309 ends

Iii
~ ~
H+ ~'! i,HI
~
Q!) §·~
f) ~
~ *
D .a.
10 1 ·-=
303
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
N
Figure 6.16
Profile G Collisions
City of Merced
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
99 99
59 140
140

Page 310 ends

•
•
- ~
-i- 0
I
T
~ I
,~
~ -, I
~
7A r
r
..

I
.llli
7-
r • -----I
--~
I
~r
lfl_
fl T
r I 1--H-H--,-,-n- ~ I I
11111111• I -1
1__7·
_L r-1 ~- - -
T
)
_L________i__----t- ~ - -=-,'f -
3 City of Merced

Page 311 ends

These locations are intended to be addressed
in the medium- to long-term, in the next 5-15
years, within the next 5-15 years, subject to
further study, the availability of funding, and
coordination with Caltrans. Project concepts
were developed for several corridors, each
containing multiple such locations, but their
limits sometimes extend beyond these
locations to proactively address additional
safety risks at surrounding locations. These
concept projects, presented in the following
pages, demonstrate how the principles outlined
in this LRSP can be implemented to address
identified safety risk factors.

Page 312 ends

306
Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
G St/16st St 22 2
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH) No G This intersection has permissive left operations
G St/Main St 32 2
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH) No G This intersection has permissive left operations
G St/18st St 22 1
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH) No G This intersection has permissive left operations
G St/21st St 46 5
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH) No G This intersection has permissive left operations
G St/23rd St 31 1
C
This intersection is side-street stop-controlled, with
visibility further impaired by being adjacent to a grade change from the railroad undercrossing No
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH)
G St/S. Bear
Creek Dr 29 1
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH) No F G St intersects S. Bear Creek Dr at an oblique angle
G St/
Alexander Ave 26 1
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled
D G St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 40MPH) No E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection G St/
Yosemite Ave 24 2 D Both roadways have high speeds (posted speed limits of 45 MPH for both roadways) No M St/
Olive Ave 39 1
D M St and Olive Ave both have high speeds (posted
speed limits of 40 and 45 MPH respectively) No
E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection M St/Collins
Dr/Loughborough Dr27 3
D M St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 40MPH)
No
G This intersection has permissive left operations
M St/Buena
Vista Dr 32 1
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled, with a large, wooded median further obstructing visibility No
D M St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 40MPH)
MLK
Way/12th 22 6
C This intersection is side-street stop-controlled
Yes
D MLK Way is a state highway that carries high volumes
of traffic, including truck traffic
MLK
Way/13th 30 0
C This intersection features freeway off-ramps that are side-street stop-controlled, and join the intersection
at an oblique angle without first joining the frontage
roads
Yes
F

Page 313 ends

307
Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
SR 59/
Olive Ave 37 3 D Both roadways have high speeds (posted speed limits of 45 MPH for both roadways) Yes G St/Olive Ave 33 7
D G St and Olive Ave both have high speeds (posted
speed limits of 40 and 45 MPH respectively) No
E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection R St/Olive Ave 29 2
D R St and Olive Ave both have high speeds (posted
speed limits of 40 and 45 MPH respectively) No
E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection R St/18th St 38 3
D R St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH)
E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection No G This intersection has permissive left operations
R St/16th St 30 0
D Both roadways have high speeds (posxted speed limits
of 35 MPH for both roadways) No
E Multiple driveways in close proximity of intersection R St/14th St 54 3
D
R St has high speeds (posted speed limit of 35MPH).

The intersection also involves a freeway off-ramp that
can channel in high-speed traffic Yes
F The intersection consists of five legs, including a
freeway off-ramp entering at an oblique angle
V St/SR 140 41 2
E
This intersection, which involves arterials, frontage
roads, and multiple freeway ramps, has non-standard
geometry Yes
G This intersection has permissive left operations
Cooper Ave/
Willowbrook
Dr/SR 59
31 1 D SR 59 has high speeds (posted speed limit of 40MPH) Yes

Page 314 ends

308

G STREET
from 16th Street
to Bear Creek

ALPINE DR
N
16TH ST
242 all collisions
38 bike collisions
41 pedestrian collisions
18 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles

C D E G

MAIN ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
22ND ST
23RD ST
24TH ST
25TH ST
26TH ST
27TH ST
28TH ST

MLK WAY
H ST
G ST
K ST

BEAR CREEK

CANAL ST
I ST
Convert signals
to protected
left operations

CORRIDOR WIDE
Convert Class II bike lanes
to Class I shared-use
paths and consolidate
driveways where possible.

Page 315 ends

309
This conceptual project covers the stretch of G
Street between 16th Street and Bear Creek. The
stretch contains several of Merced’s top collision
hotspots, including the intersections at 16th
Street, Main Street, 18th Street, 21st Street, 23rd
Street, and South Bear Creek Drive.

G St serves as one of Merced’s major north-south
thoroughfares, being one of the few northsouth roadways that crosses Bear Creek to the northern parts of the city and the only northsouth roadway in town with a grade-separated crossing of the BNSF rail tracks. It is fast-moving:
the posted speed limit is 35 MPH for the entire
stretch. Through this stretch, there are siganls at
the intersections with 16th Street, Main Street,
18th Street, 21st Street, and 26th Street, but only
the 16th Street and 26th Street intersections
feature fully protected left turns from G Street.

Outside of these intersections, this stretch of G
Street has numerous driveway curb cuts, as it
is fronted by many businesses and homes and
also intersects a number of alleyways. These
driveways add complexity and risk by introducing
conflicting movements to and from G Street,
and navigating frequent driveway crossings
can make bike and pedestrian travel more
cumbersome as well.

G Street carries five lanes throughout this
stretch: two through lanes in each direction
and a center turn lane. It also features an
unprotected bike lane in each direction. The
right-of-way is constrained, as these lanes
are all at the minimum recommended widths
prescribed by the latest best practices.

The primary component of this conceptual
project is the conversion of the existing
unbuffered bike lane into Class I shared-use
paths on either side of the roadway. Given
the current speeds and traffic volumes along
G Street, the existing Class II bike lanes do
not offer sufficient protection and comfort to
users according to the latest federal and state
guidelines, and a separated facility is required.

The conceptual project envisions the sidewalk
on both sides of the roadway to be widened
into Class I shared-use paths by moving the
curb line to consolidate the sidewalk with the
existing bike lanes. In conjunction, driveways
along G Street should be consolidated where
possible to reduce instances of driveway
crossings for users of the shared-use paths.

As part of the conversion, signals along this
stretch should be converted to protected left
operations to provide a dedicated protected
signal phase for users of the shared-use paths
to cross.

Page 316 ends

310

M STREET
from Olive Avenue
to Yosemite Avenue
N
148 all collisions
17 bike collisions
12 pedestrian collisions
9 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
C D

YOSEMITE AVE
R ST
G ST

OLIVE AVE

LOUGHBOROUGH DR

BUENA VISTA DR

DONNA DR

WATHEN AVE
M ST

DONNA DR &

BUENA VISTA DRIVE
Study conversion to
roundabout operations
and install crosswalks.

RASCAL CREEK
Study crossing connecting median
path to the trail and bike lanes.

CORRIDOR WIDE
Narrow vehicular lanes
and use excess width
to upgrade existing
bike lanes to Class IV
separated bike lanes.

Page 317 ends

Maxar
311
This conceptual project covers the stretch of
M Street between Olive Avenue in the south
and Yosemite Avenue in the north. The stretch
contains several of Merced’s top collision
hotspots, including the intersections at Olive
Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue.

M St serves as one of Merced’s major northsouth thoroughfares, being one of the few north-south roadways that crosses Bear Creek to
connect the northern parts of the city with points
south, and one of the few roadways that cross
the BNSF rail tracks. This stretch of M Street also
serves a large number of activity centers including
Merced College, commercial plazas, government
agency offices, medical facilities, and multifamily
housing. It is also proximate to the Merced High
School campus.

M Street is fast-moving: the posted speed limit
is 40 MPH for this stretch. It carries two lanes
and a bike lane in each direction. In the south,
there is a center turn lane that at times gives
way to a raised median. North of Rascal Creek,
the roadway widens further to also include a
southbound parking lane, and the center turn
lane gives way to a large, landscaped median
approximately 60ft wide that hosts a Class I
shared-use path. Between Olive and Yosemite
Avenues, there is only one signalized intersection
at Loughborough and Collins Drives. There are
no stop controls for traffic along M Street for the
over half-mile stretch between Loughborough
Drive and Yosemite Street, which can contribute
to higher vehicular speeds. Further, there are
also no marked pedestrian or bicycle crossings
along this stretch, including to provide access to
and from the median shared-use path, limiting
access for pedestrians and bicyclists due to a
lack of safe, marked crossing facilities. The two
intersections in this section, at Buena Vista Drive
and at Donna Drive, feature side street stopcontrol operations, which carry numerous risk factors accentuated by M Street’s high speeds
and wide right-of-way (especially with the
median path). As mentioned, Buena Vista Drive
is one of Merced’s top collision hotspots; while
the intersection with Donna Drive has a lower
number of collisions, it is contextually similar and
features the same risk factors.

The largest component of this conceptual
project is to narrow the vehicular lanes along
this stretch of M Street to 11ft, and using the
excess width to create a buffer that allows for
upgrading the existing Class II bike lanes to
Class IV separated bike lanes. This would be in
line with the recommendations of the regional
Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and can help
create a bicycle connection to and from Rascal
Creek trail and to Merced College. Additionally,
this change can help manage speeds along the
corridor, as narrowing travel lanes can have the
effect of slowing vehicular speeds and reduce
instances of speeding.

The intersections at Donna Drive and Buena
Vista Drive should be improved for both
pedestrians and bicyclists as well as for vehicles
on those minor streets. Studies should be
conducted to convert both intersections to
roundabout operations, which offers safety
improvements over the current side-street
stop-controlled operations. Crosswalks that
provide access to the median path should be
included at both locations to improve bicyclist
and pedestrian access. The roundabouts would
also further manage speeds along M Street by
breaking up the effectively more than a halfmile of free-flow traffic along this segment, a characteristic conducive to speeding.shareduse paths.

Finally, at Rascal Creek, a crossing that connects
the median shared-use path (which currently
dead-ends) with the Rascal Bike Path and the
Class IV separated bike lanes should be studied.

Page 318 ends

312

OLIVE AVENUE
from SR 59
to G Street
N
251 all collisions
23 bike collisions
30 pedestrian collisions
21 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles
C D

YOSEMITE AVE
R ST

G ST LOUGHBOROUGH DR

OLIVE AVE
R ST
M ST
59 CORRIDOR WIDE
Narrow lanes and use the space
to widen sidewalks into Class I
shared-use paths, and consolidate
driveways where possible.

FROM M ST TO R ST
Eliminate 4th lane and use the
space to widen sidewalk into Class
I shared-use paths and consolidate
driveways where possible.

Page 319 ends

313
This conceptual project covers the stretch of
Olive Avenue between SR 59 in the west and G
Street in the east. The stretch contains several
of Merced’s top collision hotspots, including the
intersections at SR 59, R Street, M Street, and G
Street.

Olive Avenue is the primary east-west
thoroughfare for northern Merced. It is also
one of the city’s primary commercial and retail
destinations, serving numerous commercial
plazas along this stretch, including the Merced
Mall. Also served by the corridor are a number
of offices, medical facilities, and the Merced High
School campus.

Olive Avenue has one of the highest posted
speed limits among city streets in Merced at 45
MPH. It is also the widest arterial in Merced. For
most of its length, it carries three lanes in each
direction, separated by a raised median, for most
of this stretch. Between R Street and M Street,
Olive Avenue widens to four lanes westbound;
the eastbound right-of-way also widens by the
same amount, but no fourth lane is striped.

The roadway has a median through this entire
stretch, which serves to restrict many minor
street intersections by preventing traffic from
proceeding straight across Olive Avenue at them.

However, most still feature median openings that
facilitate left turns across Olive Avenue.

The high speeds and wide right-of-way on Olive
Avenue present potential risks for vehicle traffic
at these side-street stop-controlled minor
street intersections along this stretch, but also
with pedestrians and bicyclists. Many of the
destinations that Olive Avenue serves, such as
Merced High School and retail destinations, are
significant generators of bicycle and pedestrian
traffic, but those users must share the roadway
with fast-moving traffic and contend with long
crossing distances across the wide arterial.

This conceptual project seeks to convert
the sidewalks on either side of Olive Avenue
to Class I shared-use paths to better serve
pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. Given the
current speeds and traffic volumes along Olive
Avenue, only such a separated facility (a Class
I or a Class IV facility) can provide the level of
protection and comfort to users according to
the latest federal and state guidelines. For most
of the corridor the conceptual project envisions
narrowing the lanes along Olive Avenue to
a maximum of 11 feet, with the additional
space used to widen the sidewalk on both
sides of the into Class I shared-use paths by
moving the curb line inwards. For the stretch
between M and R Streets, where there is an
extra fourth lane in the westbound direction
and an unstriped fourth lane in the eastbound
direction, the space can be added to the
sidewalk as well.

In conjunction with these improvements,
driveways along Olive Avenue should be
consolidated where possible to reduce
instances of driveway crossings for users of the
shared-use paths.

Page 320 ends

314
R St
from 14th St
to 19th St
N
16TH ST
132 all collisions
12 bike collisions
13 pedestrian collisions
7 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles

C D E G
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST
15TH ST
P ST
R ST
T ST
S ST
14TH ST
99 MAIN ST
Q ST
Convert signal
to protected
left operations

CORRIDOR WIDE
Convert Class II bike lanes
to Class I shared-use
paths and consolidate
driveways where possible.

Page 321 ends

315
This conceptual project covers the stretch of R
Street between 14th Street and the interchange
with SR 99 in the south, and 19th Street in the
north. The stretch contains several of Merced’s
top collision hotspots, including the intersections
at 14th Street, 16th Street, and 18th Street.

R St serves as one of Merced’s major north-south
thoroughfares, being one of the few northsouth roadways that crosses Bear Creek into the northern parts of the city, and one of the few
roadways that cross the BNSF rail tracks. This
stretch of R Street also serves a number of key
commercial destinations in Merced, including
several strip malls, multiple grocery stores, as well
as the Costco store and gas station.

R Street is fast-moving: the posted speed limit
is 35 MPH for this stretch. It carries five lanes
throughout this stretch: two through lanes in
each direction and a center turn lane. It also
features an unprotected bike lane in each
direction, which end at 19th Street, north of
which the street narrows. The right-of-way is
constrained, as the current lanes are all at the
minimum recommended widths prescribed by
the latest state design guidance and cannot be
narrowed further. Through this stretch, there
are siganls at the intersections with 14th Street,
15th Street, 16th Street, Main Street, and 18th
Street, of which all but the last features protected
left turns. Outside of these intersections, this
stretch of R Street has a number of driveway curb
cuts with fronting businesses and intersecting
alleyways. These driveways add complexity and
risk by introducing conflicting movements to and
from R Street, and navigating frequent driveway
crossings can make bike and pedestrian travel
more cumbersome as well.

The primary component of this conceptual
project is the conversion of the existing
unbuffered bike lane into Class I shared-use
paths on either side of the roadway. Given
the current speeds and traffic volumes along
R Street, the existing Class II bike lanes do
not offer sufficient protection and comfort to
users according to the latest federal and state
guidelines, and a separated facility is required.

The conceptual project envisions the sidewalk
on both sides of the roadway to be widened
into Class I shared-use paths by moving the
curb line to consolidate the sidewalk with the
existing bike lanes. In conjunction, driveways
along R Street should be consolidated where
possible to reduce instances of driveway
crossings for users of the shared-use paths.

As part of the conversion, the signal at 18th
Street should be converted to protected left
operations to provide a dedicated protected
signal phase for users of the shared-use paths
to cross.

Page 322 ends

Appendices

Page 323 ends

Appendices
• Appendix A: Benchmarking Assessment Results
• Appendix B: Community Outreach Responses
• Appendix C: Cost and Benefits Documentation
for Conceptual Projects
• Appendix D: Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Program Criteria Checklist

Page 324 ends

A
Appendix

Page 325 ends

Benchmarking
Assessment Results
The development of this LRSP included
a review of current and recent studies
completed by MCAG and its jurisdictions to
benchmark the region against Safe System
best practices.

Making a commitment to zero traffic deaths
means addressing all aspects of safety through
the elements that together create the holistic
approach with redundancy and layers of
protection for roadway users. As such, the
benchmark assessment identifies instances
where MCAG is achieving Safe System best
practices, where challenges may exist, and
where MCAG can take action to meet the
benchmark. Also identified are several areas
where implementation is more suited to
actions by individual member jurisdictions, but
where MCAG may be able to provide technical
assistance or funding support.

The matrix that documents the results of this
benchmarking assessment follows.

Page 326 ends

Not a
Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice MCAG
Assistance
MCAG
Funding ATP LRSP
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.
x
x xxx
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 the MCAG 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.
x
xx x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track.
x The Gustine ATP recommends establishing: an annual report to council on city's progress towards the goals/metrics IDed in the plan, an advisory committee to meet monthly or quarterly, annual bike/ped counts, and a maintenance request form for active transportation concerns. ATP also lists goals with performance measures and targets fro meeting the goal.

The City of Livingston BP has an evaluation/maintenance goal for measuring bicycle use. Policies to meet the goal include conducting annual surveys at big employers and schools, and bike counts.

The City of Los Banos BPP follows the 5 Es of active transportation including Evaluation through "Monitoring and documenting outcomes, attitudes and trends through the collection of data before and after the intervention".

The City of Merced BTP has the five Es of active transportation as policy goals. The evaluation goal focuses on developing the means to monitor/record bikeway facility and program successes through annual school/employer surveys, bike counts, including the Bike Advisory Commission in the BTP monitoring and updating, and improve or keep the same ranking on the League of American Bicyclist's list of "Bike Friendly Communities".

The City of Merced AT/SR2S Plan recommends evaluating programs by reviewing bike/ped related crashes and near-misses on an annual basis; having communities prepare annual report cards to update elected officials on progress made to improve walking/biking; and yearly community surveys that evaluate the impact of projects/policies/programs - but it is unclear how the City actually collects the information or tracks it for evaluation.

County of Merced BTP includes a table with action items and whose responsibility it is to complete. e.g. local bike plan updates due every 4 years.

The MCAG RTP has both goals and performance metrics for mobility & accessibility including: vehicle trips, vmt, vmt growth, percentage of new households within walking distance of a transit stop, ped/bike daily mode share percentage, avg trip length for vehicle trips and commuter vehicle trips. But it isn't clear what the clear threshold is for these metrics to meet the goal. There is also a goal to "Achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads." by coordinating with local x xx
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.
x Gustine ATP: Has a policy for coordinating with other agencies and stakeholders to implement plan, but does not identify a staff member.

Livingston BP: Mentions a regional bicycle coordinator to lead the regional bike program and implement area bike plans.

City of Merced and Atwater BP: Mentions a regional bicycle coordinator to lead the regional bike program and implement area bike plans.

City of Merced BTP: Mentions coordinating bike planning/implementation with local interest entities, but doesn't dedicate a staff member for this role.

City of Merced AT/SR2S: Mentions a Bicycle Advisory Commission (which I am assuming has a staff lead) to discuss issues of concern for bicyclists. Also recommends a full-time staff person for acquiring bike/ped grant funding.

The MCAG RTP mentions coordination with regional agencies and jurisdictions for safety work but does x
Provide training to MCAG staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. x
x xx
Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism.
x Merced County's Department of Public Health Department, County Planning Department, County Public Works Department, and school districts coordinate a countywide SR2S program.

Funding mechanism unclear.

Franklin-Beachwood SR2S Plan and Planada Pedestrian Improvement Plan were funded by the Caltrans Environmental Justice Trnasportation Planning Grant awarded to Merced County in FY 12-13. Both plan recommends using ATP funding to fund SR2S programs/projects. Other plans that also recommend this include Los Banos BPP, City of Merced AT/SR2S Plan, and MCAG RTP. x xxx
Establish a website to inform the public about MCAG's
safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects.
x Right now only Merced County (jurisdiction) has a website for their current LRSP effort but can't find any safety related websites for any of the jurisdictions.

The Los Banos BPP notes a public website with a GIS map to update projects, as well as make website announcements whenever complete, but can't find this website.

MCAG has the social pinpoint site for the ATP but there aren't any links to it from the MCAG site.

Provide public materials in common languages spoken by
the Merced Region residents whose first language is not English.
x ATP effort has the ATP website/map in English/Spanish. x xx
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.
x
xx x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a data-driven approach for evaluating the reports/requests.
x Most jurisdictions have a 311 website or phone number 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.
x
xx 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.
x
x xx
State of Current Practice for MCAG
Leadership and
commitment
Safety Planning
and Culture
Data and analysis
Meaningful
Engagement
Core Element Category Benchmark
Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation Local Jurisdiction MCAG

Page 327 ends

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.
x
xx
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit MCAG's Overall Work Plan (OWP) for opportunities to
enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.
x
x xxx
Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. x Based on the SR2S note, most jurisdictions use ATP funding for bike/ped improvements and SR2S improvements. x xxx
Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and
maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects).
x
xx
Development
review
Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities.
x x
Clearly define equity in the safety plan and include equity considerations throughout the emphasis areas and
strategies.
x
x xxx
Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety
improvements for populations that are traditionally
underserved.
x
x xxx
Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally
underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. x x xxx
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.
x
xx 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.
x
xx 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.
x
xx x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury.
x
x
Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting.
x xx
Equity first
Funding
Safe Users Education
Enforcement

Page 328 ends

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.
x City of Merced AT/SR2S Plan recommends safety countermeasures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and general traffic safety.

Franklin-Beachwood and Planada plans mention crossing enhancements and sidewalk construction as countermeasures to ped-involved collisions. xx
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.
x Gustine ATP: Identifies projects that close gaps in their sidewalk and bicycle network. As a whole, this plan conducted a gap and barrier analysis.

Franklin-Beachwood Plan recommends closing sidewalk gaps in the network.

Los Banos BPP identified sidewalk gaps and recommended infill projects.

City of Merced BTP has a project prioritization table listing bridging bikeway gaps as a criterion. It also has a policy listed to complete incomplete roadway networks.

City of Merced AT/SR2S P recommends gap closures throughout the document.

Planada Ped Improvement Plan recommends closing sidewalk gaps in the network.

Merced County BTP has a goal on bicycle connectivity focused on establishing and integrating the bike network.

Walkable Winton Town Center Plan recommends improving/closing sidewalk gaps. x xxx
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.
x Gustine ATP: Describes an in progress installation of a roundabout.

City of Merced AT/SR2S P lists roundabouts, median refuge islands, and road diets as appropriate countermeasures.

MCAG RTP lists top projects including one county level roundabout (SR-140/Plainsburg).

Walkable Winton Plan recommends a road diet for portions of Winton Way. xx
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.
x
xx x
Designate 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.
x All jurisdictions have functional classifications for their roads - unsure they meet the criteria for modal priority and countermeasures on these classifications, or if they are just using standard Caltrans classifications. xx
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance
projects.
x
xx
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.
x MCAG RTP has a goal to develop ITS, but it is currently not in place.

Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. x Need to determine if this will be at MCAG level or by jurisidiction.

Provide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside
management and autonomous vehicles to enable active
safety technology.
x MCAG RTP has a goal to address this, but it is currently not in place.

Fleet Management Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lowermass 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.
x
Data Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. x MCAG RTP has a goal to address AV technology, but it is currently not in place.

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.
x
xx
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.
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.
x
xx
Provide speed management training to staff focused on
fatality and serious injury minimization.
x x
Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road
user behavior and infrastructure.
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 near-term safety enhancements.
x
xx
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic
understanding of the safety landscape and improve
accuracy.
x
x
Connect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education.
x
x
Post Crash Care
Safe Vehicles Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Crash investigation
Partnerships
Safe Roadways Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy
reduction
Policies and
tradeoffs

Page 329 ends

(This page left intentionally blank)

Page 330 ends

B
Appendix

Page 331 ends

Community Outreach
Responses
A website was developed for the LRSP to collect
public feedback, consisting of an interactive
webmap and a community survey. With the
webmap, users can identify specific locations
within the region where they have roadway
safety concerns, and tag them by mode of
travel (i.e. walking, biking, driving, etc.), while
the survey asks more general questions of
respondents around their perceptions of and
visions for roadway safety in the region. Both
the webmap and the survey were open for
public response from March to June of 2024,
and both were made available in English and
Spanish. The website was promoted through
MCAG’s existing public-facing channels,
including newsletters and social media.

Materials promoting the website were also
handed out during in-person public outreach.

The webmap saw a total of 127 locations
tagged. A map and log of all tags are included
in this appendix. The community survey saw
a total of 198 responses. The key takeaways
from these responses are summarized in the
following section. A full log of all responses is
also included in this appendix.

Page 332 ends

LOG OF WEBMAP CONTRIBUTIONS
ID Date Submitted What's going wrong here? What can be improved? Issue Latitude Longitude 18794
Jun 14, 2024,
04:36 PM
Rough/uneven road with some potholes between Vine Ave. and Cypress Ave. Also, this area might need some sidewalks. Issues with driving 37.38937 ‐120.6243 18793
Jun 14, 2024,
04:32 PM
The road near this corner on Buena Vista is rough/uneven and has potholes.

The intersection was repaved recently but didn't extend down the road in front of the school. This school has over 900 students, so there's a lot of traffic through this section of road. Issues with driving 37.326355 ‐120.4863 18792
Jun 14, 2024,
04:29 PM
The section of Hatch Rd. between Dunn and Yosemite is rough and has multiple potholes. It gets a lot of traffic going to the lake and the UC. Issues with driving 37.334753 ‐120.4419 18791
Jun 14, 2024,
04:25 PM Rough road and lines need to be repainted. Issues with driving 37.33471 ‐120.4692 18790
Jun 14, 2024,
04:24 PM
Too many vehicles are using this intersection to maintain safety. My father was hit by a vehicle pulling out of Ave 2 onto Santa Fe. His car was totaled and the driver said he didn't see him. It's difficult for cars pulling out of Ave 2 to see cars coming on Santa Fe with reasonable time. There should be a stoplight here to prevent future accidents. Issues with driving 37.349609 ‐120.5554 18789
Jun 14, 2024,
04:19 PM
The section of Bert Crane Rd. between highway 99 and Bell Dr. is a rough drive. Many motorists use it to get to the Walmart and Target shopping center and it hasn't been repaved or "smoothed" out in years even though it gets used a lot. Also, the drop‐off from the road to the shoulders is steep in some parts. Issues with driving 37.34883 ‐120.6325
18788
Jun 14, 2024,
04:14 PM
Fox Road between Bellevue and Santa Fe has multiple potholes throughout.

I'm worried to drive through that section because it might damage my vehicle and/or tires. It appears as though no repair or repavement has been done there in years! Issues with driving 37.356089 ‐120.5495 18787
Jun 14, 2024,
04:11 PM
This section of Carmella (between Fox Rd. and Franklin Rd.) has multiple potholes and floods easily during rainy days. This section of the road is so bad, that I'm worried it may damage my vehicle and/or tires to drive through it. Issues with driving 37.346181 ‐120.5435
18786
Jun 14, 2024,
04:08 PM
There's a large pothole on the road at this intersection. It's on Bellevue Road. Other Issues 37.360769 ‐120.503
18762
Jun 12, 2024,
09:45 AM Finish this section as a four‐lane road over the railroad tracks to W Olive Ave Issues with driving 37.317224 ‐120.5051 18761
Jun 12, 2024,
09:44 AM
Rebuild these bridges and make them much wider, perhaps enough for a four‐lane highway that may be required for this section of 59 as Merced grows. Issues with driving 37.3211 ‐120.5049
18760
Jun 12, 2024,
09:41 AM
A large roundabout would greatly decrease the gridlocked traffic on Snelling Hwy. Issues with driving 37.308532 ‐120.5052
18759
Jun 12, 2024,
09:40 AM
Gridlock traffic. I emailed a redesign to Ms. Prince that is more applicable to the upcoming 2026 Regional Transportation Plan. Basically, the redesign reconfigures the Atwater‐Merced Expressway that redirects through Hwy 59 traffic and industrial traffic in SW Merced into the new Expressway design. Issues with driving 37.303057 ‐120.5006 18670
Jun 08, 2024,
09:28 PM Speeding and zero enforcement, ever. Issues with driving 37.442713 ‐120.5032 18644
Jun 07, 2024,
06:17 PM
Since the Buhach on ramp and offramp were removed, it’s almost impossible to get to the residence and businesses on Atwater Boulevard from Merced. If the offramp here had a left turn, you could go under the overpass and get to those businesses along the on ramp to South 99. Issues with driving 37.340519 ‐120.5946

Page 333 ends

18643
Jun 07, 2024,
06:15 PM
There really needs to be a stoplight at this intersection. It’s dangerous for kids to cross to and from school and it’s almost impossible to turn left off of Grove onto Winton Way because it’s hard to see traffic coming around the curve near Elm. Issues with driving 37.353391 ‐120.6137 18629
Jun 07, 2024,
12:33 PM
A stop light intersection or 4‐way stop are desperately needed at this intersection due to speeds of cars coming from/to Hwy 99. Issues with driving 37.309228 ‐120.509 18628
Jun 07, 2024,
12:30 PM
Can this on‐ramp be extended? It's very difficult to get up to highway speed to merge successfully into traffic. Heavy traffic flow in this area with cars either unwilling or unable to move over to allow merging cars onto the highway make this a dangerous on‐ramp. I was under the impression that at some point the on/off ramps here were going to be closed and traffic would be routed to use the Atwater‐Merced Expressway on/off ramps. Is this ever going to happen? Issues with driving 37.321357 ‐120.5412 18627
Jun 07, 2024,
12:26 PM
Suggestion: Add 3‐way stop at intersection of Franklin and Dan Ward. Heavy traffic flowing very fast on Franklin lends itself to desperate individuals taking unnecessary risks to turn onto Franklin. This would also help slow traffic down where the speed limit changes. Issues with driving 37.331676 ‐120.5408 18626
Jun 07, 2024,
12:17 PM
Suggestion: change the traffic signal at Santa Fe and Franklin. Allow traffic on one side of Santa Fe on Franklin to go (straight or turn) while the other side remains stopped. This would allow cars waiting to turn onto Santa Fe to go without waiting for cars to cross across the intersection. Traffic on the side of Franklin where W. Belcher Ave is located becomes VERY congested at peak drive times and I've seen many close calls of people who are running a red light because they've waited thru several cycles of the light to get thru the intersection. Issues with driving 37.340285 ‐120.5404 18625
Jun 07, 2024,
12:11 PM
The corner of Franklin and Bellevue (right turn off Franklin onto Bellevue) is severely compromised. There is a large pothole that bandaid fixes are not fixing and the side of the roadway has caved away. This is a corner frequented by large vehicles such as garbage trucks and they are wearing away the roadway. Issues with driving 37.360556 ‐120.5401 18624
Jun 07, 2024,
12:08 PM
The 4‐way intersection at Ashby and Franklin needs repaving. The "bandaid" fixes of potholes are making the issue worse. Driving thru that intersection is terrible. Issues with driving 37.32304 ‐120.541
18588
Jun 06, 2024,
04:19 AM
This area has way too many accidents due to high speed and poor visibility from all of the trees and multiple intersections. Issues with driving 37.325397 ‐120.478 18540
Jun 05, 2024,
07:00 PM
In need of dire replacement. Drive down it and you will know. From g st. To 140 turn off eastbound. Issues with driving 37.294913 ‐120.4705 18539
Jun 05, 2024,
06:55 PM
This street is soo pitted it isn't suitable for a covered wagon it's an embarrassing entrance to the amtrac station...seriously?? Issues with driving 37.30654 ‐120.4767 18507
Jun 03, 2024,
04:54 PM
Needs stop sign—In the 5 years I’ve lived on this street, I have seen countless kids, animals, and pedestrians almost hit and cars crashed into the house on the south east corner at least 3 times. Issues with driving 37.308111 ‐120.4886 18469
Jun 02, 2024,
10:32 PM The angle of this intersection makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic Issues with driving 37.283702 ‐121.0083 18468
Jun 02, 2024,
10:30 PM
The traffic circle under construction is going to cause many accidents and prevent the flow of commerce when big rigs can’t make the turn. Issues with driving 37.253785 ‐120.9974 18467
Jun 02, 2024,
10:28 PM Tress blocking the view of the intersection Issues with driving 37.173323 ‐121.0132 18466
Jun 02, 2024,
10:27 PM Trees blocking the view of the intersection. Issues with driving 37.172985 ‐121.0314 18465
Jun 02, 2024,
10:26 PM Sidewalks so kids can walk to school Issues with walking 37.245721 ‐121.002

Page 334 ends

18453
Jun 01, 2024,
12:15 PM
Please finish the four‐lane portion of Yosemite Ave to 59. There's plenty of space to move the City of Merced refuge collection center a little north to accommodate the lanes and turnout. Issues with driving 37.332116 ‐120.5031 18452
Jun 01, 2024,
12:10 PM
Please take away the double yellow line on Henry Miller Ave between 165 and Volta. We should be able to pass cares if conditions permit without breaking the law. Issues with driving 37.100457 ‐120.8857 18404
May 28, 2024,
08:15 PM Horrible drainage and potholes Issues with driving 37.418054 ‐120.8473 18403
May 28, 2024,
08:15 PM Potholes Issues with driving 37.431136 ‐120.8378 18395
May 28, 2024,
11:05 AM No sidewalk or bike lane Issues with walking 37.341863 ‐120.6071 18394
May 28, 2024,
11:04 AM No sidewalk or bike lane Issues with walking 37.343799 ‐120.6173 18391
May 28, 2024,
06:43 AM
Giannini Rd and Commerce has be come so congested now due to increased homes and businesses in the area.

There is no safe place for foot or bike traffic along these road which has also increased a lot. Other Issues 37.32638 ‐120.5985
18320
May 26, 2024,
11:43 AM
Traffic on El Portal between McKee and Parsons is quite heavy.  It’s being used as a thoroughfare t get to G.  This is a residential area with children, seniors, and pets.  Many cars ignore the 25 mph sign and do 45. Issues with driving 37.324825 ‐120.4487 18319
May 26, 2024,
11:40 AM
Nearly impossible to turn left o to McKee from El Portal.  When the complex at McKee and Yosemite is complete, traffic will be far worse Other Issues 37.324876 ‐120.4445 18318
May 26, 2024,
11:36 AM
There are no crosswalks even though there is an elementary school a few blocks away. Not safe for kids walking to/from school.  Also, when school starts/ends is near impossible to cross (on foot or in a car) without taking your life in your own hands Other Issues 37.325249 ‐120.4512 18313
May 26, 2024,
07:38 AM Horrible road pot holes and torn up parts throughout Parsons to “G” Street. Issues with driving 37.33212 ‐120.4642 18312
May 26, 2024,
07:36 AM Horrible road!  Fix it! Issues with driving 37.321644 ‐120.4441 18309
May 26, 2024,
04:29 AM paint ≠ infrastructure Issues with biking 37.332023 ‐120.4425 18308
May 26, 2024,
04:27 AM
paint is not infrastructure, youd have to be suicidal to ride on the shoulder against 55mph heavy traffic, and yet countless do it everyday. its a miracle nobody's been killed. perfect candidate for a protected bikeway. Issues with biking 37.360836 ‐120.4438

Page 335 ends

18288
May 25, 2024,
07:18 AM
I live on the corner of Massasso and Lopes. The City of Merced plans to extend Massasso Street from McSwain Road to Wardrobe Avenue.

However, Massasso Street is a narrow residential street, about 10 feet narrower than Sydney Lane, the main road into the neighborhood. Many families on Massasso have young children who will loose the ability to safely play on the street. A better route is to connect Beachcraft Avenue with Wardrobe Avenue and McSwain Road.

The heirs to the property at 2003 Lopes Avenue sold the 10 acre family farm. The new owners intend to subdivide the property into three parcels.

Merced told them they must leave an easement for Massasso St.

The owners could easily create an easement for Beachcraft at the western edge of the property where vacant land exists between the homes at 2056 and 2044 McSwain Road. There will be a short L‐shaped route along Lopes Avenue, an L‐shaped that will keep drivers from speeding through the neighborhood. The City of Merced will need to enforce the "no truck" parking on Beachcraft because many employees from Human Services and clients from the Central Valley Training Center walk along Beachcraft throughout the day during breaks. Other Issues 37.299099 ‐120.5141 18287
May 25, 2024,
06:34 AM
Please resurface the section of Badger Flat Rd north of Ingomar Grade along with the railroad crossing. My wife and I frequently travel to the Bay Area from Merced. We drive through Turner Island and take Henry Miller Ave to bypass Los Baños.

Recently, we tried Volta since Maps suggested the route. However it is much safer to enter and exit 152 at the stop light on Badger Flat. Issues with driving 37.083276 ‐120.8777 18282
May 24, 2024,
11:15 PM Roadway is almost non existent. Needs to be repaved. Issues with driving 37.355775 ‐120.7782 18281
May 24, 2024,
11:12 PM Dangerous intersection. Needs a stoplight. Issues with driving 37.386316 ‐120.7121 18259
May 23, 2024,
09:32 PM The road is terrible. Potholes, loose gravel, etc. Issues with driving 37.331729 ‐120.4625 18249
May 23, 2024,
12:32 PM Needs a sidewalk to the high school Issues with walking 37.28779 ‐120.4337 18195
May 21, 2024,
10:03 AM
Sultana road is undrivable. Please redo the road and not just fill in the holes.

That does not help. Issues with driving 37.38046 ‐120.6868 18176
May 20, 2024,
02:44 PM
This road has so many potholes. It is very dangerous. A person passed away there last year from a car crash. It is a dangerous intersection as well with all of the semi trucks that drive through there. People usually cannot drive on the lane with the potholes and swerve onto the other side, but then risk getting hit by oncoming traffic. Issues with driving 37.287788 ‐120.4148 18175
May 20, 2024,
02:42 PM
This road does not have a bike lane. Cross country bikers always come through here, but the road is full of potholes. There is no sidewalk either. It is EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS. It needs to be repaved. A bike lane and a sidewalk would also both be useful here. There is also no street lighting. This road is so bad and it is right next to two residential communities. It's the only road people are able to take to get into town. Issues with biking 37.31051 ‐120.3246 18174
May 20, 2024,
02:40 PM
This road is EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS. It needs to be repaved. A sidewalk needs to be added. It is completely potholes and it is a road that is used very often. Issues with walking 37.298853 ‐120.3247

Page 336 ends

18173
May 20, 2024,
02:39 PM
North Plainsburg Rd between HWY 140 and Bear Creek Rd is EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS. The road is completely potholes, there is no sidewalk, or bike lane, and people use this road daily and often, including people in wheelchairs. People have to dodge potholes, other cars, people walking on the road, and people in wheelchairs on the road. It needs to be repaved and at there needs to be a sidewalk. Issues with driving 37.304158 ‐120.3248 17970
May 15, 2024,
08:27 PM
La banqueta esta mal echa en el drive way de. 166 Santa bárbara st los banos Issues with driving 37.194461 ‐120.6773
17771
May 13, 2024,
12:32 PM
No crosswalk. A lot of people cross this road to get to the park. For saftey there should be a crosswalk with flashing lights, for example. Issues with walking 37.252982 ‐121.008 17769
May 13, 2024,
12:25 PM This road is full of potholes. Pavement can be improved. Issues with driving 37.260038 ‐121.0215 17768
May 13, 2024,
12:23 PM
Due to the detour, more cars are crossing through here but they don't realize it's not a four way stop. I have seen cars almost crashing into each other because of this. This is concerning because during after school hours many students are walking through the area. Other Issues 37.254747 ‐120.9991 17766
May 13, 2024,
12:16 PM
Students are walking by a busy street where there is no sidewalk. A sidewalk needs to be built for the safety of the students walking to and from school. Issues with walking 37.245979 ‐120.9973 17455
May 04, 2024,
03:46 PM
motorists barrel through along W. 11th Streets despite pedestrians being in the crosswalk.  Install a mini round about to change driver behaviors. Issues with walking 37.301175 ‐120.5035 17432
May 02, 2024,
07:59 PM No crosswalks or stoplights Issues with walking 37.275404 ‐120.4335 17431
May 02, 2024,
07:57 PM Pot holes Issues with driving 37.272907 ‐120.4614 17425
May 02, 2024,
10:55 AM The road is quite rough and has reoccurring potholes. Issues with driving 37.332163 ‐120.4604 17417
May 01, 2024,
03:15 PM Rough bumpy road once you exit off the 99 Other Issues 37.294355 ‐120.4687 17407
Apr 30, 2024,
09:34 AM
Sound wall needed on CA99 where it is at surface level with adjacent neighborhoods.  Increasing traffic on CA99 has resulted in incessant noise for West Merced neighborhoods. Traffic noise is amplified by acres of asphalt surface at Home Depot. Other Issues 37.304832 ‐120.5054 17381
Apr 29, 2024,
02:49 PM
Despite this being a nice looking building, the first impression for passengers is this is a risky (Yosemite transfer) station stop. Graffiti vandalism, boarded up buildings, retail with bars on openings, no landscaping... this does not offer a reassuring customer experience.  It perpetuates Merced's current brand as "not being a safe place." Other Issues 37.307189 ‐120.4762 17380
Apr 29, 2024,
02:39 PM
All bus service needs to directly interface with the Amtrak San Joaquins and YART at this train station‐now.  It is MCAG's responsibility to enable 'easy to use' access of local public transportation to access regional transportation.

Expecting rail passengers to suffer through bus transfers to gain access to regional transit is NOT AN EXEMPLARY CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE . Other Issues 37.307369 ‐120.4771 17379
Apr 29, 2024,
02:29 PM
City of Merced Administration needs to "wake up" and recognize 16th Street should be THE primary branding portal; extensively landscaped on both sides of street as well as a landscaped median incorporating a Yosemite architectural theme. THIS is the access to MITC, Intermodal Commuter Station, Downtown and other destination points in the community. Rename 16th Street to YOSEMITE PARK WAY. Other Issues 37.297452 ‐120.4759

Page 337 ends

17378
Apr 29, 2024,
02:28 PM
City of Merced Administration needs to "wake up" and recognize 16th Street should be THE primary branding portal; extensively landscaped on both sides of street as well as a landscaped median incorporating a Yosemite architectural theme.  THIS is the access to MITC, Intermodal Commuter Station, Downtown and other destination points in the community.  Rename 16th Street to YOSEMITE PARK WAY. Other Issues 37.311322 ‐120.5151 17377
Apr 29, 2024,
02:19 PM
Change Southbound 16th Street CA99 exit signage to Downtown Merced/Airport/Merced College/University of California.  Current 16th Street signage is meaningless.  City of Merced needs to get its branding strategy straight. Issues with driving 37.314026 ‐120.5224 17376
Apr 29, 2024,
02:15 PM
Close the southbound V Street CA99 exit and return West 13th Street to two way East/West traffic flow.  Designate Southbound CA99 16th Street as Downtown Merced/Airport/University of California  Exit. This will improve traffic flow at 13th & V Streets. Issues with driving 37.303255 ‐120.502 17375
Apr 29, 2024,
02:11 PM
City and County needs to undo this 'Caltrans lab experiment gone awry.' Having 5 Westbound lanes designated for a four block segment on a primary East/West arterial is improvident.  Westbound traffic is thrown into residential streets resulting in excessive traffic, excessive speeding traffic, excessive traffic noise and increasing the risk of stressful living in R‐1 neighborhoods. Issues with driving 37.30169 ‐120.4982
17374
Apr 29, 2024,
02:03 PM
Persistent TOTAL GRIDLOCK directly attributed to unsynchronized traffic lights and poor street design.  Backed up, idling traffic is not a solution for reducing green house gasses and reducing gasoline consumption. Issues with driving 37.30312 ‐120.5006 17373
Apr 29, 2024,
01:59 PM
V Street between 16th and 13th Sts does not function effectively; too many curb cuts, too many unsynchronized traffic lights, no grade separation at Union Pacific crossing and overall poor street design at CA99 interface with V Street.  This is where there is HIGH risk for delayed emergency response time. Issues with driving 37.304163 ‐120.5
17369
Apr 28, 2024,
05:34 PM
There is a Caltrans proposal for a round about at this intersection.  There needs to be a grade separated pedestrian/Class IV bike route over this intersection to connect the neighborhoods on Gerard Ave.  The County needs to be a partner with this solution. Issues with biking 37.280927 ‐120.4877 17368
Apr 28, 2024,
05:30 PM
N Street needs to be a North/South Class IV bike way from 13th St to south of Gerard Avenue to connect neighborhoods. Issues with biking 37.288841 ‐120.4942 17367
Apr 28, 2024,
05:27 PM
O Street should be a North/South Class IV bikeway to connect all neighborhoods south of Bear Creek. Issues with biking 37.295642 ‐120.4922 17366
Apr 28, 2024,
05:25 PM
a class IV bike way on 8th Street is needed to provide a safe route to school between Tenaya Middle School, Margaret Sheehy Elementary and Gracey Elementary schools; this route also connects McNamara Park, Stephen Leonard Park and the Youth Sports Complex Issues with biking 37.295562 ‐120.498 17365
Apr 28, 2024,
05:19 PM
a traffic round about is needed to quiet traffic adjacent to Tenaya Middle School.  Traffic speed limit needs to be reduced to 15 mph on 8th between P St and M Street; and reduce speed limit to 15 mph on N St between 9th St and 5th St. Issues with driving 37.29327 ‐120.4917
17364
Apr 28, 2024,
05:15 PM
11th Street needs to be designated as a Class IV Bike way / Safe Route to School between Gracey Elementary on West Avenue and Stowell Elementary on East 11th Street; this route also links Little Angels Park, McNamara Park and Dennis Chavez Park. Issues with biking 37.30098 ‐120.503 17363
Apr 28, 2024,
05:07 PM
pedestrian actuated signals needed on all four corners of V St. and West 8th Street, with flashing LED in 'Zebra' crosswalks Issues with walking 37.297621 ‐120.5037 17362
Apr 28, 2024,
05:06 PM
pedestrian actuated signals needed on all four corners of V St and West 9th Street, with flashing LED in 'Zebra' crosswalks Issues with walking 37.298651 ‐120.5031 17361
Apr 28, 2024,
05:04 PM
pedestrian actuated signals needed on all four corners of V Street and West 11th Street, with flashing LED in 'Zebra' crosswalks Issues with walking 37.300569 ‐120.5021

Page 338 ends

17360
Apr 28, 2024,
05:03 PM
pedestrian actuated signals needed on all four corners of MLK and 8th Street, with flashing LED in 'Zebra' crosswalks Issues with walking 37.291061 ‐120.4857 17359
Apr 28, 2024,
05:01 PM
pedestrian actuated signals needed on all four corners of MLK and 11th Street, with flashing LED in 'Zebra' crosswalks Issues with walking 37.294009 ‐120.484 17358
Apr 28, 2024,
04:54 PM
a traffic round about is needed to quiet street adjacent to elementary school.  Reduce speed to 15 mph on 11th Street between E Street and D Street, and D Street between 10th St and 13th St. Issues with driving 37.290814 ‐120.475 17357
Apr 28, 2024,
04:51 PM
a traffic round about is needed to quiet street adjacent to park; speed limit needs to be reduce to 15 mph between MLK and Canal Street, 12th and 9th Street. Issues with driving 37.294585 ‐120.4855
17356
Apr 28, 2024,
04:49 PM
a traffic roundabout is needed to quiet this route to school; street speed limit needs to be reduced to 15 mph between V Street and X Street; 10th Street and 12th Street. Issues with driving 37.301061 ‐120.5035 17355
Apr 28, 2024,
04:46 PM
duplicite pedestrian signs and faded crosswalk markings do not make this a safer intersection for pedestrians.  'Zebra' pedestrian crossings needed on all four sides of the intersection; this is not a safe route to school for Gracey Elementary Students and parents. Issues with walking 37.300677 ‐120.502 17354
Apr 28, 2024,
04:43 PM
there is no pedestrian crosswalk on West 12th & V Street.  Need 'zebra' crosswalk marking to clearly delineate crossing. Issues with driving 37.301639 ‐120.5015 17353
Apr 28, 2024,
04:40 PM
oversized commercial semi trucks with trailers are creating their own Truck Route on W Street and West 11th Street Issues with driving 37.301021 ‐120.5036 17352
Apr 28, 2024,
04:38 PM
over 100 vehicles per hour are using West 11th St as a by pass to and from traffic lights at V and West 13th Street. Issues with driving 37.301104 ‐120.5033 17351
Apr 28, 2024,
04:36 PM motorists not yielding to elementary students in the crosswalks. Issues with walking 37.301238 ‐120.5035 17350
Apr 28, 2024,
04:34 PM
motorist in a pick up truck running a red left turn light while pedestrians in the cross walk. Issues with walking 37.302763 ‐120.5045 17347
Apr 28, 2024,
03:32 PM
People drive too fast through here, especially going to and from Hoover School. Issues with driving 37.305962 ‐120.4681
17316
Apr 26, 2024,
04:49 PM
This intersection is very unsafe to walk across because there is no turn signals for drivers, and drivers that are turning right on red going down G street often can't see pedestrians. I've been hit and nearly been hit by a car at this intersection on two separate occasions already. Issues with walking 37.332076 ‐120.4691 17243
Apr 24, 2024,
04:00 PM
new traffic pattern installed by County is a confusing conversion of high speed traffic, cross walks and bike lanes Issues with biking 37.30937 ‐120.4443 17093
Apr 19, 2024,
11:30 PM
Need 4 way stop.also no semi trucks. Kids walk home from school. Very dangerous  road. No sidewalks. Need 25 mile speed limit plus limit to no semi trucks, add speed bumps. Issues with walking 37.245495 ‐121.0079 17092
Apr 19, 2024,
11:28 PM
Deadly area with car passing, head on collisions.  People have died. Need barrier to prevent passing. Issues with driving 37.157948 ‐121.0116 17091
Apr 19, 2024,
11:26 PM Unsafe intersection. Many accidents and deaths. Need 4 way stop. Issues with driving 37.245492 ‐121.013 16794
Apr 11, 2024,
05:46 PM
Bridge surface road over canal, especially heading south, is in really bad shape. Issues with driving 37.247604 ‐121.0128
16787
Apr 11, 2024,
11:46 AM
In this area, some potholes need permanent repairs rather than every year.

W. Yosemite Ave and Pacific Dr. on El Redondo Dr. Issues with driving 37.33789 ‐120.4949 16700
Apr 09, 2024,
11:12 AM Need safe transition for bikes/peds from road/sidewalk to middle bike path. Issues with biking 37.325383 ‐120.4783 16699
Apr 09, 2024,
11:10 AM Deteriorating asphalt. Makes for rough road. Issues with driving 37.307514 ‐120.4966 16698
Apr 09, 2024,
11:08 AM
Too dark and no sidewalk/bike lane space. Have almost hit bicyclists and pedestrians walking this road to and from the UC. Other Issues 37.361184 ‐120.4642 16695
Apr 09, 2024,
09:15 AM Rough road Issues with driving 37.318778 ‐120.4867 16694
Apr 09, 2024,
09:09 AM rough road Issues with driving 37.301674 ‐120.4915

Page 339 ends

16690
Apr 09, 2024,
08:43 AM
This is a dead end road that only has one sign posted approx. 20 yards from the entrance. Lots of traffic ignore the sign and go down sycamore thinking it goes all the way thru. A sign marker on the sycamore street sign that indicates dead end is requested. Issues with driving 37.256235 ‐121.0046 16689
Apr 09, 2024,
08:40 AM Railroad ave north and south is very uneven and littered with potholes. Issues with driving 37.250867 ‐120.9958 16688
Apr 09, 2024,
08:39 AM Railroad tracks are extremely bumpy to go over and uneven pavement. Issues with driving 37.284165 ‐121.0083 16687
Apr 09, 2024,
08:37 AM No crosswalk for students to cross to get to elementary or middle school. Issues with walking 37.253012 ‐121.0046 16686
Apr 09, 2024,
08:37 AM No crosswalk for students to cross to get to elementary or middle school. Issues with biking 37.252931 ‐121.0046 16685
Apr 09, 2024,
08:36 AM
The bridge here was not repaired when Hwy 33 was repaved. It is full of potholes and uneven pavement. Issues with driving 37.247644 ‐121.0128 16684
Apr 09, 2024,
08:35 AM
The whole road north and south Mils Rd is littered with pot holes and uneven pavement. Please resurface. Issues with driving 37.243117 ‐121.0034 16683
Apr 09, 2024,
08:34 AM No crosswalk at this busy intersection. Issues with driving 37.253044 ‐121.0046 16682
Apr 09, 2024,
08:33 AM No sidewalks for students to safely get to school. Issues with walking 37.245812 ‐120.9984 16665
Apr 08, 2024,
07:56 PM
Sidewalk for children walking to and from school. Speeding motorists not respecting kids walking Issues with walking 37.245866 ‐120.9979 16658
Apr 08, 2024,
06:33 PM We need a sidewalk for students to walk to Gustine Middle School. Issues with walking 37.245833 ‐120.9975 16657
Apr 08, 2024,
06:33 PM We need a sidewalk for students to walk to Gustine Middle School. Issues with walking 37.247745 ‐120.9947 16656
Apr 08, 2024,
06:33 PM We need a sidewalk for students to walk to Gustine Middle School. Issues with walking 37.246665 ‐120.9988 16651
Apr 08, 2024,
03:18 PM no bike lanes Issues with biking 37.31362 ‐120.4786

Page 340 ends

F&P Social Pinpoint
Report Type: Form Results Summary
Date Range: 20-03-2024 - 14-06-2024
Exported: 13-08-2024 17:03:49
Open
LRSP Community Survey

MCAG LRSP
129
Contributors
198
Contributions
Contribution Summary

1. What are your top five (5) traffic safety concerns in your community? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 1 of 18

Page 341 ends

!i socialpinpoint
Answer choices Percent Count
Distracted driving 54.04% 107
Aggressive driving 50.51% 100
Drivers not stopping for pedestrians 25.76% 51
Drivers not passing bicyclists safely 13.13% 26
People ignoring traffic laws while driving 51.52% 102
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 2 of 18

Page 342 ends

Distracted driving
Aggressive driving
Drivers not stopping ...

Drivers not passing ...

People ignoring ...

High vehicle speeds
Poorly maintained ...

Poorly maintained ...

Narrow, broken, or ...

Not enough time to ...

Not enough crosswalks
Missing or ...

Lack of access for ...

Not enough street ...

Other
0% 20% 40% 60%
!i socialpinpoint
High vehicle speeds 43.94% 87
Poorly maintained roads 74.24% 147
Poorly maintained bike lanes or paths (debris, potholes, etc.) 22.73% 45 Narrow, broken, or missing sidewalks 26.26% 52
Not enough time to cross the street (too many lanes of traffic, streets are too wide) 4.55% 9 Not enough crosswalks 11.11% 22
Missing or inadequate bike lanes or paths 16.67% 33
Lack of access for people with disabilities 10.10% 20
Not enough street lighting 27.27% 54
Other 9.09% 18
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 3 of 18

Page 343 ends

!i socialpinpoint

2. In the past ten years, have you seen or been involved in a vehicle-related crash or near miss that included someone walking or biking and was not reported to the police? Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Yes, I was driving 17.17% 34
Yes, I was biking or walking 10.10% 20
No 70.71% 140
Prefer Not to Say 2.02% 4
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 4 of 18

Page 344 ends

Yes, I was driving
Yes, I was biking or ...

No
Prefer Not to Say
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

3. How comfortable do you feel walking and/or using a wheelchair in your community? Select Box | Skipped: 4 | Answered: 194 (98%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Very Uncomfortable 12.89% 25
Uncomfortable 30.41% 59
Neutral 39.18% 76
Comfortable 15.98% 31
Very Comfortable 1.55% 3
Total 100.00% 194
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 5 of 18

Page 345 ends

Very Uncomfortable
+
Uncomfortable
+
Neutral
+
Comfortable
+
Very Comfortable
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

4. How comfortable do you feel riding a bike and/or some other device (i.e. a scooter) in your community? Select Box | Skipped: 5 | Answered: 193 (97.5%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Very Uncomfortable 20.21% 39
Uncomfortable 34.20% 66
Neutral 27.46% 53
Comfortable 16.58% 32
Very Comfortable 1.55% 3
Total 100.00% 193
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 6 of 18

Page 346 ends

Very Uncomfortable
+
Uncomfortable
+
Neutral
+
Comfortable
+
Very Comfortable
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

5. How often do you walk, bike, or take transit to get to work, school, shopping, or other activities? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 197 (99.5%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Every day or most days 22.84% 45
Once or twice a week 19.29% 38
Once or twice a month 11.17% 22
A few times a year 19.80% 39
Never 26.90% 53
Total 100.00% 197
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 7 of 18

Page 347 ends

Every day or most days
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
A few times a year
Never
0% 10% 20%
!i socialpinpoint

6. What improvements would encourage you to walk, bike, or take transit more often? Long Text | Skipped: 91 | Answered: 107 (54%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 8 of 18

Page 348 ends

!i socialpinpoint

7. When making decisions about road or street design, people's safety should be the top priority. Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Strongly Disagree 7.58% 15
Disagree 2.02% 4
Neutral 9.09% 18
Agree 28.28% 56
Strongly Agree 53.03% 105
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 9 of 18

Page 349 ends

Strongly Disagree
t
Disagree
+-
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

8. In areas where children or elderly may be present, the road or street should be designed for cars to drive 20 mph or slower. Required
Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Strongly Disagree 6.06% 12
Disagree 5.05% 10
Neutral 20.71% 41
Agree 35.35% 70
Strongly Agree 32.83% 65
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 10 of 18

Page 350 ends

Strongly Disagree
.,.

Disagree
... t
Neutral
... t
Agree
.,.

Strongly Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

9. Intersection changes that reduce the possibility of cars crashing into one another or other users (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists) should be prioritized over changes that reduce delay. Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Strongly Disagree 4.55% 9
Disagree 3.54% 7
Neutral 23.74% 47
Agree 36.87% 73
Strongly Agree 31.31% 62
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 11 of 18

Page 351 ends

Strongly Disagree
.,.

Disagree
... t
Neutral
... t
Agree
.,.

Strongly Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

10. In downtown areas or commercial corridors, space for people to walk, bike, and cross the street safely should be prioritized over on-street parking for cars. Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Strongly Disagree 5.56% 11
Disagree 8.59% 17
Neutral 25.25% 50
Agree 34.34% 68
Strongly Agree 26.26% 52
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 12 of 18

Page 352 ends

Strongly Disagree
.,.

Disagree
... t
Neutral
... t
Agree
.,.

Strongly Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

11. Are there any other safety improvements you would like to see on our roadways? (e.g., more speed enforcement or DUI checkpoints, safety educational campaigns for motorists or bicyclists, speed feedback signs)
Long Text | Skipped: 96 | Answered: 102 (51.5%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 13 of 18

Page 353 ends

!i socialpinpoint

12. What is your ZIP code? Required
Short Text | Skipped: 19 | Answered: 179 (90.4%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 14 of 18

Page 354 ends

!i socialpinpoint

13. What is your age? Required
Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
17 years or younger 4.04% 8
18-25 years 5.56% 11
26-45 years 41.92% 83
46-64 years 31.31% 62
65 years or older 12.63% 25
Prefer not to answer 4.55% 9
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 15 of 18

Page 355 ends

17 years or younger
18-25 years
26-45 years
46-64 years
65 years or older
Prefer not to answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

14. What is your gender? Required
Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Male 32.83% 65
Female 61.62% 122
Non-binary/Other 0% 0
Prefer not to answer 5.56% 11
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 16 of 18

Page 356 ends

Male
Female
Non-binary/ Other
Prefer not to answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

15. What is your race? Required
Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
White 37.37% 74
Hispanic/Latinx 34.85% 69
Black or African American 1.01% 2
Asian 5.05% 10
American Indian or Alaska Native 2.02% 4
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0% 0
Some other race 1.01% 2
Multiracial 7.58% 15
Prefer not to answer 11.11% 22
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 17 of 18

Page 357 ends

White
+
Hispanic/ Latinx
+ + +-
Black or African .. .
+
Asian
American Indian or ...
+ +
Native Hawaiian or ...
+ +
Some other race
+
Multiracial
+
Prefer not to answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint

16. What is your annual household income? Required
Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 198 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Under $25,000 15.15% 30
$25,000 to $45,000 8.59% 17
$45,000 to $60,000 11.62% 23
$60,000 to $90,000 15.15% 30
$90,000 to $150,000 19.70% 39
Over $150,000 15.66% 31
Prefer not to answer 14.14% 28
Total 100.00% 198
F&P Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (20 Mar 2024 to 14 Jun 2024) Page 18 of 18

Page 358 ends

Under $25,000
+
$25,000 to $45,000
+
$45,000 to $60,000
+
$60,000 to $90,000
+
$90,000 to $150,000
+
Over $150,000
+
Prefer not to answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
!i socialpinpoint
C
Appendix

Page 359 ends

Cost and Benefits
Documentation
The conceptual projects presented in this
LRSP range in cost and effort and may
be years-long efforts. Feasibility is also
dependent upon the availability, reallocation,
and/or acquisition of funding. Additionally,
projects may be integrated into maintenance
efforts and undertaken for a lower cost than
if implemented separately.

Projects requiring land acquisition,
utility relocation, or substantial drainage
modifications may require extra time to
implement. Detailed feasibility and design
studies based on local conditions will also
be necessary for the implementation of
many projects. To give a general idea of the
anticipated costs to implement and support
funding procurement, cost estimates were
developed at a planning level for each
conceptual project.

Cost estimates for the conceptual projects
are listed in this appendix, itemized by project
component. The cost ranges are based on
construction costs from recent bid documents
throughout California, recognizing regional
variations on construction costs throughout
the state and fluctuations in material and
labor costs over time.

The cost estimates are in 2024 dollars, and
also assume a number of soft costs as listed,
totalling 110% of construction costs.

All project cost estimates are high-level,
and detailed study of individual projects
will be required to refine them. Costs are
not inclusive of engineering, draingage,
contingency, and mobilization costs, as well as
any land acquisition, road widening, and utility
relocation costs that may be needed.

In addition to the costs, estimates of the
benefits each project generates are listed.

These benefits were calculated using the
methodology developed by Caltrans for its Local
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

These benefits are calculated by applying the
crash modification or reduction factor (CMF/
CRF) assigned by Caltrans to countermeasures
applied, which is expressed as a percentage of
the total number of crashes that can be
“prevented” by the countermeasures.

Multiplying that percentage by the total
amount of cost associated with the crash
history (in which crashes are assigned a
monetary cost based on their severity) yields
the benefit – the total amount of monetary
costs of the crashes that the countermeasures
are expected to prevent.

Page 360 ends

Atwater – Winton Way
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Road Diet Striping only for 1mi corridor mi 1 $80,000 $80,000 Slurry
Seal 60ft ROW over 1mi sf 316,800 $1 $316,800
Class II Bike Lane mi 1 $260,000 $260,000
Median
Refuge
Raised, concrete, 20ft*11ft
each, with new curb ramps each 2 $90,000 $180,000
Median
Refuge
Raised, concrete, 20ft*11ft
each, no new curb ramps each 2 $70,000 $140,000
Total Construction Costs $976,800
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $244,200 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $195,360
Design Costs (15%) $146,520
Environmental Costs (10%) $97,680
City Staff Time (10%) $97,680
Construction Contingency (30%) $293,040
Total Soft Costs (110%) $1,074,480
Total Costs $2,051,280
Total Benefits $54,388,420
BCR 26.51

Page 361 ends

Dos Palos – SR 33/Stearman St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Roundabout Full-sized 1-lane roundabout
with no ROW acquisition each 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Construction Costs $2,000,000
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $500,000 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $400,000
Design Costs (15%) $300,000
Environmental Costs (10%) $200,000
City Staff Time (10%) $200,000
Construction Contingency (30%) $600,000
Total Soft Costs (110%) $2,200,000
Total Costs $4,200,000
Total Benefits $ 6,258,456
BCR 1.49

Page 362 ends

Gustine – 1st Ave/5th St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Mini
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout with no
ROW acquisition each 1 $1,250,000 $1,250,000
Total Construction Costs $1,250,000
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $312,500 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $250,000
Design Costs (15%) $187,500
Environmental Costs (10%) $125,000
City Staff Time (10%) $125,000
Construction Contingency (30%) $375,000
Total Soft Costs (110%) $1,375,000
Total Costs $2,625,000
Total Benefits $2,922,704
BCR 1.11

Page 363 ends

Gustine – Meredith Ave/Grove Ave
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Curb
Extensions
Four corners at
Meredith/Grove each 4 $35,000 $140,000
Crosswalks Two missing legs, two
upgraded to high-vis each 4 $1,000 $4,000
Raised
Crosswalk At midblock crossing location each 1 $125,000 $125,000 Median
Refuge
At midblock crossing location,
no new curb ramps each 1 $70,000 $70,000
Total Construction Costs $339,000
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $84,750 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $67,800
Design Costs (15%) $50,850
Environmental Costs (10%) $33,900
City Staff Time (10%) $33,900
Construction Contingency (30%) $101,700
Total Soft Costs (110%) $372,900
Total Costs $711,900
Total Benefits $413,712
BCR 0.58

Page 364 ends

Livingston – Main St from Campbell Dr to Swan St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Roundabout
Full-sized 1-lane roundabout
with no ROW acquisition at
Campbell and at Swan
each 2 $2,000,000 $4,000,000
Sidewalk
Widening
Assuming 6' added to each side
for a quarter-mile LF 1320 $240 $316,800
Curb and
Gutter
Relocated where sidewalk is
widened LF 1320 $240 $316,800
Roadway
Repaving
Assuming roughly 45' ROW with
sidewalk widening LF 1320 $450 $594,000
Road Diet Striping only mi 0.25 $80,000 $20,000
Lighting Assuming high-end, pedestrianfriendly lighting LF 1320 $450 $594,000 Curb
Ramps
8 each at Campbell and Davis, 6
at Cromwell each 22 $15,000 $330,000
Total Construction Costs $6,171,600
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $1,542,900 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $1,234,320
Design Costs (15%) $925,740
Environmental Costs (10%) $617,160
City Staff Time (10%) $617,160
Construction Contingency (30%) $1,851,480
Total Soft Costs (110%) $6,788,760
Total Costs $12,960,360
Total Benefits $24,106,364
BCR 1.86

Page 365 ends

Los Banos – Downtown
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Mini
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout with no
ROW acquisition at 6th/K each 1 $1,250,000 $1,250,000
Median
Refuge
Roughly half the size of those
in Atwater, no new curb ramps each 26 $50,000 $1,300,000 Crosswalk High-vis each 39 $1,000 $39,000
Advance Stop Marks each 38 $500 $19,000
Raised Crosswalk each 2 $125,000 $250,000
Centerlines 5th from H to M, K from 5th to
7th LF 2640 $5 $13,200
Edgelines 5th from H to L, 6th from
Pacheco to H LF 3696 $5 $18,480
Bike Lane K from 5th to 7th mi 0.2 $260,000 $52,000
Total Construction Costs $2,941,680
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $735,420 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $588,336
Design Costs (15%) $441,252
Environmental Costs (10%) $294,168
City Staff Time (10%) $294,168
Construction Contingency (30%) $882,504
Total Soft Costs (110%) $3,235,848
Total Costs $6,177,528
Total Benefits $37,360,873
BCR 6.05

Page 366 ends

Los Banos – Stonewood Dr/Overland Ave
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Roundabout
Full-sized 1-lane roundabout
with no ROW acquisition at
Overland
each 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Buffered
Bike Lane
Adding painted buffer to
existing bike lane for 0.8mi LF 4224 $5 $21,120
Total Construction Costs $2,021,120
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $505,280 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $404,224
Design Costs (15%) $303,168
Environmental Costs (10%) $202,112
City Staff Time (10%) $202,112
Construction Contingency (30%) $606,336
Total Soft Costs (110%) $2,223,232
Total Costs $4,244,352
Total Benefits $14,788,334
BCR 3.48

Page 367 ends

Merced – M St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Roundabout
Full-sized 2-lane roundabouts
with no ROW acquisition at
Buena Vista and Donna
each 2 $2,000,000 $4,000,000
Class IV cycletrack mi 1 $485,000 $485,000
Total Construction Costs $4,485,000
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $1,121,250 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $897,000
Design Costs (15%) $672,750
Environmental Costs (10%) $448,500
City Staff Time (10%) $448,500
Construction Contingency (30%) $1,345,500
Total Soft Costs (110%) $4,933,500
Total Costs $9,418,500
Total Benefits $57,259,142
BCR 6.08

Page 368 ends

Merced – G St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Signal
Modifications
Minor modifications to Main St
and 21st St intersections to
protected left
each 2 $300,000 $600,000
Signal
Modifications
Major modification to 18th St
intersection to protected left -
need additional signal heads
each 1 $600,000 $600,000
Sidewalk
Widening
Assuming 5' added to each side
for 0.8mi - 18th to 23rd and
Santa Fe to Bear Creek
LF 4224 $200 $844,800
Curb and
Gutter
Relocated where sidewalk is
widened LF 4224 $240 $1,013,760
Curb
Ramps
8 each at 9 four-way
intersections, 6 each at 5 threeway intersectionseach 102 $15,000 $1,530,000 Roadway
Repaving
Assuming roughly 52' ROW with
sidewalk widening LF 4224 $520 $2,196,480
Striping 4 lanes LF 4224 $20 $84,480
Total Construction Costs $6,869,520
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $1,717,380 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $1,373,904
Design Costs (15%) $1,030,428
Environmental Costs (10%) $686,952
City Staff Time (10%) $686,952
Construction Contingency (30%) $2,060,856
Total Soft Costs (110%) $7,556,472
Total Costs $14,425,992
Total Benefits $52,428,603
BCR 3.63

Page 369 ends

Merced – R St
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Signal
Modifications
Major modification to 18th St
intersection to protected left -
need additional signal heads
each 1 $600,000 $600,000
Sidewalk
Widening
Assuming 5' added to each side
for 0.8mi - 18th to 23rd and
Santa Fe to Bear Creek
LF 2112 $200 $422,400
Curb and
Gutter
Relocated where sidewalk is
widened LF 2112 $240 $506,880
Curb
Ramps
8 each at 4 four-way
intersections, 4 each at 14th
and 19th
each 40 $15,000 $600,000
Roadway
Repaving
Assuming roughly 52' ROW with
sidewalk widening LF 2112 $520 $1,098,240
Striping 4 lanes LF 2112 $20 $42,240
Railroad Crossing Improvements each 1 $550,000 $550,000 Total Construction Costs $3,819,760
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $954,940 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $763,952
Design Costs (15%) $572,964
Environmental Costs (10%) $381,976
City Staff Time (10%) $381,976
Construction Contingency (30%) $1,145,928
Total Soft Costs (110%) $4,201,736
Total Costs $8,021,496
Total Benefits $35,805,601
BCR 4.46

Page 370 ends

Merced – Olive Ave
Item Assumptions Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs
Sidewalk
Widening
Assuming 4' added to each side
for 1.5mi - SR-59 to R and M to G LF 7920 $160 $1,267,200 Sidewalk
Widening
Assuming 12' added to each side
for 0.5mi - R to M LF 2640 $480 $1,267,200
Curb and
Gutter
Relocated where sidewalk is
widened LF 10560 $240 $2,534,400
Curb
Ramps
8 each at 7 four-way
intersections, 4 each at 4
intersections without crossings of
Olive, 2 each at 46 driveways
each 164 $15,000 $2,460,000
Roadway
Repaving
Assuming roughly 64' ROW each
direction LF 10560 $1,280 $13,516,800
Striping 6 lanes LF 10560 $20 $211,200
Total Construction Costs $21,256,800
Soft Costs Traffic Control, SWPP, Mobilization (25%) $5,314,200 CM & Inspection Costs (20%) $4,251,360
Design Costs (15%) $3,188,520
Environmental Costs (10%) $2,125,680
City Staff Time (10%) $2,125,680
Construction Contingency (30%) $6,377,040
Total Soft Costs (110%) $23,382,480
Total Costs $44,639,280
Total Benefits $57,584,647
BCR 1.29

Page 371 ends

(This page left intentionally blank)

Page 372 ends

D
Appendix

Page 373 ends

SS4A Program
Criteria Checklist
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 will provide $5 billion
in grant funding over its five-year duration
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 USDOT. 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 inter-governmental
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
will be updated every five years.

This Plan is designed to meet all of these
criteria. The complete list of these criteria is
included in this appendix.

Page 374 ends

Action Plan Components
For each question below, answer “YES” or “NO.” If “YES,” list the relevant plan(s) or supporting documentation that address the condition and the specific page number(s) in each document that corroborates your response. This form provides space to reference multiple plans, but please list only the most relevant document(s).

1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
Are BOTH of the following true?
• A high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly committed to an YES eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and • The commitment includes either setting a target date to reach zero OR setting one or more NO targets to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date.

Note: This may include a resolution, policy, ordinance, executive order, or other official announcement from a high-ranking official and the official adoption of a plan that includes the commitment by a legislative body.