LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:
City of Manhattan Beach
Department of Public Works
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Prepared By:
1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
Monterey Park, CA 91754
T: 323.260.4703 | F: 323.260.4705
www.koacorp.com
JC01245
`
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 2
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 8
2.1 FOUR E’S OF SAFETY .......................................................................................................................................................................................................8
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP .................................................................................................................................................................................................8
2.3 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ....................................................................................................................................................................................8
2.4 LRSP OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.1 Data Collection 10
2.4.2 Safety Data Analysis 10
2.4.3 Identify Safety Measures 10
2.4.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimation 10
3.0 METHODOLOGY 1 1
3.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 SWITRS 11
3.1.2 TIMS 11
3.1.3 OTS 11
3.2 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Ranking Function 12
3.2.2 Average Crash Frequency 12
3.2.3 EPDO Scores 12
3.3 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................................................................ 13
4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND P ATTERNS 14
4.1 PRELIMINARY COLLISION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.3 GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.4 MANHATTAN BEACH VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES ......................................................................................................................................... 31
4.5 TOP COLLISION LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
5.0 OUTREACH 3 5
6.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 3 6
6.1 YOUNG DRIVERS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
6.2 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
6.3 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
6.4 SPEEDING AND REAR ENDING COLLISIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
6.5 YOUNG AND ELDERLY USERS.................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
6.6 AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY/BROADSIDE COLLISIONS............................................................................................................................. 37
6.7 UNSAFE SPEEDING ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
7.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 3 8
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 3
7.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
7.1.1 Curb Extensions (NS21PB) 42
7.1.2 Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk (R36PB) 43
7.1.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk (NS20PB) 43
7.1.4 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (NS22PB) 46
7.1.5 Flashing Beacon As Advance Warning (NS22PB) 46
7.1.6 MUTCD Regulatory/Warning Sign (NS06) 49
7.2 BROADSIDE/AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY COLLISIONS .............................................................................................................................. 51
7.2.1 MUTCD Regulator Sign (NS06) 52
7.2.2 MUTCD Regulator Sign (NS06) 53
7.2.3 Road Diet (R14) 54
7.3 UNSAFE SPEEDING ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
7.3.1 Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection (S04) 58
7.3.2 Improving Signal Timing (S03) 59
7.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61
7.4.1 Emergency Vehicle Preemption Systems (S05) 61
8.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES 6 2
8.1 YOUNG DRIVERS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
8.1.1 Recommendations 62
8.1.2 Funding Sources 62
8.2 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
8.2.1 Recommendations 63
8.2.2 Funding Sources 64
8.3 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 64
8.3.1 Recommendations 65
8.3.2 Funding Sources 65
8.4 AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY/BROADSIDE COLLISIONS ............................................................................................................................ 66
8.4.1 Recommendations 66
8.4.2 Funding Sources 66
8.5 UNSAFE SPEEDING ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
8.5.1 Recommendations 67
8.5 2 Funding Sources 68
8.6 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 68
9.0 SAFETY PROJECTS 7 1
9.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 71
9.2 COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 82
9.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 82
9.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 88
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 4
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Manhattan Beach Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020) ................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4.1: Collision Severity ..................... ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4.2: Total Collisions by Year ................. ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4.3: Collisions by Type, Total Collisions vs. KSI Collisions ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 4.4: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PC F), Total Collisions vs. KSI Collisions ................................................. 17 Figure 4.5: Primary Collision Factor vs. Top 4 Collis ion Types ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4.6: Lighting ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4.7: Weather ................................. .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.8: Time of Day .............................. ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 4.9: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender ......... ......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4.10: Citywide Collisions ................... ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 4.11: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way Violations........................................................................................... 27 Figure 4.12: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed ............. .......................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4.13: Sideswipe due to Improper Turning...... ........................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 4.14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ....... ............................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4.15 Top Collision Locations ................. ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 7.1: Overall Recommended Countermeasure Locatio ns ................................................................................................... 38 Figure 7.2: Pedestrian-Related Collisions ............ ................................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 7.3: Curb Extensions ........................ .............................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 7.4: Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk................ .............................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 7.5: Pedestrian Crosswalk ..................... ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 7.6: RRFB Improvement Locations .............. ............................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 7.7: Flashing Beacon As Advance Warning Improvem ent Locations............................................................................ 48 Figure 7.8: Pedestrian/Bicyclist Signage Improvement Locations ............................................................................................... 50 Figure 7.9: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way C ollisions............................................................................................. 51 Figure 7.10: Broadside-Related Signage Improvement Loc ations .............................................................................................. 52 Figure 7.11: Raised Median Improvement Locations .... ................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 7.12 Highland Avenue Roadway Reconfiguration .... ........................................................................................................... 55 Figure 7.13 Typical Cross Section on Highland Avenue ................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 7.14 Unsafe Speeding Collisions ............... ................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 7.15 Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection Improveme nt Locations .............................................................................. 59 Figure 7.16 Signal Timing Improvement Locations ...... .................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 7.17 EVP Improvement Locations ............... ............................................................................................................................... 61
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 5
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Collision Weight by Severity ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type .............. ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type .......... ................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 4.3: Street Lighting by Facility Type .......... ................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 4.4: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type .. ....................................................................................................................... 23 Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions due to Automobile Righ t-of-Way Violations by Facility Type ......................................... 24 Table 4.6: Rear End Collisions due to Unsafe Speeds by F acility Type ...................................................................................... 24 Table 4.7: Improper Turning with Hit Object and Sidesw ipe Collisions by Facility Type ..................................................... 25 Table 4.8: 2019 OTS Ranking, Manhattan Beach ............ ................................................................................................................... 31 Table 4.9: Top Intersection Ranking................... ................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 4.10: Top Roadway Segment Ranking ................ ...................................................................................................................... 34 Table 7.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywide Co llisions ................................................................................... 39 Table 7.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to Manhattan Beac h LRSP .................................................................................. 40 Table 8.1: Young Drivers Programs Funding Sources .... ................................................................................................................. 63 Table 8.2: Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources .... ............................................................................................................ 64 Table 8.3: Driving under the influence Program Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 65 Table 8.4: Automobile Right of Way/Broadside, Collisions Program Funding Sources ...................................................... 66 Table 8.5: Unsafe Speed Program Funding Sources ........ ............................................................................................................... 68 Table 8.6 Transportation Safety Funding Summary .......... .............................................................................................................. 69 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes ...................... ........................................................................................................................................ 72 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project .............................................................................................................. 83 Table 9.3: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project .............................................................................................................. 88
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Intersection Collision Summary
Appendix B – Public Comments
Appendix C – Safety Project Cost Estimation
Appendix D – Collision Benefit Analysis
`
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 6
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established a program for cities to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify safety needs and recommend projects to address these needs. This document serves as the LRSP for the City of Manhattan Beach.
OVERVIEW
An LRSP analyzes collision data, assesses infrastructure deficiencies through an inventory of roadway system elements, and identifies roadway safety solutions on a citywide basis. The State created the LRSP to help local agencies develop safety projects that can be submitted for funding by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP Cycle 11, expected around May 2022, and subsequent cycles will require an LRSP or equivalent plans such as a Vision Zero Plan or System Safety Analysis Report.
This report has been prepared per Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) version 1.5 dated June 2020. The general content of this LRSP report follows this outline:
● Crash data source and analysis techniques
● Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash ty pes
● High-risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures ● Cost estimates of recommended improvements
● Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvement ● Strategies for safety project implementation
● Traffic safety enforcement size analysis based on Office of Traffi c Safety (OTS) data
The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
● Identify the highest occurring collision types and th e roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions.
● Identify high-risk corridors and intersections.
● Propose safety countermeasures to address the safety issue s. ● Prioritize safety improvement projects based on benefit/ cost ratio and other considerations.
PROMINENT COLLISION PATTERN
Five years of collision records were utilized from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020, adhering to the maximum period permitted by the HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.
The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (PCF), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and mid-block
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 7
locations). A total of 916 crashes were recorded from 2016 to 2020. The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
● The most common collision types were broadside, rear-e nd, and sideswipe. ● Bicycle- and pedestrian-related crashes accounted for appr oximately 11 percent of total collisions. ● Broadside due to automobile right of way is one of the pr ominent collision patterns.
SAFETY MEASURES
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:
● Young Drivers
● Pedestrian Safety
● Driving Under the Influence
● Speeding and Rear End Collisions
● Elderly Drivers
● Automobile Right-of-Way/Broadside Collisions
● Unsafe Speeding
C
urrently, the City has the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system installed on almost all signalized intersections. Signal preemption allows emergency vehicles to interrupt a normal signal cycle and proceed through the intersection more quickly and safely. Consider installing the EVP system at the following intersections:
● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue
● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Highland Avenue
● 15
th Street and Highland Avenue.
Advance dilemma zone detection may address the frequency of red-light violations, reducing the frequency of rear end crashes associated with the traffic signal phase change. The selected intersections are part of a systemic improvement.
In addition to the infrastructure improvements as mentioned above, non-engineering safety measures address traffic safety concerns through education, encouragement, and enforcement. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for non-engineering roadway safety projects, as shown below:
● Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Techn ologies Deployment Program
(ATCMTD)
● Active Transportation Program (ATP)
● Sustainable Communities Grant Program
● California Office of Traffic (OTS) Safety Grants (NHTSA funding )
`
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 8
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Manhattan Beach has retained KOA Corporation (KOA) to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Traditionally, agencies have selected safety projects based on historical crash records, focusing on sites with a concentration of recent severe collisions. The LRSP shares a similar framework with the California Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which focuses on engineering and non-engineering solutions towards roadway safety issues. The LRSP identifies the most common collision categories across a roadway network to target projects that address the factors associated with those categories. The LRSP allows agencies to assess risks before a collision by focusing on causal factors rather than collisions. Systemic improvements target broader geography than the traditional spot location improvements. The systemic project selection favors the broad implementation of cost-effective countermeasures.
2.1 FOUR E’S OF SAFETY
The LRSP does not only focuses on engineering improvements to mitigate crashes. The LRSP also addresses the safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, education, and emergency services. According to the SHSP 2020-2024, two-thirds of all crashes result from aggressive driving. Male drivers are more likely to be at fault in aggressive driving-related crashes regardless of age. Making roadways safer requires the Four E’s (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services).
Working together with the Four E’s at the city level will help make city roads safer.
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety problems and recommends safety improvements.
LRSP facilitates community outreach which helps in understanding the safety issues at local scale. The results of the LRSP are summarized with a prioritized list of improvements and actions.
2.3 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
Manhattan Beach is a city located in southwestern Los Angeles County. According to the 2010 census, the City had a population of 35,135; the US Census estimated the 2019 population at 35,183.
Based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, between January 2016 and December 2020, there were 916 collisions in Manhattan Beach, of which 2.3% resulted in fatal and severe injuries. Figure 2.1 illustrates a map of the collisions citywide.
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 9
Figure 2.1: Manhattan Beach Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020)
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 10
2.4 LRSP OVERVIEW
The LRSP project includes four primary tasks. The following sections include a brief description of the tasks associated with this project, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document.
2.4.1 Data Collection
A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data:
● Five years (1/1/2016 to 12/31/2020) of collision data c ollected via the SWITRS collision database
● Location of signalized intersections
2.4.2 Safety Data Analysis
Following the comprehensive GIS project database development, the collision data was analyzed for Manhattan Beach. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas defined in the California SHSP.
The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 4 of this document. The transportation emphasis areas are identified based on the collision data analysis and are discussed in Section 5 of this document.
2.4.3 Identify Safety Measures
In coordination with city staff, a list of engineering-related safety countermeasures and non-engineering safety measures were developed for use as recommendations in this LRSP. These countermeasures are discussed in Section 6 and Section 7 of this document.
2.4.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimation
Roadways and intersections were ranked based on the collision frequency. The top locations of interest will be investigated for further evaluation and potential safety improvements. The improvements include signal hardware improvement, additional warning signage, and bikeway-related features. Planning-level cost estimations are provided for each safety project. The list of safety projects are prioritized based on the following considerations:
● Benefit/Cost Ratio (for engineering solutions only)
● Funding availability for engineering and non-engineeri ng programs
● Other factors recommended by city staff
T
he safety projects and cost estimates are discussed in Section 8 of this document.
`
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 11
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
The collision data drew from three sources. The collision trend data was derived between 2016 and 2020 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. The California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS) contributed collision data for Manhattan Beach and compared it with 94 cities in California with a similar population.
3.1.1 SWITRS
The California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS database contains data on statewide collisions. The SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally-targeted collision reports electronically. KOA used SWITRS to evaluate data on Manhattan Beach collisions between 2016 and 2020, both in aggregate and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and midblock locations).
3.1.2 TIMS
The TIMS database contains geocoded collisions included in the SWITRS database. TIMS geocodes SWITRS collisions that involve either an injury or fatality (i.e., excluding property damage-only collisions).
Thus, TIMS provides local agencies with an efficient and straightforward tool to conduct geographic analysis.
3.1.3 OTS
The OTS rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in California with similar populations. The statistics focus on the victims killed and injured in crashes. Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they underperform. In the OTS collision ranking system, Manhattan Beach belongs to Group D, containing 94 cities with a population between 25,001 and 50,000. The data is based on the 2019 data from the OTS website.
3.2 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Crash data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the SWITRS collision database.
The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database.
Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Version 1.5, April 2020 (LRSM) encourages a pro-active rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. According to the LRSM, a
METHODOLOGY
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 12 proactive approach is preferred because with traditional methods, “crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort.” A proactive approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
● An extensive crash history at high-collision frequency locations provides insight into which
roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes ● Professional engineering judgment regarding the availabil ity of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
● Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at othe r locations with roadway characteristics associated with similar types of crashes regardless of their crash history The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years-worth of collision data from January 2016 to December 2020 was reviewed for the Manhattan Beach LRSP. Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.
3.2.1 Ranking Function
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Two ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments: Average Crash Frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.
3.2.2 Average Crash Frequency
The average Crash frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the number of collisions at each location in the system, both aggregate and by category of interest (e.g., level of severity, collision type, etc.). The analysis then ranks intersection or roadway segments based on the collisions’ frequency. The method involves easy computation and little data collection. A collision database such as SWITRS database usually suffices.
3.2.3 EPDO Scores
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores are calculated by assigning weighted factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only collisions. The weights generally reflect the order of magnitude difference between the societal cost of fatal and severe injury collisions versus the non- severe injury collisions. Table 3.1 shows the weights by collision severity, based on t he Caltrans Local
Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), April 2020.
METHODOLOGY
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 13 Table 3.1: Collision Weight by Severity
Collision Severity Location Type Crash Cost
**Fatality and Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection $1,590,000
Non Signalized
Intersection $2,530,000
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,190,000
Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) - $142,300
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) - $80,900
Property Damage Only (O) - $13,300
EPDO scores are useful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location’s EPDO score could be inflated by a fatal or severe collision caused by DUI.
3.3 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:
● Make citywide collision maps for dominant collision typ es such as rear-end collisions, broadside
collisions, bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and collisions due to unsafe speed. Identify high-risk locations by collision type.
● Review crash details (party involved, movement before t he crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high-risk locations. Obtain detailed police reports from the City and reviewed for all the fatal and severe injury collisions. ● Manually create collision diagrams for high-risk locations.
Review field conditions through physical
site visits in the City. Assess the nature of prevalent crash types with respect to the intersection’s control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing. ● Review current conditions and recent historical condi tions via Google Map Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years.
● Evaluate and screen countermeasures from the LRSM or Cras h Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/), a searchable database that can be easily queried to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs). ● Identify intersections/roadway segments that do not have a demonstrated crash history but resemble other locations with documented crash history and risk factors. Once identified, these locations can be analyzed through the steps mentioned above.
`
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 14
4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND
PATTERNS
4.1 PRELIMINARY COLLISION ANALYSIS
Year Trend
From 2016 to 2020, a total of 916 collisions occurred on city roadways. Approximately 2.3 percent of collisions resulted in fatal or severe injuries (KSI), as shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2 shows that the annual n
umber of collisions increases from 236 to 259 collisions between 2016 and 2017 and sharply decreases to 95 in 2020. Bicycle collisions have fluctuated in the last five years, with a high in 2017 at 16 collisions and a low in 2020 with six collisions. Pedestrian collisions have decreased in the last two years, from 14 collisions in 2018 to seven in 2019 and 2020.
The number of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions, as shown in Chart 2, remained the same between 2016 and 2018 at five collisions, decreasing to 2 collisions in 2019 and rebounding to 4 collisions in 2020.
Figure 4.1: Collision Severity
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 15 Figure 4.2: Total Collisions by Year
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 16 Collision Type
Figure 4.3 compares the percent of KSI collisions for each col lision type with the total number of collisions. The total number of collisions categorized by collision type is represented by the chart's grey bars (see Y-Axis on the left side). Broadside collisions accounted for the largest category, comprising 30.3 percent of total collisions. Rear end (23.8 percent of total) and sideswipe (21.4 percent of total) made up the second- and third-largest crash categories, respectively.
The red line in the chart shows the percentage of each collision type that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries (see the Y-Axis on the right side). The labeled percentages represent the KSI collision percentages of each collision type. For example, as high as 10.7 percent of the head-on collisions were KSI collisions,
6.3 percent of the pedestrian collisions led to fatalities and severe injuries, and 2.5 percent of the broadside collisions resulted in victims killed or seriously injured.
Figure 4.3: Collisions by Type,
T
otal Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 17 Primary Collision Factor (PCF)
Figure 4.4 summarizes the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for a ll the collisions in the past five years between 2016 and 2020. PCF is the leading cause of a collision based on the opinion of the law enforcement officer who conducted the investigation. The blue bars on the left side represent total collisions, and the red bars on the right side represents KSI collisions.
As shown in Figure 4.4, violations to the automobile right-of-way (19.1%), driving under the influence
(18.9%), and improper turning (18.1%) were the top three causes of all collisions. For KSI collisions, the top four were driving under the influence (33.3%), automobile right-of-way violations (14.3%), pedestrian violation (14.3%), and traffic signal or sign violation (14.3%).
Figure 4.4: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor ( PCF), Total Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 18 Motor Vehicle Involved With
Figure 4.5 summarizes the transportation mode the at-fault par ty is involved with for all the collisions in the past five years between 2016 and 2020. The motor vehicle involved with another motor vehicle was associated with 51.4 percent of total collisions, which was also highest in KSI collisions at 38.1 percent.
The motor vehicle involved parked motor vehicle accounted for 20.0 percent of all collisions. Bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions in Manhattan Beach accounted for approximately 10.9 percent of total collisions but 19.1 percent of KSI collisions.
Figure 4.5: Primary Collision Factor vs. Top 4 Colli
sion Types
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Lighting Conditions
Figure 4.6 summarizes the lighting conditions for all the coll isions in the past five years. Most of the collisions occurred during daylight conditions, 70.5 percent of total collisions. Collisions that occurred under dark-street light conditions accounted for 25.2 percent of total collisions. Daylight conditions were the highest frequency associated with KSI collision at 47.6 percent, with dark-street lights second at 42.9 percent.
Figure 4.6: Lighting
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 19 Weather
Figure 4.7 s ummarizes the weather conditions for all the collisions in the past five years. Most of the collisions occurred under clear weather, 89.0 percent of total collisions. On a cloudy day, collisions accounted for 6.9 percent of total collisions, while rainy day conditions comprised 2.6 percent of total collisions. All KSI collisions occurred in clear conditions.
Figure 4.7: Weather
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Time of Day
Figure 4.8 summarizes the time of day a collision occurred in the past five years. Most of the collisions occurred in the afternoon, with 21.5 percent associated between 3 PM and 6 PM, followed by 19.2 percent of the collisions between 12 PM and 3 PM. KSI collisions associate the most in the evening/night, during the timeframe between 9 PM and 12 AM.
Figure 4.8: Time of Day
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 20 At-Faut Party
At-fault motorists in collisions in Manhattan Beach tended to be between the ages of 25 and 29, as shown in Figure 4.9. Nearly 10.9 percent of motorists were male in the 25-29 age group. The 20-24 age group accounts for the second-largest share of at-fault motorists, with the number of at-fault motorists decreasing to the 40-44 age group and a small peak in the 45 to 49 age group and in the 60-64 age group. In almost all age groups, men accounted for the majority of at-fault. The chart below does not account for unknown data in terms of gender and age.
Figure 4.9: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 21
4.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
Collision patterns were analyzed by facility type (intersections vs. mid-block locations) using the most recent five years of collision data (2016 to 2020). This analysis allowed for determination of the effect of access control and intersection geometry on collision frequency. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:
● Collisions that occurred within 250 feet of signalized intersections are considered signalized
intersection collisions;
● Collisions that occurred within 150 feet of non-signaliz ed intersections are considered non- signalized intersection collisions;
● Collisions that occur more than 250 feet away from any sign alized intersection and more than 150 feet away from any non-signalized intersection are classified as mid-block collisions.
Table 4.1 shows the total number of crashes associated with e ach type of facility, 56.1 percent of all collisions took place at non-signalized intersections, 35.3 percent of all collisions took place at signalized intersections, and 8.6 percent of collisions took place at midblock locations. Bicycle collisions had the highest frequency occur at midblock locations (54.5 percent of bicycle-related). Pedestrian collisions occurred most at midblock locations, at 57.1% of pedestrian-related collisions.
Table 4.1: Collisions by Facility Type
Transporation
Mode
Signalized
Intersection
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Midblock
Locations Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Total Number
of Collisions 323 35.3% 514 5 6.1% 7 9 8.6% 916 100%
Bicycle
Collisions 7 15.9% 13 2 9.5% 2 4 54.5% 44 100%
Pedestrian
Collisions 5 8 .9% 1 9 33.9% 32 57.1% 56 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.2 shows how the collision type varies by facility typ e. A majority of the collisions occurred at non- signalized intersections, and the most common collision type among them was broadside collision (33.3 percent). Rear end collisions comprise the largest share of crashes at midblock locations (27.8 percent). At signalized intersections, the most common crash type was the rear end (31.9 percent) crash type.
Broadside, rear end, and sideswipe collisions frequently occurred at all facility types, as shown in Table 4 .2. At all facility types, broadside collisions accoun ted for 30.3 percent, rear end collisions account for
23.8 percent, and sideswipe accounts for 21.4 percent of total collisions.
Sideswipe collisions had the greatest consistency in shares across the differing facility types, comprising
17.6 percent of collisions at signalized locations, 23.5 percent at non-signalized locations, and 22.8 percent at midblock locations.
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 22 Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections
Midblock
Locations Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Broadside 90 27.9% 171 33.3% 17 21.5% 278 30.3%
Head-On 12 3.7% 10 1.9% 6 7.6% 28 3.1%
Hit Object 37 11.5% 62 12.1% 10 12.7% 109 11.9%
Not Stated 3 0.9% 8 1.6% 0 0.0% 11 1.2%
Other 4 1.2% 11 2.1% 0 0.0% 15 1.6%
Overturned 2 0.6% 9 1.8% 2 2.5% 13 1.4%
Rear End 103 31.9% 93 18.1% 22 27.8% 218 23.8%
Sideswipe 57 17.6% 121 23.5% 18 22.8% 196 21.4%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 15 4.6% 29 5.6% 4 5.1% 48 5.2%
Total 323 100% 514 100% 79 100% 916 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.3 shows the relationship between street lighting cond itions and facility type. Nearly 96 percent of collisions occurred in the presence of lighting (i.e. either in daylight or night-time with street lighting).
Collisions at non-signalized intersections were particularly likely to have occurred during daylight conditions (74.9 percent). Collisions that occurred under dark conditions most commonly occurred at midblock facility locations, with 2.5 percent of midblock collisions occurred under dark conditions.
Table 4.3: Street Lighting by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections
Midblock
Location Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Dark - No Street Lights 3 0.9% 7 1.4% 2 2.5% 12 1.3%
Dark - Street Lights 102 31.6% 110 21.4% 19 24.1% 231 25.2% Dark - Street Lights Not
Functioning 1 0.3% 2 0.4% 0 0.0% 3 0.3%
Daylight 205 63.5% 385 74.9% 56 70.9% 646 70.5%
Dusk - Dawn 9 2.8% 7 1.4% 2 2.5% 18 2.0%
Not Stated 3 0.9% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 6 0.7%
Total 323 100% 514 100% 79 100% 916 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 23 Table 4.4 tabulates the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) by fac ility type. Overall, the three largest PCF categories included violation of automobile right-of-way (19%), driving under the influence (DUI) of drugs or alcohol (18.8%), and improper turning (18%). The following order was varied across location types:
● At signalized intersections, collisions related to DUI were associated with 17.6 percent, improper
turning with 15.8 percent, and automobile right-of-way with 11.5 percent. ● At non-signalized intersections, collisions related to automobile right-of-way violations were associated with 24.9 percent, improper turning with 19.8 percent, and DUI with 18.3 percent automobile right-of-way violations.
● At midblock locations, collisions related to DUI were associated with 26.6 percent, improper turning with 15.2 percent, and automobile right-of-way with 11.4 percent.
Table 4.4: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections
Midblock
Location Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
- 3 0.9% 2 0.4% 0 0.0% 5 0.5%
Automobile Right of Way 37 11.5% 128 24.9% 9 11.4% 174 19.0% DUI* 57 17.6% 94 18.3% 21 26.6% 172 18.8%
Following Too Closely 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 2 0.2%
Hazardous Parking 1 0.3% 4 0.8% 2 2.5% 7 0.8%
Improper Passing 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 2 2.5% 3 0.3%
Improper Turning 51 15.8% 102 19.8% 12 15.2% 165 18.0%
Other Equipment 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Other Hazardous Violation 3 0.9% 4 0.8% 2 2.5% 9 1.0%
Other Improper Driving 3 0.9% 8 1.6% 1 1.3% 12 1.3%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 9 2.8% 13 2.5% 2 2.5% 24 2.6% Pedestrian Right of Way 7 2.2% 19 3.7% 1 1.3% 27 2.9%
Pedestrian Violation 10 3.1% 5 1.0% 2 2.5% 17 1.9%
Traffic Signals and Signs 41 12.7% 10 1.9% 2 2.5% 53 5.8% Unknown 4 1.2% 18 3.5% 2 2.5% 24 2.6%
Unsafe Lane Change 6 1.9% 4 0.8% 1 1.3% 11 1.2%
Unsafe Speed 83 25.7% 55 10.7% 11 13.9% 149 16.3%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 0.6% 39 7.6% 7 8.9% 48 5.2% Wrong Side of Road 4 1.2% 8 1.6% 1 1.3% 13 1.4%
Total 323 100% 514 100% 79 100% 916 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 24 As mentioned earlier, broadside, rear end, and sideswipe collisions were the most frequently occurring collision type in Manhattan Beach. Automobile right-of-way violation was the most common PCF for broadside collisions (56.8%) and also the most common PCF for all collisions. Unsafe speed was the most common PCF associated with rear end collisions (53.2%). Finally, improper turning was the most common PCF associated with sideswipe collisions (46.4%).
Table 4.5 shows the percentage of crashes associated with aut omobile right-of-way and classified as
broadside crashes. The percentage of broadside collisions caused by automobile right-of-way violations at non-signalized intersections was 70.2 percent and 47.1 percent at midblock locations.
Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions due to Automobile Ri ght-of-Way Violations by Facility Type Facility Type
Total Broadside
Collisions
Broadside
Collisions due to
Automobile
Right-of-Way
Violations
Percentage of
Broadside
Associated with
Automobile
Right-of-Way
Violations
Midblock locations 17 8 47.1%
Non-signalized intersections 171 120 70.2%
Signalized intersections 90 30 33.3%
Total 278 158 56.8%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.6 breaks down the rear end collisions caused by unsaf e speeds by facility type. The percentage of rear end collisions caused by unsafe speed violations was 65 percent at signalized intersections and 44.1 percent at non-signalized intersections.
Table 4.6: Rear End Collisions due to Unsafe Speeds
by Facility Type
Facility Type
Total Rear End
Collisions
Rear End
Collisions due to
Unsafe Speeds
Percentage of
Rear End
Collisions
Associated with
Unsafe Speed
Midblock locations 22 8 36.4%
Non-signalized intersections 93 41 44.1%
Signalized intersections 103 67 65.0%
Total 218 116 53.2%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 25 Table 4.7 shows the percentage of crashes associated with imp roper turning and classified as sideswipe crashes. The percentage of sideswipe collisions caused by improper turning was 47.9 percent at non- signalized intersections and 45.6 percent at non-signalized intersections.
Table 4.7: Improper Turning with Hit Object and Side swipe Collisions by Facility Type Facility Type
Total Sideswipe
Collisions
Sideswipe
Collisions due to
Improper Turning
Percentage of
Sideswipe
Collisions due to
Improper
Turning
Midblock locations 18 7 38.9%
Non-signalized intersections 121 58 47.9%
Signalized intersections 57 26 45.6%
Total 196 91 46.4%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
4.3 GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS
The following series of maps illustrates the prominent collision factors, such as the location of top collision type, primary collision factor, and bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions.
Figure 4.10 illustrates the citywide collision hotspot location in Manhattan Beach. As shown in the
hotspot map, fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred throughout the City, with the most density observed on the Sepulveda Boulevard and Highland Avenue corridors. Sepulveda Boulevard had the highest concentration of crashes.
Figure 4.11 illustrates the location of broadside collisions in correlation with automobile right-of-way
violations.
Figure 4.12 illustrates the location of rear end collisions in correlation with unsafe speed.
Figure 4.13 illustrates the location of sideswipe collisions in correlation with improper turning.
Figure 4.14 illustrates the location of the bicycle- and pedest rian-related collisions citywide.
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 26 Figure 4.10: Citywide Collisions
Source:
Source: SWITRS, 206-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 27 Figure 4.11: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way Violations Source:
Source: SWITRS, 206-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 28 Figure 4.12: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed
Source:
Source: SWITRS, 206-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 29 Figure 4.13: Sideswipe due to Improper Turning
Source:
Source: SWITRS, 206-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 30 Figure 4.14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Source:
Source: SWITRS, 206-2020
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 31
4.4 MANHATTAN BEACH VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES
In the State of California’s OTS Crash Ranking system, Manhattan Beach falls under Group D. This group consists of 94 cities in the state of California with a population between 25,001 and 50,000. Table 4.8 shows t
he City’s 2019 crash ranking among the cities in Group D (1 being the highest or worst and 94 being the lowest or best). Overall, the City’s traffic safety performance raises concerns in two areas:
● The City ranked 7th in bicyclist killed or injured under 15 years old ● The City ranked 12th for bicyclist killed or injured
Table 4.8: 2019 OTS Ranking, Manhattan Beach
Type of Crash
Victims Kill &
Injured
OTS
Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 80 52/94
Alcohol Involved 8 57/94
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 0 56/94
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 1 63/94
Motorcycles 5 28/94
Pedestrians 6 56/94
Pedestrians < 15 0 78/94
Pedestrians 65+ 2 30/94
Bicyclists 12 12/94
Bicyclists < 15 3 7/94
Composite 33 61/94
Type of Crash
Fatal and
Injury Crashes
OTS
Ranking
Speed Related 12 60/94
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 6 58/94
Hit and Run 6 43/94
Type of Arrests
Victims Kill &
Injured
OTS
Ranking
DUI Arrests* 121 80/94
Source: OTS, 2019
* DUI arrest figures are shown for cities only, not counties. The number of cities ranked against may be different than from the number of cities in the other categories. Not all cities report DUI arrests to the Department of Justice.
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 32
4.5 TOP COLLISION LOCATIONS
The initial step of the systemic analysis is evaluating the existing roadway network and its various characteristics. The analysis was divided into intersections and roadway segments, which are the two main ranking methods: average crash frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores.
The description of the ranking methods is discussed in Section 3.2 of this document.
Based on the collision analysis, the high-risk collision intersections and roadway segments in Manhattan Beach are shown in Figure 4.15. Appendix A provided a summary of all the collisions by interse ction.
Figure 4.15 Top Collision Locations
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS
C
ITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 33
Intersection Ranking
This is a general process for identifying potential locations by ranking the intersections based on Crash Frequency and EPDO score. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with various other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations. Table 4.9 shows the top 10 intersections by c
ollision frequency and EPDO score. A majority of the intersections are located on Sepulveda Boulevard. ● Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 1st and EPDO score rank 2nd ● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 2nd and EPDO score rank 5th ● 33rd Street and Sepulveda Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 3rd and EPDO score rank 4th ● 17th Street and Sepulveda Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 4th and EPDO score rank 6th ● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Meadows Avenue: Crash Frequency rank 7th and EPDO score rank 3rd ● Sepulveda Boulevard and Valley Drive: Crash Frequency rank 7th and EPDO score rank 1st
T
able 4.9: Top Intersection Ranking
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
Collisions Broadside Head-On
Hit
Object
Not
Stated Other Rear End Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Control
Type
Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
1 Rosecrans Ave & Sepulveda Blvd 1 3 4 16 24 6 1 4 1 8 2 2 Signal 1 192.0 2 2 Manhattan Beach Blvd & Sepulveda Blvd 3 6 14 23 7 1 2 9 3 1 Signal 2 82.6 5 3 33Rd St & Sepulveda Blvd 1 11 10 22 9 1 10 2 Signal 3 87.6 4 4 17th St & Sepulveda Blvd 3 3 9 15 11 1 1 2 Non-Signal 4 59.3 6 5 14th St & Sepulveda Blvd 1 4 9 14 6 1 1 2 4 Non-Signal 5 44.0 8 6 30th St & Sepulveda Blvd 5 7 12 1 3 8 Signal 6 37.4 9 7 Highland Ave & Rosecrans Ave 2 4 5 11 2 2 3 2 2 Signal 7 50.7 7 8 12th St & Aviation Blvd 1 2 8 11 9 2 Non-Signal 7 30.9 10 9 Manhattan Beach Blvd & Meadows Ave 1 1 9 11 4 3 3 1 Signal 7 139.2 3 10 10th St & Sepulveda Blvd 3 8 11 7 4 Non-Signal 7 26.2 11 11 Sepulveda Blvd & Valley Dr 2 1 5 3 11 4 2 1 1 3 Non-Signal 7 424.6 1
COLLISION SEVERITY C OLLISION TYPE
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 34 Roadway Segment Ranking
The roadway segment rankings are also by Crash Frequency and EPDO scores. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with various other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations. Table 4.10 shows the top four roadway segments by collision fr equency and EPDO score. ● Sepulveda Boulevard from Rosecrans Avenue to Artesia Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 1st and EPDO score rank 1st ● Highland Avenue from 45th Street to 1st Street: Crash Frequency rank 2nd and EPDO score rank 2nd ● Manhattan Beach Boulevard from The Strand to Aviatio n Boulevard: Crash Frequency rank 3rd and EPDO score rank 3rd
Table 4.10: Top Roadway Segment Ranking
ID Roadway From To Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
Collisions Broadside Head-On
Hit
Object Other Rear End Sideswipe
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
1 Sepulveda Boulevard Rosecrans Avenue Artesia Boulevar d 1 4 74 25 115 219 92 4 20 5 61 32 4 1 1882.1 1 2 Highland Avenue 45th Street 1st Street 3 21 11 73 108 22 3 6 2 24 38 13 2 858.6 2 3 Manhattan Beach Boulevard The Strand Aviation Boulevard 1 21 14 67 103 31 3 15 2 25 20 7 3 541.5 3 4 Aviation Boulevard Rosecrans Avenue Artesia Boulevard 1 24 8 33 66 40 4 5 1 6 6 1 4 503.1 4 5 Rosecrans Avenue Ocean Drive Aviation Boulevard 1 17 6 29 53 15 1 6 1 19 6 4 5 412.0 5
COLLISION SEVERITY C OLLISION TYPE
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 35
5.0 OUTREACH
The City had outreached to the community for feedback on potential safety issues with the City's circulation system, pedestrian network, and other transportation safety issues. A total of 79 comments were collected during the outreach event. Most of the residents discussed areas either located close to their residence or on routes commonly traveled for work while dropping kids off at school or during bike rides. The raw public comments are provided in Appendix B. The following summarizes the comments r
eceived.
Many residents complained of speeding and asked for speed bumps on certain corridors. Also, residents complained about pedestrian access to the greenbelt, particularly how stairs for the green belt are not located at existing crosswalks or locations with sidewalks, or had safety concerns about crossing roads passing through the greenbelt. Also, a big percentage of comments were complaining about cracked/uneven walk street and roadway surface. Also, some intersections on this corridor were considered confusing or to be in poor operation.
● Multiple residents asked for an RRFB on Ardmore Ave. & 17th St.
● Manhattan Beach Blvd./Valley Dr./Ardmore Ave.- one reside nt recommended a roundabout at this location (NS4), another requested to add detection for bikes ● Request for new crosswalk to stairs at Valley Dr. & Flour noy Rd. (NS20PB) ● Pacific Ave. & Valley Dr., Pacific Ave. & Ardmore Ave./M arine Ave.- all-way STOP location that received safety complaints. May be candidate to signalize (NS3). One resident recommended adding RRFBs, another putting up a landscaped pedestrian barrier to prevent crossings. ● A resident noted it was very complex for pedestrians to cross the greenbelt at Valley Dr./Ardmore Ave./15th St., as pedestrians currently have to cross four times to reach the other side. ● Manhattan Beach Blvd. & Veterans Parkway- similar location wh ere pedestrians often ignore crossings.
The following locations were also mentioned multiple times:
● Marine Ave. & Sepulveda Blvd.- multiple complaints about the signal operation ● Sepulveda Blvd. & 8th St.- two complaints about stripin g at EB approach ● Marine Ave. between Sepulveda Blvd. and Aviation Blvd.- multiple complaints about speeding ● Two residents asked for a left-turn lane at Manhattan Beach Bl vd. & Poinsettia Ave. (one for EB/WB, the other for NB/SB)
● Flournoy Rd. & Rosecrans Ave. to Flournoy Rd. & Valle y Dr.- listed by three commenters as a place where the City needs to do repairs.
● 8th Street walk street was easily the location mentioned the most, with around 10-15 residents asking for routine repairs to this walk street
● Some residents were concerned about electric bike re gulation or other general concerns of behavior on the Strand (the popular beach bike path)
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 36
6.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The emphasis areas show the City of Mahattan Beach where to focus when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The emphasis areas listed below were identified by citywide collision analysis between the years 2016-2020. The collision analysis data was derived from the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the University of California, Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). ● Young Drivers
● Pedestrian Safety
● Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
● Automobile Right of Way/Broadside Collisions
● Unsafe Speeding
6.1 YOUNG DRIVERS
The collision analysis revealed that drivers under the age of 25 were at fault in 21% of total collisions in the City. Younger drivers' relative lack of experience and judgment makes them more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as speeding or distracted driving. Typically, households in the City own at least one vehicle, and motorists are more inclined to acquire licenses earlier (young drivers). Additionally, the five- year collision data revealed that drivers under the age of 25 caused 15% of DUI-related collisions in Manhattan Beach. Drivers younger than 21, the minimum legal drinking age in California, were responsible for 8% of DUI collisions.
6.2 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Walking is perhaps the most universal form of transportation. The City of Manhattan Beach has high pedestrian activities especially near the school vicinity. Therefore, pedestrian safety is crucial to include in the LRSP. According to the data, pedestrians comprise 6% of collisions and 14% of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions. Although the percentage of collisions is low, the KSI percentage is one of the highest. This makes pedestrians one of the most vulnerable roads users.
6.3 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI)
Driving under the influence (DUI) related collisions were identified as one of the citywide high-frequency collisions. DUI is dangerous since alcohol and drug use impair judgment and perception. The collision analysis revealed that DUI was the second-highest cause of collisions, accounted for 19% of total collisions. Among all the KSI collisions, 33% were associated with DUI. The age groups that were the largest at fault were between the ages of 20-29. This further emphasized the dangers of young drivers
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 37 driving under the influence.
6.4 SPEEDING AND REAR ENDING COLLISIONS
Rear-ends constituted the top three frequent collision type in Manhattan Beach between 2016 and 2020 in the SWITRS database. Manhattan Beach had a substantially higher percentage of broadside collisions, followed by rear end and then sideswipe collisions. however, rear-end crashes caused by unsafe speeding PCF is most prevalent at non-signalized intersections. Approximately 53% of the rear end collisions were assoiated with unsafe speeding. Through-moving motorists are most vulnerable to being rear-ended by speeding or tailgating drivers when they slow down appproaching traffic signals.
6.5 YOUNG AND ELDERLY USERS
Young drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision due to insufficient experience operating a motor vehicle when they are first licensed. Furthermore, young drivers tend to engage in risky driving behaviors, including speeding and distracted driving. The 2016-2020 SWITRS data show that male drivers between the ages of 20 and 24 were responsible for a higher share of collisions in Manhattan Beach than any other age group.
6.6 AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY/BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
Automobile right of way (ROW) collisions were 19% of all primary collision factors (PCF), making it the top PCF. Broadside collisions were 30% of all collision types, making it the number one type of collision.
Broadside collisions due to automobile ROW violations accounted for 57% of broadside collisions. This makes these types of collisions the most common type. The most common cause of a collision in Manhattan Beach is automobile right-of-way (19%). Automobile right-of-way was the leading PCF and with more than 50% the most common cause associated with broadside collisions in Manhattan Beach.
6.7 UNSAFE SPEEDING
Unsafe speeding ranks the fourth-highest PCF, which accounted for 16% of all collisions and 10% of KSI collisions in the City. However, 26% of collisions that occurred at signalized intersections were due to unsafe speed, making this PCF the number one cause of collisions at those intersections. Signalized intersections accounted for 35% of all collisions, making this facility type the second-highest in a number of collisions.
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 38
7.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The recommended engineering countermeasures were derived from the identified emphasis areas and collision patterns from the collision analysis. The City had outreached to the community at the beginning of the LRSP development to improve transportation safety. The recommended countermeasures identified below are based on a combination of collision data and responses from the community. The recommended countermeasures address pedestrian safety, automobile right of way/broadside collisions, unsafe speeding, and emergency services. Figure 7.1 illustrates the location of the recommended c
ountermeasures.
Figure 7.1: Overall Recommended Countermeasure Locat ions
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 39 The top three types of most frequently encountered collisions in Manhattan Beach were broadside, rear end, and sideswipe. The common causes of these three collision types and the typical safety countermeasures addressing each collision type are listed in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywid
e Collisions
Type Causes Potential Countermeasures
Broadside
● Automobile ROW
● Traffic Signals and
S
igns
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or
B
acking
● Wrong Side of Road
● Advanced dilemma zone detection
● Upgrade signal hardware and improve the signal visib ility ● Improve signal timing (yellow, red intervals, pedest rian clearance)
● Restrict turning movements out of driveways
● Restrict parking on intersection approaches
● Improve street lighting
● Install advanced street name signage
Rear End
● Unsafe Speed
● Following Too Closely
● Unsafe Starting or
B
acking
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Driving or Biking under
t
he influence
● Automobile ROW
● Advance Dilemma-Zone Detection
● Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system
● Reduce the number of travel lanes
● Install bike lanes and reduce travel lane width
● Reduce the speed limit/Calm Traffic
● Improve crosswalk visibility
● Install 12-inch signal heads
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning movements on signals
● Install advanced street name signage
● Improve signal timing
Sideswipe
● Improper Turning
● Unsafe Lane Change
● Unknown
● Automobile ROW
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or
B
acking
● Driving under the
i
nfluence
● Improve pavement marking visibility
● Install advanced street name signage
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning movements on signals
● Install parking signs that are easier to interpret
● Stripe red curb at intersection approaches
The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) listed in the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) are directly connected to the Crash Modification Factor (CMF). A CRF is measured in percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific location. It plays an essential role in cost-effectiveness, which is the form of Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR).
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 40
Table 7.2 summarized the list of safety countermeasures inclu ded in the LRSM and applied to this project.
The table summarizes each countermeasure’s applicable crash types, CRF, project life of the recommended improvement, maximum federal reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach.
Table 7.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to Manhatt an Beach LRSP CM No. Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
NS06 Regulatory Signs All 15% 10 100%
NS14 Raised Median All 30% 20 90%
NS20PB Pedestrian Crosswalk Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 10 100%
NS21PB Curb Extension Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 100%
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 100%
R14 Reconfigure Roadway All 30% 20 90%
R36PB Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
S03 Improve Signal Timing All 15% 10 50%
S04 Advanced Dilemma-Zone
Detection All 40% 10 100%
S05 Emergency Vehicle
Preemption Systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 10 100%
Source: Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.5 April 2020 The countermeasure numbers (far left column) in Table 6.2 represent the ID number for the types of i
mprovements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Throughout this document, countermeasures eligible for HSIP funding will have the ID number, and those that are not eligible will not have an ID number.
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 41
7.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Pedestrian-related collisions primarily occurred along Highland Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. A total of 56 pedestrian-related collisions occurred between the years 2016 and 2020. Of all pedestrian collisions, 57% occurred at midblock locations, and 34% occurred at non- signalized intersections. Highland Avenue had the most pedestrian-related collisions compared to all other roadways in the City. Figure 7.2 illustrates the pedestrian-related collisions in Ma nhattan Beach.
The following subsections provided recommended improvements to enhance pedestrian safety.
Figure 7.2: Pedestrian-Related Collisions
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 42
7.1.1 Curb Extensions (NS21PB)
Pedestrian collisions were the most frequent collisions at the intersection of 34th Street and Highland Avenue. The most common primary collision factor (PCF) associated with pedestrians at this intersection was pedestrian right-of-way, which accounted for 50% of pedestrian-related collisions. To enhance the visibility of pedestrians and provide protection from vehicles, curb extensions are recommended at the following locations:
● 34th Street and Highland Avenue
● 35th Street and Highland Avenue
● 36th Street and Highland Avenue
● Marine Avenue and Redondo Avenue
C
urrently, the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) is installed in the locations mentioned above. In addition to the existing RRFB treatment, consider installing a curb extension to enhance pedestrian safety, so pedestrians are more visible to the motorists before crossing. Figure 7.3 illustrates the location o
f the recommended improvements.
Figure 7.3: Curb Extensions
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 43
7.1.2 Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk (R36PB)
Two collisions occurred at Ocean Drive and Rosecrans Avenue between the years 2016-2020. One of the collisions involved a pedestrian, and the other was a vehicle. The intersections along Manhattan Avenue, east of Ocean Drive, also did not have a significant number of collisions. Manhattan Avenue and 35 th
Street was the only location with a pedestrian collision.
The residents' concern about pedestrian safety near the beach area (walk streets) in the City. Although the locations do not have high pedestrian-related collisions, the residents had witnessed near misses and did not feel those locations were safe for pedestrians. Multiple locations along Ocean Drive and Manhattan Avenue were suggested for pedestrian improvements.
The project team reviewed the locations and recommended raised pedestrian crosswalks at the intersections below. The recommended locations along Ocean Drive are all at intersections with similar road configurations. The Strand is a pedestrian-only path, which is parallel to Ocean Drive. ● Ardmore Avenue and 17th Street
● Ocean Drive and Rosecrans Avenue
● Ocean Drive and 35th Street
● Ocean Drive and 33rd Street
● Ocean Drive and 31st Street
● Ocean Drive and 29th Street
● Ocean Drive and 24th Street
● Ocean Drive and 20th Street
● Ocean Drive and 18th Street
● Ocean Drive and 16th Street
● Manhattan Ave and 25th Street
● Manhattan Ave and 29th Street
● Manhattan Ave and 31st Street
● Manhattan Ave and 33rd Street
● Manhattan Ave and 35th Street
A
s shown on the next page, Figure 7.4 illustrates the location of the recommended improve ments.
7.1.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk (NS20PB)
The Strand (also known as the "walk-street") is a pedestrian-only pathway parallel to Ocean Drive, connecting pedestrians to the beach and local businesses. Although there is not a significant number of pedestrian collisions, the locations listed below were areas of safety concern based on the feedback from the residents. Consider installing pedestrian crosswalks at the following locations:
● Valley Drive and Flournoy Road
● Ocean Drive and 27th Street
● Ocean Drive and 23rd Street
● Ocean Drive and Marine Avenue
● Ocean Drive and 21st Street
● Ocean Drive and 15th Street
● Manhattan Avenue and 36th Street
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 44 Pedestrian access via stairs is provided on Valley Drive at Flournoy Road to the Veteran Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt). However, crosswalks are not provided at the intersection, and residents do not feel safe accessing the Veteran Parkway on Valley Drive under the current conditions. Figure 7.5 i
llustrates the location of the recommended improvements.
As shown in Figure 7.5 illustrates the location of the recommended improve ments.
Figure 7.4: Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 45 Figure 7.5: Pedestrian Crosswalk
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 46
7.1.4 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (NS22PB)
The locations listed below are intersections that could improve the pedestrian crossing. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) is recommended at three locations along Manhattan Avenue. Manhattan Avenue runs north and south of Manhattan Beach. Some of the non-signalized intersections along this Street already have existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The intersection of Manhattan Avenue and 12
th Street had the most collisions. Consider installing RRFB at the following locations:
Manhattan Avenue and 12th Street
Manhattan Avenue and 14th Street
Manhattan Avenue and 29th Street
Figure 7.6 illustrates the location of the recommended improve ments.
7.1.5 Flashing Beacon As Advance Warning (NS22PB)
Flashing beacons as advance warning are recommended in five locations on the west side of the City.
These locations are all at non-signalized intersections with no significant number of collisions on the locations. The residents provided multiple comments on these locations, highlighting the need for improving crosswalk visibility and reducing speeding. The flashing beacon as an advance warning is intended to reduce drivers' indecision and variability in their behavior by providing additional information about the roadway status ahead.
Manhattan Avenue and 4
th Street
Valley Drive and Flournoy Road
Highland Avenue and 25th Street
Ardmore Avenue and 17th Street
Figure 7.7 illustrates the location of the recommended improve ments.
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 47 Figure 7.6: RRFB Improvement Locations
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 48 Figure 7.7: Flashing Beacon As Advance Warning Improvement Locations
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 49
7.1.6 MUTCD Regulatory/Warning Sign (NS06)
Bicyclist
The regulatory sign countermeasure involves pedestrian and vehicle signage. The regulatory signs below are focused on pedestrians and bicyclists. Based on the collision data analysis and the residents identified bicyclists traveling on the wrong side of the road near the intersection of Valley Drive and Blanche Road.
There were five collisions, two of which involved a pedestrian and a cyclist. The primary collision factor for the bicycle-related collision was traveling in the wrong side of the road. The location listed below is identified based on the community outreach for this project. Consider the following improvement:
● Install a bicycle wrong way (R5-1b) sign near the inter section of Valley Drive and Blanche Road
Pedestrian
The locations listed below are identified based on the community outreach for this project. The intersections along Ocean Drive are connected to the pedestrian-only path, the Strand. A bicycle path is located adjacent to The Strand. Due to the location's proximity to the beach, the area has high pedestrian activity between Ocean Drive and Highland Avenue corridors. Many community members are concerns about pedestrian safety as it is not safe for adults and children to walk/play along the Strand because of bicyclists and electric scooters riding along The Strand. Currently, nearby streets and the Strand does not have signage to tell users what is prohibited on the pathway (The Strand). More "No Motor Vehicles" and "No Bicycles" signage can make that more clear.
Safety at The Strand is mentioned multiple times in the comments. Many community members are concerned about electric scooters and bikes being on the path. Consider the following improvements:
● Install a pedestrian crossing (W11-2 & W16-7P) sign at the following intersections:
o Ocean Drive and 34th Street
o Ocean Drive and 33rd Street
o Ocean Drive and 32nd Street
o Ocean Drive and 31st Street
o Ocean Drive and 30th Street
o Ocean Drive and 29th Street
o Ocean Drive and 28th Street
o Ocean Drive and 27th Street
o Ocean Drive and 26th Street
o Ocean Drive and 25th Street
o Ocean Drive and 20th Street
o Ocean Drive and 19th Street
o Ocean Drive and 13th Street
● Install a bicycle wrong way (R5-1b) sign on Blanche Road , near the intersection of Valley Drive and Blanche Road
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 50 ● Install a no motor vehicles (R5-3) sign and a no bicycl es (R5-6) sign at the following intersections:
o Manhattan Beach Blvd and The Strand
o Marine Avenue and The Strand
o 23rd Street and The Strand
Figure 7.8 illustrates a map of all the recommended signage lo cations.
Figure 7.8: Pedestrian/Bicyclist Signage Improvement Locations
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 51
7.2 BROADSIDE/AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY COLLISIONS
The broadside collision emphasis area focuses on the primary collision factor associated to automobile right-of-way. Figure 7.9 illustrates the broadside collisions due to Automob ile Right-of-Way within the City. There is a large concentration along Sepulveda Boulevard and some scattered along Highland Avenue and Aviation Boulevard. The project team analyzed these locations and proposed the countermeasures below.
Figure 7.9: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way
Collisions
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 52
7.2.1 MUTCD Regulator Sign (NS06)
Regulatory signs are recommended at two non-signalized intersections. Both of the intersections have a left turn lane with a U-turn prohibition. Both locations had a high frequency of collisions when turning left or making a U-turn at the intersection. The collision analysis revealed that Aviation Boulevard and 12 th Street had ten collisions when vehicles were turning left. Similarly, Sepulveda Boulevard and 10th Street had six. Due to this high frequency of left-turn collisions, consider installing a larger no left turn/U- turn (R3-18) regulatory sign to make this prohibition more clear to drivers. Consider installing the following improvement:
Install a larger no left turn/U-turn (R3-18) regulatory sign Aviation Boulevard and 12th Street
Sepulveda Boulevard and 10th Street
Figure 7.10 illustrates the location of the improvement.
Figure 7.10: Broadside-Related Signage Improvement L ocations
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 53
7.2.2 MUTCD Regulator Sign (NS06)
A raised median is recommended at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and 12th Street. The primary collision factor of more than half of the collisions that occurred at this intersection were automobile right-of-way collisions. Ten out of the twelve collisions occurred at the intersection associated with a vehicle making a left turn or U-turn. Seven of those were broadside collisions due to automobile right of way violations. The raised median may enhance guidance as the motorist approaches the intersection.
Aviation Boulevard and 12
th Street
Figure 7.11 illustrates the location of improvements.
Figure 7.11: Raised Median Improvement Locations
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 54
7.2.3 Road Diet (R14)
The collision analysis revealed that in the El Porto community, most of the collisions were associated with either broadside (10), sideswipe (12), or rear end (7), which comprise of nearly 70% of the collisions on Highland Avenue, between 45
th Street to Rosecrans Avenue. Along Highland Avenue in the El Porto community, three collisions were associated with pedestrians where two were caused by pedestrian right of way.
Highland Avenue is a four-lane roadway with no left-turn lanes provided along the corridor and on-street parking permitted in both directions. However, the on-street parking at the east side of Highland Avenue has parking restrictions during the peak periods and occupies a travel lane during the off-peak periods.
Consider reconfiguring the roadway for Highland Avenue between 45 th Street (north city limit) to 38th
Street by converting the four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with Class II bike lanes. Also, enhance pedestrian safety by widening the sidewalk as the existing sidewalk is five feet wide and recommending a seven-foot sidewalk (extending the sidewalk by two feet). The improvement enhances pedestrian safety and completes the street by providing bicycle infrastructure along the roadway.
The second option was reviewed in reconfiguring Highland Avenue by converting the four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with a center turn. Also, enhance pedestrian safety by widening the sidewalk as the existing sidewalk is five feet wide and recommending a seven-foot sidewalk (extending the sidewalk by two feet). The improvement would remove the peak period parking restriction, allowing vehicles to park all day at the east side of Highland Avenue. Also, the improvement may reduce the broadside, sideswipe, and rear end collisions.
Figure 7.12 illustrates the roadway reconfiguration for the two options. Figure 7.13 illustrates a typical
c
ross-section of the improvements,
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 55 Figure 7.12 Highland Avenue Roadway Reconfiguration
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 56 Figure 7.13 Typical Cross Section on Highland Avenue
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 57
7.3 UNSAFE SPEEDING
Collisions associated with unsafe speeding in the City occurred along the major roadways. Figure 7.14 s
hows a large concentration along Sepulveda Boulevard, Manhattan Avenue, Rosecrans Avenue, and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The collision analysis revealed that most unsafe speeding-related collisions occurred at non-signalized intersections. Locations with high collision frequencies associated with unsafe speed are identified, and consider installing advanced dilemma zone detection.
Figure 7.14 Unsafe Speeding Collisions
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 58
7.3.1 Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection (S04)
As shown in Figure 12, the Sepulveda Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard corridors had high- frequency collisions associated with the PCF, unsafe speeding. The intersection of 30th Street and Sepulveda Boulevard had more than half of the collisions with unsafe speeding, resulting in rear ends.
Based on the collision analysis, the vehicle at fault either proceeding straight, slowing down, or coming to a stop. Consider installing advanced dilemma-zone detection at the following locations:
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Manhattan
A
venue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Highland
A
venue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Valley Drive
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Pacific Avenue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Poinsettia
A
venue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Sepulveda
B
oulevard (Caltrans jurisdiction)
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Target
D
riveway
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Meadows
A
venue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Aviation
B
oulevard
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Rowell Avenue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Peck Avenue
Manhattan Beach Boulevard at Redondo
A
venue
Sepulveda Boulevard at 2nd Street (Caltrans
jurisdiction)
Sepulveda Boulevard at 30th Street (Caltrans
jurisdiction)
Sepulveda Boulevard at 33rd Street (Caltrans
jurisdiction)
Sepulveda Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue
(
Caltrans jurisdiction)
Sepulveda Boulevard at Marine Avenue
(
Caltrans jurisdiction)
Sepulveda Boulevard at Manhattan Beach
B
oulevard (Caltrans jurisdiction)
Rosecrans Avenue at Highland Avenue
Rosecrans Avenue at Blanche Boulevard
Rosecrans Avenue at Pacific Avenue
Rosecrans Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard
(
Caltrans jurisdiction)
Rosecrans Avenue at Village Drive
Rosecrans Avenue at Marriott Drive
Rosecrans Avenue at Market Place
Rosecrans Avenue at Douglas Street
Rosecrans Avenue at Continental Circle
Rosecrans Avenue at Aviation Boulevard
F
igure 7.15 illustrates the location of improvements.
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 59 Figure 7.15 Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection Improvement Locations
7.3.2 Improving Signal Timing (S03)
The collision analysis revealed that Manhattan Beach Boulevard had a high frequency of collisions due to unsafe speed. Twenty-three (23) collisions occurred on Manhattan Beach Boulevard between Meadows Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. Seven (7) of those collisions were DUI's, ten (10) were unsafe speeding, and six (6) were traffic signal and sign violations. More than half of those collisions occurred while the vehicle was at-fault, proceeding straight as they traveled along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Consider
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 60 improving signal timing for the segment of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, between Sepulveda Boulevard and Meadows Avenue. Figure 7.16 illustrates the locations of improvement. ● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard (Caltrans j urisdiction) ● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Target driveway*
● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Meadows Avenue*
* The intersection is currently part of the TSSP project Figure 7.16 Signal Timing Improvement Locations
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 61
7.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES
7.4.1 Emergency Vehicle Preemption Systems (S05)
Currently, the City has an Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system installed on a majority of the signalized intersections. The EVP system in the City is either equipped with the infrared or GPS unit at the signalized intersection. Signal preemption allows emergency vehicles to interrupt a normal signal cycle and proceed through the intersection more quickly and safely. The EVP system may improve the overall emergency response team's response time.
Consider installing the GPS unit of the vehicle preemption system at the following intersections. This would complete a citywide implementation of providing an EVP system at all traffic signals. Figure 7.17 i
llustrates the improvement locations.
● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue
● Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Highland Avenue
● 15th Street and Highland Avenue
Figure 7.17 EVP Improvement Locations
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 62
8.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents the non-infrastructure safety measures to Manhattan Beach roadway safety needs.
The program promotes safe behavior in each plan’s identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.
8.1 YOUNG DRIVERS
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) currently offers a program to teach driving safety to newly-licensed drivers called the "START SMART" program. The "START SMART" program offers traffic courses to teenagers who are ready to get behind the wheel and who have either signed up voluntarily or been referred by the court. The classes are usually hosted at a local CHP office and are accompanied by a mobile app with driving safety tips.
Although the City does not offer many programs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website offers educational resources such as Teen Driving programs to help educate teen drivers on common safety problems teens should avoid. The website also offers education on the consequences of certain road violations, such as illegal alcohol use of minors, wearing a seat belt use, distracted driving, and much more. These are helpful resources for the youth to use, particularly those working on getting their driver's license. However, more programs need to be available and accessible to young drivers to reduce crashes.
8.1.1 Recommendations
Education:
● Incorporate the "START SMART" into the high school cu rriculum. Move the class location from the CHP office to school campuses in the City and allow students to take the classes for elective units ● Develop a pilot education program for teens and young adu lts to encourage good driving behaviors. These pilot programs can be held at K-12 schools and at colleges and universities ● Develop a teen and young adult course module that is free on the City's website. This course can offer safety tips and the rules of the road
● Start a social media campaign at local middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities to encourage students to repost videos on safe driving and the rules of the road. The campaign can offer prizes/rewards at random to encourage students to post the videos or images Enforcement
● Identify areas where there are high numbers of young driv ers involved in a collision. These areas can have more enforcement throughout the day, particularly at the time of day where most of these collisions occur
8.1.2 Funding Sources
Table 8.1 presents potential funding sources for programs addressi ng safety challenges faced by young drivers
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 63 Table 8.1: Young Drivers Programs Funding Sources
Description Agency Responsible
Funding
Program
EDUCATION
Incorporate the "START SMART" into the high school curriculum.
Move the class location from the CHP office to school campuses in the City.
Manhattan Beach Police
Department
Manhattan Beach
Unified School District
OTS
Grants
Develop pilot education programs for teens and young adults to encourage good driving behaviors. These pilot programs can be in K-12 schools or colleges/universities.
City of Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach
Unified School District
OTS
Grants
Develop a teen and young adult-specific module that is free on the City's website. This course can offer safety tips and the rules of the road.
City of Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach
Unified School District
OTS
Grants
Start a social media campaign at local middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities to encourage students to repost videos on safe driving and road rules. The campaign can offer prizes/rewards at random to those that post those videos.
This can encourage students to post videos or images.
City of Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach
Unified School District
OTS
Grants
ENFORCEMENT
Identify areas where there are high numbers of young drivers involved in a collision. These areas can have more enforcement throughout the day, mainly when most of these collisions occur.
Police Department OTS
Grants
8.2 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Currently, the City of Manhattan Beach has a pedestrian safety program called the Directed Enforcement to Educate Right-of-way offenders (DETER Program). This program focuses on educating the public on pedestrian safety by targeting uncontrolled intersections with high vehicular volumes and pedestrian crossings. The program has both an education and enforcement component. The educational component is through message boards, literature and brochures, and information on their program website. 1 8.2.1 Recommendations
Education
Launch an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian rights. This can include:
● Advertising on the radio, streaming services (e.g., Pan dora/Spotify) or social media2
1 Manhattan Beach DETER Program https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/police-de partment/programs-and-services/traffic-team 2 For an example of what such an ad might sound like, see: https://www.sticktothelimitsf.org/
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 64 ● Neighborhood lawn sign campaigns – encourage residents t o post signs urging drivers to slow down/stop for pedestrians3. This may be targeted at residential areas where residents raise concerns about pedestrian safety
● Incorporate pedestrian safety education into physical edu cation classes in the Manhattan Beach Unified School District
● Promote the campaign on awareness for police officers to e nforce pedestrian-related violations Enforcement
Identify targeted enforcement areas with a history of pedestrians involved collisions or where pedestrians are known to engage in unsafe maneuvers.
8.2.2 Funding Sources
Table 8.2 presents potential funding sources for programs add ressing safety challenges for bicyclist and pedestrian safety.
Table 8.2: Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources
Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program
EDUCATION
Launch an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian rights.
C
ity of Manhattan
Beach O TS Grants
Incorporate pedestrian safety education into physical education classes.
M
anhattan Beach
Unified School
District
OTS Grants
Promote the campaign on awareness for police officers to enforce pedestrian-related violations. P
olice Department OTS Grant
ENFORCEMENT
Identify targeted enforcement areas where pedestrians face a high risk of collision or tend to engage in unsafe practices. Police Department OTS Grants
8.3 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Currently, the City of Manhattan Beach does not have any programs specifically for driving under the influence. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) offers educational resources on the consequences of certain road violations, such as illegal alcohol of minors. They have a website with their DUI public awareness campaign. Statistics, public videos, and state safety grant programs for driving under the influence. This is an excellent resource for drivers to utilize to get
3 A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer a Communities for Walking and Biking—Safety | Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_ walkguide/sec3.cfm
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 65 educated on the dangers of DUI.
8.3.1 Recommendations
Education
Develop a citywide public awareness campaign regarding the safety risks of driving under the influence through social media and news outlets
I
mplement targeted safety educational programs for young adults and teenagers in high school and college. This educational program can educate the youth on the dangers of driving under the influence and the consequences
C
reate an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, statistics, and videos of DUI's Enforcement
Deploy targeted enforcement at non-signalized intersections with a history of arrest and collisions related to driving under the influence
8.3.2 Funding Sources
Table 8.3 presents potential funding sources for programs add ressing safety challenges for driving under the influence.
Table 8.3: Driving under the influence Program Fundi ng Sources Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program
EDUCATION
Develop a citywide public awareness campaign regarding the safety risks of driving under the influence through social media and news outlets
C
ity of Manhattan
Beach O TS Grants
Implement targeted safety educational programs for young adults and teenagers in high school and college. This educational program can educate the youth on the dangers of driving under the influence and the consequences
M
anhattan Beach
Unified School
District
OTS Grants
Create an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, statistics, and videos of DUI's
C
ity of Manhattan
Beach OTS Grant
ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at non-signalized intersections with a history of arrest and collisions related to driving under the influence
Police
D
epartment OTS Grants
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 66
8.4 AUTOMOBILE RIGHT-OF-WAY/BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
Currently, the City has no existing programs targeting automobile right of way violations and broadside collisions. The City does, however, have an Area Traffic Officer Program. This program divides the City of Manhattan Beach into four areas. Each of those areas has a traffic officer that is responsible for investigating and resolving traffic-related concerns and complaints. This program allows community members to have direct contact with each area assigned traffic officer to ensure traffic-related issues are enforced.
4 8.4.1 Recommendations
Education
Create a public awareness campaign through social media platforms and local news outlets regarding unsafe driving leading to common collisions such as broadside collisions due to automobile right of way violations
Present the dangers of automobile right of way violations at high schools during school assemblies and through flyers for parents of students, adults at community events, and other special events Provide online resources to communicate the dangers of automobile right of way violations as well as the rules of the road. The site can also include collisions statistics and can link the public awareness campaign Enforcement
Deploy targeted enforcement at key intersections or roadways with a history of automobile right of way violations and broadside collisions
8.4.2 Funding Sources
Table 8.4 presents potential funding sources for programs add ressing safety challenges for automobile right of way violations and broadside collisions.
Table 8.4: Automobile Right of Way/Broadside, Collis ions Program Funding Sources Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program
EDUCATION
Create a public awareness campaign through social media platforms and local news outlets regarding unsafe driving leading to common collisions such as broadside collisions due to automobile right of way violations
C
ity of Manhattan
Beach O TS Grants
Present the dangers of automobile right of way violations at high schools during school assemblies and through flyers for parents of students, adults at community events, and other special events C
ity of Manhattan
Beach, Manhattan
Beach Unified
School District
OTS Grants
4 Area Traffic Officer Program https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/police-de partment/programs-and-services/traffic-team
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 67 Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program
Provide online resources to communicate the dangers of
automobile right of way violations as well as the rules of the road.
The site can also include collisions statistics and can link the public awareness campaign
C
ity of Manhattan
Beach OTS Grant
ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at key intersections or roadways with a history of automobile right of way violations and broadside collisions
Police
D
epartment OTS Grants
8.5 UNSAFE SPEEDING
Currently, the City has no existing programs targeting unsafe speeding. As mentioned in the automobile right of way/broadside emphasis area, the City has an Area Traffic Officer Program for community members to report traffic-related complaints.
8.5.1 Recommendations
Education
Develop a social media campaign communicating the dangers of speeding Host presentations and distribute flyers at community centers and high schools with infographics regarding speeding in Manhattan Beach
Install roadway signs along key roadways regarding the dangers of speeding Create an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, statistics, and videos on speeding
Enforcement
technologies display passing drivers' travel speed below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus showing whether drivers are traveling over the speed limit5
I
nstall Active Speed Monitors or Speed Trailers at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding6 Expand the ticketing operations in which police officers are equipped with radar or lidar technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.
5 SRTS Guide: Active Speed Monitors. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/active_s peed_monitor.cfm 6 SRTS Guide: Speed Trailers. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/speed_tr ailer.cfm
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 68
8.5 2 Funding Sources
Table 8.5 presents potential funding sources for programs add ressing safety challenges for unsafe speed.
Table 8.5: Unsafe Speed Program Funding Sources
Description
Agency
Responsible Funding Program
EDUCATION
Develop a social media campaign communicating the dangers of speeding
City of Manhattan
Beach OTS Grants
Host presentations and distribute flyers at community centers and high schools with infographics regarding speeding in Manhattan Beach
City of Manhattan
Beach, Manhattan
Beach Unified
School District
OTS Grants
Install roadway signs along key roadways regarding the dangers of speeding
City of Manhattan
Beach OTS Grant
Create an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, statistics, and videos on speeding
City of Manhattan
Beach OTS Grant
ENFORCEMENT
Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding. These technologies display passing drivers' travel speed below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus showing whether drivers are traveling over the speed limit
7 Police
Department
OTS Grants,
Advanced
Transportation and
Congestion
Management
Technologies
Deployment Program
Install Active Speed Monitors or Speed Trailers at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding
8 Police
Department OTS Grant
Expand the ticketing operations in which police officers are equipped with radar or lidar technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.
Police
Department OTS Grant
8.6 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund non-engineering roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) aims to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and support
7 SRTS Guide: Active Speed Monitors. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/active_s peed_monitor.cfm 8 SRTS Guide: Speed Trailers. (2015, July). http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/speed_tr ailer.cfm
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 69 Multi-modal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing any one or more of ten priority areas, including driving under the influence (DUI), distracted driving, pedestrian and bicycle safety, law enforcement, safety data collection, and marketing/publicity campaigns.
At the federal level, the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds safety projects on any public roadway. The program mainly funds engineering projects, but the legislation that created the program permits funding for law enforcement and data collection efforts. Table 8.6 summarizes the funding opportunities Table 8.6 Transportation Safety Funding Summary
Agency Source Eligible Programs
Areas
Addressed
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
I
mprovement
Program (HSIP)
Any work on public roads, bikeways and pedestrian
paths/trails. For the most part, only engineering
projects are eligible but the FAST act permits
funding for data collection by law enforcement 1,2.
Data Collection
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced
T
ransportation
and Congestion
Management
Technologies
Deployment
Program
Funds advanced transportation and congestion
management technologies to improve safety,
efficiency and performance. Examples of funded
project types include advanced traveler information
systems and data collection and analysis efforts 3.
Digital
Enforcement;
Technology
Partnerships
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active
T
ransportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects that improve the safety
or increase the mode share of bicycling and walking.
Additional program objectives include reducing
emissions and enhancing public health 4.
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Education and
Enforcement
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Sustainable
C
ommunities
Grant Program
The program awards "Competitive Grants" to local
governments. These grants prioritize projects that
reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, support multi-
modal transportation, involve stakeholder/
community engagement and support related plans
like the California Transportation Plan and California
Complete Streets Framework5 .
Active
Transportation
Speed and
Education
California Office Office of Traffic Programs should address one of ten priority areas DUI
NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 70 Agency Source Eligible Programs
Areas
Addressed
of Traffic Safety Safety (OTS)
G
rants
(six relevant ones listed to the right). Grant recipients should expect to wait up to 90 days before being
reimbursed/funded, and should be able to provide
traffic safety data to justify funded programs 6.
Distracted
Driving
Ped/Bike Safety
Police
Enforcement
Roadway Safety
and Data
Collection
Social
Media/Marketing
Sources:
● Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, April 2 016 ● Highway safety improvement program, Pub. L. No. 148, 2 3 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148. ● Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Tec hnologies Deployment. February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/advtrans congmgmtfs.cfm. ● 2021 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 25 , 2020. Resolution G-20-31. ● California Department of Transportation. Sustainable T ransportation Planning Grant Program. December 2019. ● California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Fe deral Fiscal Year 2020. December 2019.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 71
9.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
This section provides the project scope, collision reduction benefits calculation, cost estimation, and Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio analysis. This section also discusses and summarizes the project prioritization for the HSIP application.
9.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS
The development of project scopes involves identifying one or more specific countermeasures at potential locations for safety improvements. Expected benefits are derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the expected crashes. This involves:
● Identifying the current number of crashes without treatm ent
● Applying CRFs by type and severity
● Applying a benefit value by crash severity
● Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis. These include:
● Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project.
● For a countermeasure to be utilized in the B/C ratio cal culations, it must represent a minimum of 15 percent of the project’s total construction cost. This is intended to ensure that minor and insignificant project elements are not misrepresented to the agency's major safety effort.
An engineer determining the benefits of newly installed infrastructure first determines the number of collisions with the potential to be prevented by the improvement. The engineer then applies the CRF, which gives the rough percentage of crashes that would be prevented. The next step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is multiplying the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. The expected “benefit” value for a project is the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. The source for the costs by collision severity level was taken from Appendix D of the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, as discussed in Section 3.2.
The final step in calculating the total safety project benefits is to divide the benefits by the number of years the collision data was collected (five years for this project) and multiply this value by the project life in years.
For this LRSP, instead of calculating project benefits manually, project benefits were derived from entering collision data directly into the HSIP Analyzer tool. The tool auto-calculates project collision reduction benefits based on the method discussed above, and reduces benefits calculated if more than one project is included due to cumulative effects.
The safety project scopes are listed in Table 9.1, including the applicable countermeasure category f or each
improvement and benefits calculated according to the method above.
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 72 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
1 Manhattan Beach
Boulevard, from
Manhttan Avenue
to Aviation
Boulevard
S04
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Manhattan Beach Blvd (eastbound & westbound approaches) at all traffic signals between Manhattan Avenue and Aviation Boulevard. This would include the following cross streets:
- Manhattan Avenue
- Highland Avenue
- Meadows Avenue
- Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue
- Rowell Avenue
- Pacific Avenue
- John Street
- Peck Avenue
- Poinsettia Avenue
- Redondo Avenue
- Sepulveda Blvd (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- Aviation Boulevard
- Target Driveway
All 40% 10
2 Sepulveda
Boulevard, from
30th Street to
Manhattan Beach
Boulevard
S04
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Sepulveda Blvd (northbound & southbound approaches) at the following cross streets:
- 30th Street (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- 33rd Street (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- Rosecrans Avenue (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- Marine Avenue (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- 2nd Street (Caltrans jurisdiction)
- Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Caltrans jurisdiction)
All 40% 10
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 73 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
3 Rosecrans Ave,
from Highland
Ave to Aviation
Blvd
S04
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Sepulveda Blvd (eastbound & westbound approaches) at the following cross streets:
- Highland Avenue
- Apollo Street
- Blanche Bouleveard
- Douglas Street/ Redondo Avenue
- Pacific Avenue
- Aviation Boulevard
- Sepulveda Boulevard
- Village Drive
- Marriott Drive/Nash Street
All 40% 10
4 Manhattan
Avenue, from
25th Street to
35th Street
(Multiple
Locations)
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 25th Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 29th Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 31st Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 33rd Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 35th Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 74 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
5 Ocean Drive, from
34th Street to
13th Street
NS06 Regulatory Signs
● Install a "Pedestrian Crossing"(W11-2 & W16-7P) sign at (part of CIP projects for raised crosswalks):
- North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 34th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 33rd Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 32nd Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 31st Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 30th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 29th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 28th Street - Southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 27th Street
- North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 26th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 25th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 20th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 19th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 13th Street All 15% 10
6 Ocean Drive, from
Rosecrans
Avenue to 16th
Street (Multiple
Locations)
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ocean Drive & Rosecrans Avenue intersection - Intersection of Ocean Drive & 35th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 33rd Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 31st Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 29th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 24th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 20th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 18th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 16th Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 75 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
7 Ocean Drive, from
36th Street to
15th Street
(Multiple
Locations)
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- South leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 27th Street - North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 23rd Street
- North leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & Marine Avenue - North leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 21st Street - North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 15th Street
- North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 36th Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 10
8 The Strand, from
Marine Avenue to
23rd Street
NS06 Regulatory Signs
● Install a "No Motor Vehicles" (R5-3) & a "No Bicycles"(R5-6) at:
- North & southbound approach of the Manhattan Beach Blvd & The Strand intersection
- North & southbound approach of Marine Avenue & The Strand intersection
- North & southbound approach of 23rd Street & The Strand intersection
All 15% 10
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 76 9 Manhattan
Avenue, from 1st
Street to
Rosecrans
Avenue
NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks along - North and south leg of 1st St & Manhattan Ave
- 2nd St & Manhattan Ave
- 3rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 4th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 5th St & Manhattan Ave
- 6th St & Manhattan Ave
- 7th St & Manhattan Ave
- 8th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 9th St & Manhattan Ave
- 10th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 11th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 12th St & Manhattan Ave
- 13th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg 14th St & Manhattan Ave
- 15th St & Manhattan Ave
- Marine Ave & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 23rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 24th St & Manhattan Ave
- 25th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 26th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 27th St & Manhattan Ave
- 29th St & Manhattan Ave
- 30th St & Manhattan Ave
- 31st St & Manhattan Ave
- 32nd St & Manhattan Ave
- 33rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 34th St & Manhattan Ave
- 35th St & Manhattan Ave
- Rosecrans Ave & Manhattan Ave
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 77 10 Ocean Drive, from
2nd Street to
Rosecrans
Avenue
NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks along Ocean Dr:
- 2nd St & Ocean Dr - 3rd St & Ocean Dr - 4th St & Ocean Dr - 5th St & Ocean Dr - 6th St & Ocean Dr - 7th St & Ocean Dr - 8th St & Ocean Dr - 9th St & Ocean Dr - 10th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of Manhattan Beach Blvd & Ocean Dr - 13th St & Ocean Dr
- 16th St & Ocean Dr
- 17th St & Ocean Dr
- 18th St & Ocean Dr
- 19th St & Ocean Dr
- 20th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of Marine Ave & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of 23rd St & Ocean Dr
- 24th St & Ocean Dr
- 25th St & Ocean Dr
- North leg of 26th St & Ocean Dr
- South leg of 27th St & Ocean Dr
- North and South leg of 28th St & Ocean Dr
- 29th St & Ocean Dr
- 30th St & Ocean Dr
- 31st St & Ocean Dr
- 32nd St & Ocean Dr
- 33rd St & Ocean Dr
- 34th St & Ocean Dr
- 35th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of 36th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of Rosecrans Ave St & Ocean Dr
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 78 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
11 Highland Avenue,
from 2nd Street
to 45th Street
NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks at:
- North and south leg of 5th St & Highland Avenue
- 6th St & Highland Avenue
- 7th St & Highland Avenue
- 8th St & Highland Avenue
- 9th St & Highland Avenue
- 10th St & Highland Avenue
- 11th St & Highland Avenue
- North and south leg of 12th St & Highland Avenue
- North leg of 13th St & Highland Avenue
- North leg of 14th St & Highland Avenue
- 17th St & Highland Avenue
- 18th St & Highland Ave
- 19th St & Highland Ave
- 25th St & Highland Ave
- North leg of 26th St & Highland Ave
- South leg of 27th St & Highland Ave
- 29th St & Highland Ave
- 30th St & Highland Ave
- 32nd St & Highland Ave
- South leg of 41st St & Highland Ave
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
12 Highland Avenue,
from 45th Street
to 38th Street
(Option 1)
R14 Reconfigure
Roadway
● Reconfigure roadway to provide bike lanes on Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th Street
- Install 5' bike lanes
- Stripe edgeline for the on-street parking (remove peak period restrictions)
- Restripe roadway to reduce travel lane width
- Widen sidewalk by 2' (existing sidewalk width is 5' and recommending a 7' sidewalk)
All 30% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 79 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
13 Highland Avenue,
from 45th Street
to 38th Street
(Option 2)
R14 Reconfigure
Roadway
● Reconfigure roadway to provide bike lanes on Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th Street
- Stripe edgeline for the on-street parking (remove peak period restrictions)
- Remove one travel lane from each direction
- Add center turn lane
- Widen sidewalk by 2' (existing sidewalk width is 5' and recommending a 7' sidewalk)
All 30% 20
14 Manhattan Beach
Blvd between
Sepulveda Blvd
and Meadows
Ave
S03 Improve Signal
Timing
● Improve Signal Timing:
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Sepulveda Blvd (Caltrans jurisdiction) - Manhattan Beach Blvd & Target Dwy (TSS P project)
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Meadows Ave (TSS P project)
All 15% 10
15 Emergency
Vehicle
Preemption
System (Multiple
Locations)
S05
Emergency
Vehicle
Preemption
Systems
● Install EVP (GPS units) at the following intersections:
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Manhattan Ave
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Highland Ave
- 15th St & Highland Ave
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 10
16 12th St and
Aviation Blvd NS06 Regulatory Signs
● Upgrade to larger "no left turn/u-turn" regulatory sign in the northbound approach at the intersection of Aviation Blvd & 12th Street
All 15% 10
17 12th St and
Aviation Blvd NS14 Raised Median ● Install raised median in the north leg of the intersection of Aviation Blvd & 12th Street All 25% 20
18 Sepulveda Blvd
and 10th St NS06 Regulatory Signs
● Upgrade to larger "no left turn/u-turn" regulatory sign in the southbound approach of the intersection of Sepulveda Blvd & 10th Street
All 15% 10
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 80 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
19 Highland Avenue
& 35th Street NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at
- Northeast & westside corner of the Highland Avenue & 35th Street intersection (t-intersection)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
20 Highland Avenue
& 34th Street NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at:
- Northeast & northwest corner of the Highland Avenue & 34th Street intersection
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
21 Highland Avenue
& 36th Street NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at:
- Northeast & southwest corner of the Highland Avenue & 36th Street intersection
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
22 Pacific
Avenue/Ardmore
Avenue/Valley
Drive/Marine
Avenue
NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at:
- Southeast corner of the Marine Avenue & Pacific Avenue interesection
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
23 Marine Avenue
and Redondo
Avenue
NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at:
- Northwest corner of the Marine Avenue & Redondo Avenue intersection
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
24 Valley Drive and
Poinsettia Avenue NS21PB Curb Extension
● Install a curb extension at:
- North corner (Valley Drive) of the Valley Drive & Poinsettia Avenue intersection
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
25 Ardmore Avenue
& 17th Street NS21PB Curb Extension ● Install a curb extension at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street intersection Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 81 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
26 Ardmore Avenue
& 17th Street NS21PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street intersection Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
27 Ardmore Avenue
& 17th Street NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at:
- Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street (existing CIP project)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
28 Valley Drive &
Blanche Road NS06 Regulatory Signs
● Install a "Bicycle Wrong Way" (R5-1b) sign at:
- East & westbound approach at the Valley Dr & Blanche Rd intersection
All 15% 10
29 Ardmore Avenue
& 18th Street NS21PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street intersection Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
30 Ardmore Avenue
& 18th Street NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at:
- Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
31 Manhattan
Avenue & 36th
Street
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- North & south leg at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 36th Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 10
32 Valley Drive &
Flournoy Road NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- South leg (Valley Drive) at the intersection of Valley Drive and Flournoy Road
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 10
33 Valley Drive &
Flournoy Road NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at:
- South leg (Valley Drive) of the intersection of Valley Drive & Flournoy Road
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 82 Table 9.1: Safety Project Scopes
Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
34 40th Street and
Highland Avenue NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
-North leg at the intersection of 40th Street and Highland Avenue Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 10
35 2nd Street &
Johnson Street NS22PB
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
● Install an RRFB at:
- East & west leg of the intersection of 2nd Street & Johnson Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20
9.2 COST ESTIMATE
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each
countermeasure. Cost estimates were prepared based on recent bid tabulations and estimates of current construction costs consisting of unit-based cost estimates and contingencies. The costs include construction costs and include engineering and administrative costs. A contingency is added to the construction cost of each project depending on the complexity of the scope. The engineering and administration cost is assumed to be 25 percent of the total construction cost, including the contingency. The cost estimates are included in Appendix C.
9.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO
A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project's Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits than costs.
Based on Caltrans’s need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for-projects, the benefit and cost calculations were completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The B/C ratios were used to identify the projects with high cost- effectiveness that may have a greater chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects. Table 9.2 summarizes the p
roposed safety projects with respective BCRs. The detail of the safety project, including the BCR analysis summary table, is provided in Appendix D.
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 83 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 Manhattan Beach
Boulevard, from
Manhttan Avenue
to Aviation
Boulevard
S04 Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
91 $6,074,000 $4,859,200 $878,143 5.5 100% $878,143 $0
2 Sepulveda
Boulevard, from
30th Street to
Manhattan Beach
Boulevard
S04 Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
91 $6,105,000 $4,884,000 $453,631 10.8 100% $453,631 $0 3 Rosecrans Ave, from
Highland Ave to
Aviation Blvd
S04 Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection
51 $2,656,700 $2,125,360 $688,106 3.1 100% $688,106 $0
4 Manhattan Avenue,
from 25th Street to
35th Street
(Multiple Locations)
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
2 $155,600 $217,840 $799,053 0.3 90% $719,148 $79,905
5 Ocean Drive, from
34th Street to 13th
Street
NS06 Regulatory Signs 5 $2,583,200 $774,960 $130,370 5.9 100% $130,370 $0 6 Ocean Drive, from
Rosecrans Avenue to
16th Street (Multiple
Locations)
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
1 $142,300 $199,220 $1,635,379 0.1 90% $1,471,841 $163,538
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 84 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
7 Ocean Drive, from
36th Street to 15th
Street (Multiple
Locations)
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
1 $2,530,000 $1,265,000 $115,140 11.0 100% $115,140 $0
8 The Strand, from
Marine Avenue to
23rd Street
NS06 Regulatory Signs 1 $13,300 $3,990 $39,516 0.1 100% $39,516 $0 9 Manhattan Avenue,
from 1st Street to
Rosecrans Avenue
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
7 $744,300 $1,042,020 $930,000 1.1 100% $930,000 $0
10 Ocean Drive, from
2nd Street to
Rosecrans Avenue
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
3 $2,685,600 $3,759,840 $3,080,867 1.2 100% $3,080,867 $0 11 Highland Avenue,
from 2nd Street to
45th Street
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
16 $1,521,400 $2,129,960 $1,852,469 1.1 100% $1,852,469 $0 12 Highland Avenue,
from 45th Street to
38th Street (Option
1)
R14 Reconfigure
Roadway
25 $2,841,000 $3,409,200 $4,643,300 0.7 90% $4,178,970 $464,330 13 Highland Avenue,
from 45th Street to
38th Street (Option
2)
R14 Reconfigure
Roadway
25 $2,841,000 $3,409,200 $4,601,098 0.7 90% $4,140,988 $460,110
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 85 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
14 Manhattan Beach
Blvd between
Sepulveda Blvd and
Meadows Ave
S03 Improve Signal
Timing
38 $3,200,300 $960,090 $52,620 18.2 50% $26,310 $26,310 15 Emergency Vehicle
Preemption System
(Multiple Locations)
S05 Emergency Vehicle
Preemption
Systems
0 $0 $0 $143,256 0.0 100% $143,256 $0
16 12th St and Aviation
Blvd
NS06 Regulatory Signs 11 $410,500 $123,150 $14,385 8.6 100% $14,385 $0 17 12th St and Aviation
Blvd
NS14 Raised Median 11 $410,500 $410,500 $77,750 5.3 90% $69,975 $7,775 18 Sepulveda Blvd and
10th St
NS06 Regulatory Signs 12 $430,000 $129,000 $15,113 8.5 100% $15,113 $0 19 Highland Avenue &
35th Street
NS21PB Curb Extension 3 $175,100 $245,140 $263,973 0.9 100% $263,973 $0 20 Highland Avenue &
34th Street
NS21PB Curb Extension 0 $0 $0 $263,973 0.0 100% $263,973 $0 21 Highland Avenue &
36th Street
NS21PB Curb Extension 1 $80,900 $113,260 $263,973 0.4 100% $263,973 $0 22 Pacific Avenue/
Ardmore Avenue/
Valley Drive/ Marine
Avenue
NS21PB Curb Extension 1 $80,900 $113,260 $152,006 0.7 100% $152,006 $0
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 86 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
23 Marine Avenue and
Redondo Avenue
NS21PB Curb Extension 1 $80,900 $113,260 $319,446 0.4 100% $319,446 $0 24 Valley Drive and
Poinsettia Avenue
NS21PB Curb Extension 0 $0 $0 $152,006 0.0 100% $152,006 $0 25 Ardmore Avenue &
17th Street
NS21PB Curb Extension 0 $0 $0 $152,006 0.0 100% $152,006 $0 26 Ardmore Avenue &
17th Street
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
0 $0 $0 $181,709 0.0 100% $181,709 $0
27 Ardmore Avenue &
17th Street
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100% $83,196 $0
28 Valley Drive &
Blanche Road
NS06 Regulatory Signs 4 $249,800 $74,940 $15,113 5.0 100% $15,113 $0 29 Ardmore Avenue &
18th Street
R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
0 $0 $0 $181,709 0.0 100% $181,709 $0
30 Ardmore Avenue &
18th Street
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100% $83,196 $0
31 Manhattan Avenue
& 36th Street
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
0 $0 $0 $21,025 0.0 100% $21,025 $0
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 87 Table 9.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Locations CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
32 Valley Drive &
Flournoy Road
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
0 $0 $0 $15,201 0.0 100% $15,201 $0
33 Valley Drive &
Flournoy Road
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100% $83,196 $0
34 40th Street and
Highland Avenue
NS20PB Pedestrian
Crosswalk
0 $0 $0 $15,201 0.0 100% $15,201 $0
35 2nd Street &
Johnson Street
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
0 $0 $0 $129,060 0.0 100% $129,060 $0
As shown in the table above (Table 8.2), the improvements are listed by intersections. Some of the improvements have the BCR of zero due to no collisions associated with the improvement type. The calculated BCR for each project summarizes the cost-effectiveness of the 18 proposed safety projects without considering how the project would be funded.
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 88
9.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
A prioritized list of safety projects for the HSIP application was identified. The B/C ratios may be used as a guide to identifying the projects with high cost-effectiveness that have the greatest chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects.
BCR is not the only guide to prioritize and implement a countermeasure. The safety project list will be used as a reference on which safety project to implement first. The implementation timeline will be dependent on the City’s goals and funding eligibility. The City may choose to move forward with any of these safety projects in any order, depending on funding availability. If the applications are approved for funding, these projects should not be applied for future HSIP cycles. If the safety projects are not funded by the upcoming HSIP Cycle 11, then those projects could be considered for applying from other funding sources.
Because HSIP grants are competitive, it is typically appropriate to apply only for projects with a higher BCR. According to the HSIP grant application guidelines, a safety project needs to be at least $100,000 and a minimum of 3.5 BCR to submit an HSIP Cycle application.
Taking the HSIP application into consideration, Table 9.3 summarizes the BCR analysis for the safety p
roject. The safety projects are categorized by countermeasure ID and are prioritized by BCR. The City may use the list from Table 9.3 to determine which will be implemented based on the City’s goals and funding availability.
Table 9.3: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Pr oject CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
S03 Improve Signal Timing 38 $3,200,300 $960,090 $52,620 18.2 50% NS20PB Pedestrian Crosswalk 1 $2,530,000 $1,265,000 $166,566 7.6 100% NS14 Raised Median 11 $410,500 $410,500 $77,750 5.3 90% NS06 Regulatory Signs 33 $3,686,800 $1,106,040 $214,498 5.2 100% S04 Advanced Dilemma-
Zone Detection
233 $14,835,700 $11,868,560 $2,019,880 5.9 100%
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
26 $4,951,300 $6,931,820 $6,241,983 1.1 100%
R14 Reconfigure Roadway
(Option 1)
25 $2,841,000 $3,409,200 $4,643,300 0.7 100%
R14 Reconfigure Roadway
(Option 2)
25 $2,841,000 $3,409,200 $4,601,098 0.7 100%
SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 89 CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation BCR
HSIP
Max
Share
NS21PB Curb Extension 6 $417,800 $584,920 $1,567,384 0.4 100% R36PB Raised Pedestrian
Crosswalk
3 $297,900 $417,060 $2,797,850 0.1 90%
S05 Emergency Vehicle
Preemption Systems
0 $0 $0 $143,256 0.0 100%
The average BCR of HSIP 9 selected projects is 17.7. depending on the minimum reimbursement amount and BCR of HSIP Cycle 11, the City can either select the eligible individual projects or group projects as a systemic improvement, as shown in Table 9.3 , for the HSIP funding application. The City may als o determine which project to be prioritized based on available funding sources, public support, and other factors.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
COLLISION HISTORY BY INTERSECTION
APPENDIX A
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
1 ROSECRANS AVE & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 3 4 16 24
2 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & SEPULVEDA BLVD 3 6 14 23
3 33RD ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 11 11 23
4 17TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 3 3 9 15
5 14TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 4 9 14
6 30TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 5 8 13
7 MARINE AVE & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 7 5 13
8 10TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 4 8 12
9 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MEADOWS AVE 1 1 9 11
10 HIGHLAND AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 2 4 5 11
11 12TH ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 2 8 11
12 SEPULVEDA BLVD & VALLEY DR 2 1 5 3 11
13 8TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 4 6 11
14 KEATS ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 2 3 4 10
15 15TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 3 1 4 9
16 33RD ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 3 5 9
17 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & PECK AVE 1 4 4 9
18 AVIATION BLVD & ROSECRANS AVE 3 6 9
19 MARINE AVE & MEADOWS AVE 1 2 6 9
20 3RD ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 2 6 9
21 ARTESIA BLVD & PROSPECT AVE 1 8 9
22 MARINE AVE & REDONDO AVE 4 4 8
23 AVIATION BLVD & MARINE AVE 1 3 3 1 8
24 19TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 4 3 8
25 6TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 2 6 8
26 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MORNINGSIDE DR 1 1 5 7
27 2ND ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 2 2 3 7
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
28 27TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 1 4 7
29 19TH ST & AVIATION BLVD 2 2 3 7
30 AVIATION BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 2 4 7
31 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & REDONDO AVE 2 2 3 7
32 12TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 5 7
33 ARTESIA BLVD & PECK AVE 1 2 4 7
34 9TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 2 3 6
35 HARKNESS ST & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 3 2 6
36 ROSECRANS AVE & VILLAGE DR 2 4 6
37 SEPULVEDA BLVD & TENNYSON ST 2 1 3 6
38 HIGHLAND AVE & MARINE AVE 1 1 4 6
39 BELL AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1 2 2 6
40 38TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 6 6
41 CEDAR AVE & MARINE AVE 3 2 1 6
42 ARTESIA BLVD & AVIATION BLVD 1 1 4 6
43 DIANTHUS ST & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1 4 6
44 ARDMORE AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1 4 6
45 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & PACIFIC AVE 1 4 5
46 26TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 3 5
47 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & POINSETTIA AVE 2 3 5
48 44TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 5 5
49 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & OAK AVE 2 3 5
50 15TH ST & VALLEY DR 2 1 2 5
51 27TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 2 3 5
52 ARTESIA BLVD & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 4 5
53 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & VALLEY DR 2 3 5
54 11TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 4 5
55 DUNCAN AVE & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1 3 5
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
56 MARINE AVE & PINE AVE 1 2 1 4
57 JOHN ST & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1 2 4
58 CENTER PL & MORNINGSIDE DR 4 4
59 45TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2 4
60 2ND ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 3 4
61 9TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 4 4
62 CEDAR WY & MARINE AVE 1 1 2 4
63 ARTESIA BLVD & MEADOWS AVE 2 2 4
64 36TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2 4
65 18TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 3 4
66 10TH ST & AVIATION BLVD 2 2 4
67 35TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2 4
68 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & TARGET DWY 1 1 2 4
69 35TH ST & VALLEY DR 2 2 4
70 PINE AVE & VALLEY DR 1 1 2 4
71 BLANCHE RD & VALLEY DR 1 1 2 4
72 HARKNESS AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 4 4
73 13TH ST & VALLEY DR 2 1 3
74 EL PORTO ST & HIGHLAND AVE 3 3
75 AVIATION BLVD & MATHEWS AVE 2 1 3
76 AVIATION BLVD & NELSON AVE 1 2 3
77 MARRIOTT DR & ROSECRANS AVE 2 1 3
78 HIGHVIEW AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 2 1 3
79 ROSECRANS AVE & VISTA DR 1 2 3
80 6TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1 1 3
81 MANHATTAN GATEWAY & ROSECRANS AVE 1 2 3
82 MANHATTAN AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1 1 3
83 MARKET PL & ROSECRANS AVE 2 1 3
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
84 14TH ST & OAK AVE 3 3
85 PACIFIC AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 3 3
86 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & OCEAN DR 3 3
87 REDONDO AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 2 3
88 15TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 3 3
89 ARTESIA BLVD & AVIATION WY 3 3
90 43RD ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 2 3
91 22ND ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1 1 3
92 11TH ST & REDONDO AVE 2 2
93 41ST ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 2
94 PROSPECT AVE & TENNYSON ST 2 2
95 ELM AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 2 2
96 17TH ST & PACIFIC AVE 1 1 2
97 ELM AVE & MARINE AVE 1 1 2
98 PACIFIC AVE & VALLEY DR 2 2
99 11TH ST & PECK AVE 1 1 2
100 SEPULVEDA BLVD & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1500 2 2
101 18TH ST & PECK AVE 2 2
102 2ND ST & JOHNSON ST 2 2
103 23RD ST & OCEAN DR 2 2
104 12TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1 2
105 35TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2
106 OCEAN DR & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1 2
107 5TH ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 2 2
108 PINE AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1 2
109 AVIATION BLVD & AVIATION PL 1 1 2
110 RONDA DR & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1 2
111 27TH PL & VISTA DR 2 2
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
112 6TH ST & DIANTHUS ST 1 1 2
113 LONGFELLOW AVE & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1 2
114 10TH ST & HARKNESS AVE 1 1 2
115 19TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 2
116 MARINE AVE & PECK AVE 1 1 2
117 27TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1 2
118 12TH ST & MORNINGSIDE DR 2 2
119 10TH ST & MEADOWS AVE 2 2
120 1ST ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 1 2
121 19TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1 2
122 OAK AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1 2
123 9TH ST & BAYVIEW DR 2 2
124 CENTER PL & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2
125 3RD ST & JOHNSON ST 2 2
126 PARKVIEW AVE & VILLAGE DR 2 2
127 9TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 2 2
128 18TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 2
129 40TH ST & CREST DR 2 2
130 1ST ST & VALLEY DR 2 2
131 27TH ST & VALLEY DR 1 1 2
132 32ND PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 2
133 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & ROWELL AVE 2 2
134 33RD ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1 2
135 9TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 2 2
136 AVIATION BLVD & VOORHEES AVE 2 2
137 33RD ST & OAK AVE 2 2
138 DUNCAN DR & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1 2
139 10TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 2 2
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
140 FRANCISCO ST & INGLESIDE DR 1 1
141 MATHEWS AVE & PECK AVE 1 1
142 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD 700 BLK 1 1
143 11TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
144 23RD ST & CEDAR AVE 1 1
145 15TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
146 HOMER ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
147 34TH PL & ALMA AVE 1 1
148 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & WALNUT AVE 1 1
149 34TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
150 31ST ST & PACIFIC AVE 1 1
151 34TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
152 12TH ST & PECK AVE 1 1
153 34TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
154 HARKNESS ST & MARINE AVE 1 1
155 34TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
156 12TH ST & ROWELL AVE 1 1
157 15TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
158 14TH ST & ELM AVE 1 1
159 35TH ST & ELM AVE 1 1
160 2ND ST & REDONDO AVE 1 1
161 35TH ST & FLOURNOY AVE 1 1
162 31ST PL & AGNES RD 1 1
163 15TH ST & REDONDO AVE 1 1
164 ROWELL AVE & VOORHEES AVE 1 1
165 35TH ST & LAUREL AVE 1 1
166 CURTIS AVE & PECK AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
167 35TH ST & PACIFIC AVE 1 1
168 23RD ST & ROWELL AVE 1 1
169 15TH ST & ROWELL AVE 1 1
170 GATEWAY DR & MARINE AVE 1 1
171 36TH PL & VISTA DR 1 1
172 25TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
173 36TH ST & BLANCHE RD 1 1
174 KEATS ST & KUHN DR 1 1
175 11TH ST & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
176 26TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
177 38TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
178 13TH ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1
179 16TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
180 29TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
181 38TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
182 MARINE AVE & PACIFIC AVE 1 1
183 39TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
184 MARKET PL & PARKVIEW AVE 1 1
185 3RD PL & CREST DR 1 1
186 OAK ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
187 3RD ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
188 PECK AVE & PECK AVE 1402 1 1
189 16TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
190 32ND ST & ALMA AVE 1 1
191 17TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
192 15TH ST & HARKNESS ST 1 1
193 17TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
194 CONTINENTAL WY & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
195 40TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
196 DUNCAN AVE & POINSETTIA AVE 1 1
197 17TH ST & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
198 23RD ST & PECK AVE 1 1
199 41ST ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
200 FLOURNOY RD & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
201 17TH ST & OAK AVE 1 1
202 GATES AVE & PECK AVE 1 1
203 11TH ST & MORNINGSIDE DR 1 1
204 23RD ST & THE STRAND 1 1
205 45TH ST & CREST DR 1 1
206 HERRIN ST & VOORHEES AVE 1 1
207 17TH ST & ROWELL AVE 1 1
208 HIGHLAND AVE & SHELL ST 1 1
209 45TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
210 26TH ST & BAYVIEW DR 1 1
211 4TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
212 LAUREL AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
213 4TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
214 MAGNOLIA AVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1
215 4TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
216 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD 300 1 1
217 5TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
218 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD BLK 1100 1 1
219 5TH ST & HERRIN ST 1 1
220 27TH ST & LAUREL AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
221 VALLEY DR & VALLEY DR 1221 1 1
222 28TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
223 5TH ST & POINSETTIA AVE 1 1
224 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & TARGET EXIT 1 1
225 5TH ST & REDONDO AVE 1 1
226 MANOR DR & MARINE AVE 1 1
227 10TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
228 2ND ST & PECK AVE 1 1
229 6TH PL & INGLESIDE DR 1 1
230 14TH ST & WALNUT AVE 1 1
231 6TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
232 MARRIOT DR & PARKVIEW DR 1 1
233 11TH ST & POINSETTIA AVE 1 1
234 MOONSTONE ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
235 6TH ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 1
236 OCEAN DR & SEAVIEW ST 1 1
237 18TH ST & ADMORE AVE 1 1
238 31ST PL & FLOURNOY RD 1 1
239 6TH ST & HARKNESS ST 1 1
240 31ST ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
241 6TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
242 REDONDO AVE & VOORHEES AVE 1 1
243 6TH ST & INGLESIDE DR 1 1
244 32ND ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
245 6TH ST & PACIFIC AVE 1 1
246 15TH ST & CREST DR 1 1
247 18TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
248 CENTER PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
249 6TH ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
250 CENTER PL & OCEAN DR 1 1
251 7TH PL & 7TH PL 200 1 1
252 CREST DR & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
253 7TH PL & BAYVIEW DR 1 1
254 23RD ST & JOHN ST 1 1
255 7TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
256 23RD ST & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
257 7TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
258 DUNCAN PL & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1
259 8TH ST & DIANTHUS ST 1 1
260 23RD ST & REDONDO AVE 1 1
261 8TH ST & HARKNESS ST 1 1
262 ELM AVE & VALLEY DR 1 1
263 8TH ST & JOHN PL 1 1
264 FLOURNOY RD & VALLEY DR 1 1
265 8TH ST & JOHNSON ST 1 1
266 FRANCISCO ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
267 8TH ST & OCEAN DR 1 1
268 GATES AVE & REDONDO AVE 1 1
269 8TH ST & REDONDO AVE 1 1
270 GRAND AVE & VISTA DEL MAR 1 1
271 18TH ST & JOHN ST 1 1
272 24TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
273 10TH ST & JOHNSON ST 1 1
274 HERRIN ST & MATHEWS AVE 1 1
275 10TH ST & GATES AVE 1 1
276 24TH ST & VISTA DR 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
277 9TH ST & DIANTHUS ST 1 1
278 HIGHLAND AVE & SEAVIEW ST 1 1
279 12TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
280 25TH ST & FLOURNOY AVE 1 1
281 10TH ST & BAYVIEW DR 1 1
282 INGLESIDE DR & LONGFELLOW AVE 1 1
283 12TH ST & HARKNESS ST 1 1
284 KEATS AVE & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
285 ACCESS RD & AVIATION BLVD 1 1
286 26TH ST & BLANCHE RD 1 1
287 ALMA AVE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
288 LOBBY REPORT & UPPER SOUTH PIER 1 1
289 ARDMORE AVE & LAUREL AVE 1 1
290 LONGFELLOW DR & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1
291 11TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
292 MAIN ST & OAK ST 1 1
293 ARTESIA BLVD & ARTESIA BLVD 1601 1 1
294 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD 1427 1 1
295 19TH ST & WENDY WY 1 1
296 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD 410 1 1
297 1ST ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1
298 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD & MANHATTAN BEACH
BLVD 936 1 1
299 12TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
300 13TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
301 1ST ST & CREST DR 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
302 11TH ST & PACIFIC AVE 1 1
303 1ST ST & HERRIN AVE 1 1
304 27TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
305 1ST ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
306 14TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
307 ARTESIA BLVD & STANFORD AV 1 1
308 29TH PL & OCEAN DR 1 1
309 ARTESIA BLVD. (1200 BLOCK) & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
310 2ND ST & ARDMORE AVE 1 1
311 AVIATION AVE & MARINE AVE 1 1
312 11TH ST & AVIATION BLVD 1 1
313 1ST ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
314 2ND ST & CREST DR 1 1
315 AVIATION BLVD & CURTIS AVE 1 1
316 2ND ST & INGLESIDE DR 1 1
317 AVIATION BLVD & ERNEST AVE 1 1
318 11TH ST & CREST DR 1 1
319 AVIATION BLVD & GATES AVE 1 1
320 MARINE AVE & PORTSMOUTH WY 1 1
321 1ST ST & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
322 MARINE AVE & ROWELL AVE 1 1
323 1ST ST & MORNINGSIDE DR 1 1
324 MARINE AVE & VALLEY DR 1 1
325 1ST ST & ROWELL AVE 1 1
326 2ND ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
327 1ST ST & SEPULVEDA BLVD 1 1
328 30TH ST & BLANCHE RD 1 1
329 11TH PL & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
330 MATTHISEN AVE & REDONDO AVE 1 1
331 AVIATION BLVD & RUHLAND AVE 1 1
332 30TH ST & CREST DR 1 1
333 AVIATION BLVD & SPACE PARK DR 1 1
334 30TH ST & ELM AVE 1 1
335 20TH ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
336 15TH PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
337 AVIATION WY & MATHEWS AVE 1 1
338 PARKVIEW AVE & PARKWAY AVE 1 1
339 BAYVIEW DR & HOMER ST 1 1
340 PECK AVE & VOORHEES AVE 1 1
341 BAYVIEW DR & MARINE AVE 1 1
342 31ST PL & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
343 20TH ST & THE STRAND 1 1
344 31ST ST & MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 1 1
345 BLANCHE RD & MARINE AVE 1 1
346 REDONDO AVE & RUHLAND AVE 1 1
347 BLANCHE RD & ROSECRANS AVE 1 1
348 11TH ST & HERRIN AVE 1 1
349 20TH ST & VALLEY DR 1 1
350 ROSECRANS AVE & THE STRAND 1 1
351 BOUNDARY PL & POINSETTIA AVE 1 1
352 33RD ST & ALMA AVE 1 1
353 BRYAN PL & MEADOWS AVE 1 1
354 SEPULVEDA BLVD & VALLEY DR 1 1
355 21ST ST & GRANDVIEW AVE 1 1
356 33RD ST & BAYVIEW DR 1 1
357 21ST ST & HIGHLAND AVE 1 1
Intersection Collisions
Collision Data from 2016 to 2020
ID Intersections Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage
Only Total Collisions
358 33RD ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
359 11TH PL & OCEAN DR 1 1
360 5TH ST & MANHATTAN AVE 1 1
Grand Total 3 18 111 216 568 916
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
1 Aaron Lanor MBB/Valley/Ardmore Consider implementation of a traffic circle. A very congested intersection with confusing flow for pedestrians, cars, and bikes.
Refer to what was done in Burlingame CA. https://www.burlingame.org/business_detail_T54_R40.php Roundabout
2 Loren Coleman Bike Lane along The Strand I am extremely concerned with the electric bikes that are driven on the strand and around the South Bay. These bikes should be considered motorized vehicles and come with all of the dmv regulations. There are too many children and adults driving around town with no helmets and not adhering to road safety. This is a huge problem. Children under the age of 16 shouldn’t be allowed to operate an electric bike. They go just as fast as a motor cycle and we don’t let our children drive those
No electric bikes/scooters in Bike Lane
3 Jason Francis Dianthus St. Dianthus St. from Manhattan Beach Blvd. south towards Hermosa Beach. It parallels Sepulveda and many drivers use it as an alternative route with significant speeding. I strongly feel that speed humps/bumps should be installed.
Reduce travel speed
4 Margie Luong MBB/Poinsettia There have been many accidents at that intersection because there are no left turn lanes on MB blvd and a lot of cars cant brake in time when they realized there was a car stopped waiting to make a left turn.
EB/WB left-turn lane request
5 Antoinette Crichton Ardmore btw. 1st St. and MBB This segment of Ardmore is 2 lanes one way with mixed pedestrian, car and bicyc le traffic. Issues: 1. Not clearly marked as one way. I often see cars and bicycles going the wrong way. 2. Cars are often exceeding speed limit between 1st street and 6th street, and then again to MB. blvd. I believe 2 one way lanes and lack of speed deterrents is a problem. 3. Pedestrians often cross the road all the way along this stretch of road, and there are no safety signs or crossings. Particularly at 5th street. 4. I ride my bicycle often, and this area of road scares me because of car speed, but bicycles are encouraged to ride this stretch and take up the entire right lane. It is not safe, and young people in particular don’t understand it. They often ride with and against traffic because it is marked as a bicycle path One-way not clearly marked; speeding;
Peds unsafe Crossing; Bike block car
traveling
6 Sitara Garma Vista/Grandview When school is in full swing, the cr osswalk in front of Grandview Elementary school at Vista and Grandview is not very visible to drivers and they often blow the stop sign. My kids have to cross there and it’s amazing how many people don’t stop! Maybe push out the stop sign so it’s more visible or add blinkers or something. Someone is going to get hurt when school is in full session and it’s undoubtedly going to be a child Thank you More equipment to reinforce existing
STOP sign
7 Steve Braudo Aviation/Nelson, Nelson/Redondo The intersection of Aviation Blvd. and Nelson Avenue is dangerous because vehicles driving east on Aviation significantly exceed the speed limit, making the right turn from Nelson onto Aviation another accident waiting to happen. This situation is made worse because vehicles wanting to make this right turn are unable to see the oncoming traffic due to the slight curve in Aviation between Voorhees and Nelson. As the homeowner on Nelson, I can tell you firsthand that there have been at least two major accidents at this intersection since we bought our house in 1998 and countless near misses for us and others.
Years ago, a motorcycle police officer positioned himself on the blind curve and issued numerous speeding tickets to offending drivers traveling East on Aviation. This significantly reduced the danger to vehicles trying to turn right onto Aviation and generated much needed revenue for Manhattan Beach. If the city can’t or won’t return an officer to this location, then I recommend these two additional traffic signs: 1. Warning sign at or around Voorhees Avenue warning eastbound drivers to reduce speed to 25 MPH due to a blind curve and the stoplight at Aviation and Artesia. 2. A sign near the south corner of Nelson and Aviation warning drivers of the blind curves Without the aforementioned additional signs, there will be more accidents like the one that sent parts of our cinder block wall crashing into the side of our house, just missing the gas line as well as causing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the wall and our home. The corner of Nelson and Redondo is also dangerous because drivers turning right or left from Nelson onto Redondo can’t see oncoming vehicles, which often speed between Artesia and Nelson. I recommend two changes to eliminate this danger: 1. Make a 4- way stop at this intersection. 2. Install a no parking sign on the eastbound side of Redondo Ave. for about 50- 100 feet before Nelson, so parked cars won’t make it virtually impossible for vehicles turning from Nelson to see oncoming vehicles.
Thank
you for the opportunity to recommend improvements in Manhattan Beach road safety.
EB speeding; Nelson right-turn onto
Aviation sight distance
8 Maxine Brown 11th St. btw Manhattan Av. and Highland Cars are often going east on 11th st from Manhattan Ave to Highland. This is a one way street going west. Although it is marked it is not too obvious to drivers. This ver
y dangerous on a narrow and busy street.
One-way street not clearly marked
9 Karen Hunt Ardmore/17th; Valley/15th; Sepulveda Bl.
Ardmore and 17th Street should have crosswalk lights placed on the road. Cars do not see the existing crosswalk and speed on through it. We have seniors crossing the street to get to Joselyn Center. Also, there should be a green arrow left turn signal on 15th westbound turning into Valley south. It’s just a green light with no indication of opposing traffic having a red light. And, there should be no u turn signs at all median cutouts on Sepulveda. U turns should only be possible at traffic li ht
Crosswalk flashlight; 15th WB left-turn
arrow onto Valley; No u-Turn on
Sepulveda
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
10 Kathleen Barchick MBB/Highland Manhattan Beach Blvd & Highland - the new crosswalk system will be unsustainable once people get back to work. People cross not only when they are supposed to, but also when the lights for the traffic turns green. Last Sunday, Highland was backed up past 15th St, and the traffic turning left from 15th street was backed up past the fire station. This system is not working
Scramble signal causing delay, peds do
not follow signal light
11 Kathleen Barchick 25th/Highland 25th & Highland - there is a crosswalk here, but not a button to press for the blinky lights and there is a school at the top of 25th st. It's a dangerous crosswalk without the safety mechanisms of other crosswalks across Highland and on a direct path to a school
Crosswalk flashlight request
12 Frank Boroch Poinsettia btw Marine and 17th Speeding and pedestri an traffic on Poinsettia between Marine and 17th near Pacific school and limited to no sidewalks; installing speed bumps could help;
Speeding and peds conflict, speed bump
and sidewalk needed
13 Pam Mckniff Flournoy btw 33rd and Marine Residential Surface streets in Manhattan Beach. As a bike rider I am alway forced to contend with large pot holes in the road.
Specifically on Flournoy between 33rd and Marine. And Marine itself heading west from Flournoy. Avoiding these potholes forces me into the center of the road and puts me at greater risk potholes
14 Susan Maniscalco 45th/Highland 45th and Highla nd. Cars are lined up every day to wait for beach parking off 45th and are blocking important deliveries such as medicine and medical help. Some of our deliveries have been canceled. There should be additional safety personnel monitoring the parking lot up to Highland. There are road rage incidents we can hear from our home every week due to inability to pass through the public street
Beach parking goer blocking normal
activities along 45th
15 Krysti Sam All over the City Major concerns about roads in our city. Touted as one of the best beach cities to live in yet our roads are terrible. So many pot holes and uneven roads that need to be slurry sealed. The pot holes will cause flat tires and car damage. The uneven roads, many kids bike in that area could cause tripping and falling just to mention a few safety concerns. Examples: 1.
Uneven roads - Around tree section. Flournoy from Rosecrans to Valley 2. Uneven roads - all around tree section - between Blanche, Flournoy, Agnes up and down Rosecrans to valley needs to be straighten and slurry sealed 3. Pot Holes - On PCH/Sepulveda between Artesia & 2nd St 4. Pot Holes - on PCH/Sepulveda between Manhattan Beach Blvd & Marine Potholes, uneven roads
16 Margaret Fenton MBB/Manhattan & M BB/Highland; Crosswalk The scramble crosswalks in downtown should have NO TURN on RED at least during prime hours. Pedestrians (and drivers) should not have to keep guessing who's going to do what. While I am thankful for the pedestrian yellow light crosswalks, they need improvement, possibly flashing laser lights and a sound drivers can hear. The yellow lights are dim and apparently hard for drivers to see especially on bright days. The worst areas are near Rosecrans on Highland where I generally have to flag down drivers to get them to stop even when "yellow lights are flashing." No right turn on red request; in road light
not bright enough
17 Bianca Minniti Herrin/Artesia When driving south on Herrin and making a right onto artesia the visibility is dangerously obstructed by the cars permitted to park on the street on artesia. I have had multiple near accidents from not seeing oncoming traffic.
SB right turn sight distance issue
18 Elizabeth Allsteadt 12th Pl./Highland; City wide There are a lot of kegs and other restaurant equipment stored on 12th Place at the intersection of 12th Place and Highland.
Often a car parks in front of the kegs, blocking half of the road. Several times, I've been heading East on 12th Place and have had cars making a right off Highland onto 12th Place, turn onto the wrong side of the road and almost front end me (even when I'm at a dead stop waiting to turn onto Highland) because their side of the road is blocked by the parked car and they have to turn blindly onto the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. Also, residents often park with their cars blocking a portion of the road (half in their driveways and half in the road) and leave trashcans in the road all the time. This causes safety issues too since one car has to back up to let the other pass in a high pedestrian traffic area. It would greatly increase safety if the road was kept clear enough for 2 cars to pass.
Restaurant use blocking road; residents
parking & trash cans blocking road
19 Robert Chamberlain Citywide Many of our cities sidewalks are undersized and are further restricted by misplaced poles, electrical boxes, overgrown bushes or parked cars. Warn home owners to trim, ticket cars for blocking and either remove/move poles and electrical boxes or extend sidewalks for pedestrians wheel chairs and more commonly strollers no sidewalk, homeowner taking public
right of way
20 Jack Fenberg Flournoy btw. 31st & 33rd Sections of Flournoy needs to be patched or re-paved. There is a moderately large pothole near 31st street, as well as a dan
gerous (for bikes) raised street surface between 31st and 33rd streets pothole, raised street surface
21 Wendy Farber Marine btw. Valley and Blanche Marine ave between Valley drive and Blanche. Excessive speeding on this stretch. There needs to be a clear crosswalk to the greenbelt on Valley at Flournoy
Speeding; crosswalk crossing Valley at
Flourno
y
22 Richard Ackerman 400-500 1st St 400 and 500 block of 1st Street. Cars cannot pass each other when in opposite directions. High speed with many Robinson students walking and crossing. Parents blocking driveways and the street to pick up the Robinson students.
Narrow street, residents blocking street,
speeding
23 Alan Roseman Valley/Ardmore/17th Valley/Ardmore and 17th Street need a flashing crosswalk on either side of the greenbelt. Getting to the Joslyn center is very dan
gerous
Flashlight for peds crosswalk needed
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
24 Elizabeth Bernucci Valley/Ardmore/15th Pedestrian safety: Valley/Ardmore/15th street. The city should treat 15th street crossing like the MBB crossing at Valley Ardmore. The signals are already set properly to cross with northbound Ardmore and it is foolish to expect people on the greenbelt to cross three times to go where the path leads them. Access to the greenbelt seems very random. Adding stairs in places with steep sides (near Sepulveda for example) would make it much safer. Picking a few of the many paths connecting to the street making them 'official' by adding crosswalks and keeping them free of vegetation would be great! Bicycle safety:
The city could also put sensors so bikes can flip the traffic signals on all intersections on MBB and Valley/Ardmore. These roads are heavily used by bikes and having to wait for a car to arrive or moving over to push the pedestrian signal makes running the red light a great temptation. With the increased use of e-bikes by children, bikes need to be equal to cars in terms of traffic control. Santa Monica has done an excellent job helping bikes move safely around their city and can be a model for Manhattan Beach
Peds crossing; bike sensor
25 Hava Manasse Marine and Sepulveda Hello, the intersection of Marine and Sepulveda is an absolute disaster on school days. With one lane only heading east, it can often take families coming from the tree section multiple light cycles to get through Sepulveda. I live on Walnut and Marine, and the traffic is often stopped all the way to our street, which is 4 blocks from Sepulveda. This can take upwards of 15 minutes to get through one light. People are frustrated, which creates a dangerous situation for any students that are trying to cross by foot or bike to get to MBMS or Costa. Could the lights be timed differently from about 7:40am - 8:20am, and then again when MBMS is let out in the afternoon? Additionally, when the Manhattan Village Mall is fully open, it would be a dream for people living within walking distance to actually be able to walk there - but there is no safe way to do that coming from the Tree Section currently, unless one walks to Rosecrans. It is possible to safely cross at Marine at the light, but with one lane going up and down, it's not really safe to walk or bike along Marine. PLEASE, PLEASE consider safer ways to get walkers and riders across Sepulveda. What about a footbridge over "the highway"? Also, please help get traffic moving better at this intersection during peak times on school days. Maybe another stoplight between Marine and MB Blvd that goes across Sepulveda? Thank you for considering and please feel free to call or email if you'd like more specifics Peds bridge over Sepulveda, another
signalized intersection btw. MBB and
Marine
26 Shelley Fulton Crest Drive Crest Drive (in the south walk streets, south of the pier). Kids and teens using e-bikes without regard for traffic or helmet laws
school aged bicyclists not wearing helmet
27 Erik Zandvliet Bayview Dr at 27th St I received a request from a resident to construct an ADA ramp at the intersection of Bayview Dr and 27th St at the ‘X’ location on the exhibit below providing access to the park. After consulting with our ADA Transition Plan consultant, they advised it would not be recommended to construct the ramp because there is no sidewalk or pedestrian pathway on the north side of 27th St or along Bayview Dr.
As an alternative, the consultant recommended as an ADA Accommodation to the resident, that the City install an ADA only parking space on Highland & 27th St at the SW corner and upgrade the ADA ramp on that corner to provide access in lieu of the ramp at Bayview. Please see exhibit below and let me know your thoughts. I do need to get back to the resident in the next few days and advise of the recommended accommodation.
I think I spoke to this resident, too. They walk down Bayview Drive but there is no sidewalk on the west side to reach the beach or Highland Ave. I definitely agree we don’t want to build a pedestrian ramp where there is no accessible path.
An accessible space on Highland Avenue would still not be compliant, due to the cross-slope of the street, non-compliant ramps at the corners and need for a flat passenger loading area, which would require major reconstruction.
The real solution is to add and widen the sidewalks on the north side of 27th Street as part of the long-term ADA transition plan. The city has sufficient existing parkway for sidewalks. The sidewalk can be added to an upcoming concrete/ramp project, subject to the priority of other locations in the City.
Sidewalk improvement, ADA Ramps
28 Jeanne Fratello Sepulveda & 8th Eastbound 8th Street at Sepulveda Blvd. There always seems to be confusion about whether those who are going straight across Sepulveda should be in the right or left side of the lane (have seen several near accidents). The lane should be divided to show which side someone should be on, if they are turning right, left, or going straight. (Similar to how it is divided at 2nd St eastbound when crossing Sepulveda)
Eastbound should have separate lanes for
left turns, through and right turns
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
29 Jay Hu Pacific/Marine/Ardmore/Green Belt/Valley intersPacific/Marine/Ardmore/Green Belt/Valley intersection is a nightmare for drivers and pedestrians. Just a matter of time before someone gets killed there if nothing is done. Drivers are blind to pedestrians because they are specifically focused on other cars and look through pedestrians. Please put lighted crosswalks there. Marine Ave between Pacific and Palm: Drivers pass through the terrible intersection noted above and step on the gas heading East toward PCS, often having to slam on breaks to make the stop sign at Marine and Palm. Drivers are driving Admore and Valley (between Pacific and PCH) at excessive speeds at all hours but it's particularly bad at night Crosswalk lights request
30 Doreen Saxby Valley Drive and Poinsettia Ave We love at the intersection of N Valley Drive and Poinsettia Ave (north side) and cars come around the corner in a scary speed. We’d need a speed bump or a mirror so they can see what’s happening behind the corner. We have a lot of kids in this neighborhood and no walkway so everyone has to walk on the street Speeding/speed bump/mirror
31 Kelly Gordon 2nd St btw. Meadows & Johnson 2nd street - both at meadows and Johnson - there are stop signs but hardly any cars stop. 2nd and Johnson is the worst as the stop sign is very hard to see and i see cars roll right thru this one all the time (narrowly missing my kids walking our dog!). Can we get the flashing lights on this stop sign? All the way down 2nd to the beach even after crossing over Sepulveda are stop signs most people miss. I witnessed a bicyclist get hit by a car who just didn’t see the stop sign (at 9am!).
Let’sw o r ko nf l a s h i n gs t o ps i g n so rm a y b es p e e db u m p s flash light for STOP signs
32 Cindy Bradfield Bell Ave by Armory and Sand Dune Park Bell Ave by armory and sand dune park. The area isn’t well lit and unsafe . I’ve lived here for 10 years and random cars are parked there at night to “party” or hang out and in the morning, there’s trash and condoms left on the streets. I’ve had to call the police bc of loud music At 1-2am bc people are loitering in their cars. Lights would help deter this and make it safer More lighting
33 Robert Kellogg Sepulveda / tree section peds crossing There used to be pedestrian access to MV Mall from the tree section under "hobo bridge." That has been blocked during mall construction. Please make sure that access is restored before construction is completed. This is also a good opportunity to add a way for bikes to get through instead of forcing them to cross 10 lanes of traffic at Rosecrans and Sepulveda Peds/Bikes crossing Sepulveda btw. Tree
section and Mall
34 George Reppucci Valley-Ardmore between 2ND an d 15th Valley-Ardmore between 2ND and 15th need to be made two way on both sides o f the Greenbelt. In Hermosa and in Manhattan north of 15th they are two-way. Manhattan Beach's unique configuration has caused a visiting driver obstacle course. Intersections are complex and confusing. Numerous wrong-way drivers miss seeing improperly positioned one-way arrow signage. Electric bikes are riding the wrong way in the left lanes. The present layout results in much speeding. It's a major accident about to happen unless fixed
convert from one-way to two-way traffic
35 Mica Linsley Highland btw 15th and Rosecrans, Manhattan b Highland between 15th and Rosecrans, 25mph speed limit needs to be en forced. Very dangerous. Manhattan Ave between 1st and downtown. Speeding, and extremely loud sports cars and motorcycles with blaring music at all hours of the day (and night!!!)!!!! E-bikes are out of control, kids with no helmets, riding on the sidewalk, running signals and stop signs, disregarding safety rules of the road
Speeding, kid biking with no helmet,
ignore STOP signs.
36 Rick Buchta 403 8th we live at 403 8th , our walk street has so many cracks and uneven surfaces . Most other flat walk streets are new . When it rains water goes everywhere unlike other walk streets that have a nice drainage system . we have seen many kids and adults get hurt failing down please fix TY
roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
37 Colleen Stroyke Highland & 9th 9th St and Highland. This intersection needs a STOP sign. Period. I have lived on 7th and Bayvie w for 16 years and am daily on the little section of 9th St east of Bayview and west of Highland. Heading east on 9th, you are on a slope and cannot see oncoming traffic left or right on Highland unless you get way out into the intersection. This is VERY problematic. In addition, with cars allowed to park on both sides of 9th you can only fit one lane of cars up or down that hill. Often cars back up on Highland waiting to make the right turn heading down the hill as 3-4 cars are heading up. This problem is acute on weekends and during summer because people who are looking for parking in dt and who may be headed south on Manhattan Ave all make a left on 9th to loop back around. That hill is a traffic mess and years ago I went to the city about it and a clerk basically told me it was unlikely to ever get a stop sign because the city or residents would lose parking spaces.
Well, too bad. It’s unsafe. You can’t see. Traffic backs up down that 9th St hill often to Bayview AND traffic backs up on SB Highland waiting to make the right turn West. See for yourself on a busy Saturday. Drive your car up 9th St snd and see how poor visibility is. A stop sign would solve everything. Please consider this. Thank you STOP sign request.
38 Hilary Rosen Ocean & 44th I have lived in El porto for 14 years (near 44th and ocean). No sidewalks and people speeding down oc ean is problematic especially with young kids. I had asked (years ago) on numerous occasions for a stop sign or speed bumps, to no avail. I am glad you are taking a look at the data to help improve the safety of the roads in MB.
STOP sign or speed bump.
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
39 Wayne Bush Greenbelt & Pacific The Greenbelt intersections - primarily the one at Pacific but this comment affects intersections other than the one at Pacific.
Pedestrians almost always try and cross the intersection where the path meets Pacific but the crosswalks are are not where the path currently flows. I can't imagine it would be a huge expense to to make the Greenbelt path fork to the two existing crosswalks and put some sort of non-intrusive barrier (plants, sculpture, bench, etc.) where the path currently meets Pacific.
This would force people on the path to use the crosswalks which would be safer for both autos and pedestrians (and would not force people to walk or go out of their way by more than a few feet). As both a driver and frequent user of the Greenbelt it would be much appreciated
Force peds using crosswalk to be safer
40 Michael Burke 8th btw Valley and Highland 8th Street Walk Street between Valley and Highland. Multiple cracks and poorly patched repairs. The Street also does not drain well
roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
41 Kirsten Helvey 9th St We need a stop sign and Flsashing Pedestrian crosswalk at 9th street. We need flashing lights on the roadway. I live at the intersection and have witnessed multiple car accidents at this intersection. I also have almost been hit many times crossing the street because cars do not see you at the corner and don't stop for the faint crosswalk. Cars are also speeding. I believe we should have flashing crosswalks at every crosswalk south of MB Blvd. It is dangerous.
Request flash lights at STOP signs
42 Lisa Silver 400 8th St I live on the 400 block of 8th street (404 8th street) and we have no drainage outside our home on the walkstreet for us or our neighbors. It causes sever water back up in front of all our homes and becomes a hazard to those walking or riding bikes No drainage system in front of house
causing water back up
43 Barbara Siegemund-Br
o 2nd, bt Sepulveda and Aviation I am concerned about bikes everywhere. We need actual protected bike lanes, not just paintings of bikes on the asphalt. Cars often drive way over the speed limit on my street--2nd, bt Sepulveda and Aviation Speeding; protected bike lane
44 Bob Heintz Ocean Dr btw 26th and Rosecrans Ocean Drive between 26th street and Rosecrans is an access alley to residents garages and homes. It should not be used as a normal street! Many cars use this street as a commute or to look for parking. Speeds are too high, and all of the intersections with the East West alleys and walk streets are blind. Speed bumps, one way flows, and other restrictions should be in place to discourage and slow traffic on the very dangerous alley. Perhaps it should be restricted to residents only Restrict through traffic, residents only
45 Nan Karnes 8th st btw Valley and Crest 8 th street between Valley and Crest needs to be totally redone. I have lived here for 45 years and it never has been done.
It’s amazing that no one has tripped and fallen on all the cracks and uneven areas. Make our street look like 7th street roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
46 Daniece Lahoud 8th walk street and 7th place alley 8th walk street and 7th place alley is filled with poorly done patches and it does not drain very well. Years ago the city repaved several of the flat walk streets but for some reason they only patched 8th street and it has suffered with poor drainage and asymmetrical paving due to years of construction. 8th Street and 7th place between Valley and Crest/Highland. roadway cracks and uneven surfaces;
drainage problem
47 Karen Brenneman Marine Av btw Rowell and Peck Marine avenue between Rowell and Peck. Cars go very fast on this downhill section of Marine. I live on this block and it can be dangerous just turning into your driveway. I have been hit entering my driveway. I would like signs posted that say slow or caution cars turning into driveways. In addition the speed limit could be lowered to 30.
Speeding, lower the speed limit.
48 Monique Lotze Redondo/Marine, Marine/Sepulveda, 19th/Avia t 1. The weird blinking yellow left at Redondo Ave and MB Blvd. it’s always yellow, so you don’t know when it’s turning red! It’s ridiculous. 2. The marine and Sepulveda on the east side. When it switched there are always cars so confused and trying to change lanes after they get to the very end and realize they can’t go straight there. 3. Exiting liberty Village on 19th to avaiation You cannot see beyond the brick wall
Blinking light confusing; WB lane
confusing; sight clearance
49 Jennifer Martin Rosecrans east of Highland Rosecrans east of Highland- the speed limit is constantly exceeded by traffic and living there for 3 years I saw no fewer than 4 accidents due to excessive speed. It is a residential area with many pedestrians and the high speeds are a huge risk.
Speeding
50 Steve Moore 8th St btw Valley and Highland 8th Street, between Valley and Highland. During the last repaving project, most of the “walk streets” were replaced but for some reason 8th St was only patched. The street now has many holes, cracks, etc. and doesn’t appear to drain effectively. roadway cracks and uneven surfaces,
drainage problem
51 Joshua Taub 8th St btw Crest and Valley 8th street between Crest and valley. It is filled with different surfaces, and has become dangerous for some of the older people on the street. Thank you for you consideration on this matter roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
52 Amy Digiaro 8th Street WALKSTREET 8th Street WALKSTREET. The walkstreet has had dozens and dozens of patch jobs that cause inconsistencies in the walk street. The street could benefit from repaving so people don't trip roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
53 Richard Lopez 8th St btw Valley Drive and Crest 8th Street between Valley Drive and Crest Ave. There are many uneven surfaces on the walk street due to various concrete patches from previous construction projects. There are also drainage problems. roadway cracks and uneven surfaces,
draina
ge problem
54 Richard Lopez Bike Path The bike path should have better/clearer regulation and enforcement as a result of the increased popularity of electric bikes and speed freaks that travel at an unsafe speed for pedestrians crossing it.
Signs and regulations to prohibit Peds,
electrical bikes
/scooters
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
55 David Webster MBB and Veterans Parkway, Walkway btw 2nd aThe intersection between Manhattan Bea boulevard and veterans parkway. Runners and other pedestrians on veterans parkway often cut straight through the intersection rather than wait for three different crossing signals. The sidewalk on valley drive between 2nd and 5th street is full of obstructions like fire hydrants and telephone poles, forcing many pedestrians (especially parents with strollers) onto the street Peds crossing problem; Peds in roadway
due to objects in walkway.
56 Matt Russert MBB Hi Helen, I ride my bicycle (with others) several times per week from my east MB home to and from the pier utilizing MB Blvd. Starting at Sepulveda traveling westbound on MB Blvd, it would enhance cyclists’ safety to have BMUFL (Bikes May Use Full Lane) signs and/or bike sharrows to remind vehicle drivers (especially trucks) that there is no place to safely cycle but in the lane, away from the “door” zone of parked cars that starts at Oak. One can easily reach 25-30mph on a bike and it’s just not safe to be near a parked car. The eastbound direction has similar issues going to Sepulveda from Pacific. Thanks for your consideration and I’d be happy to meet briefly at that location to provide further input Bike lane safety
57 Jacki Friedman Bike path Thank you for repairing the cracks in the bike path that have caused several accidents. Our thinner tires get caught in even the small cracks so thank
you from all of us in the cycling community.
fix cracks
58 Angela Acosta Marine Ave between Meadows and Peck Marine Ave between Meadows and Peck. The amount of cars that drive on here at such high speeds makes me a nervous wreck to back out of my driveway. I live at 1440 Marine and I NEVER see cops giving speeding tickets. It’s getting more and more dangerous It ’s like a highway with no speed limit’ Speeding
59 Jody Waterman 7th place between crest and valley 7th place between crest and valley . Very large cracks/openings in concrete th at are hazardous to pedestrians (particularly closer to crest)
roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
60 Wandamae Lombardi Rosecrans Pl and Ocean Dr from Highland to O cRosecrans Place and Ocean...should be a one way street from top Highland to Ocean.....people race up the street and at the intersection at the top if there is another car coming down the jam up is very bad and the pedestrians cannot be seen at the stop
Should be one-way street, speeding
61 Michelle Porter 27th Street btw Sepulveda and Ardmore As a resident in the tree section, I have safety concerns about traffic v olumes, vehicle types, and driver behaviors on 27th Street between Sepulveda and Ardmore. 27th Street is all residential with many children and adults using the street for walking and cycling. The safety of these pedestrians and cyclists is often put at risk by drivers who use 27th instead of Marine to travel between Sepulveda and Ardmore. Some vehicles are driven in a manner incompatible with other road uses such as walking and cycling, and many of the vehicles are large, with poor driver visibility and tall impact zones, such as construction, landscape, and other trucks. These vehicles also pose health risks to residents with their noise and diesel emissions. The City should consider placing planters, such as the ones located at the intersection of 30th Street and Sepulveda, at 27th and Sepulveda. This would encourage vehicle traffic to utilize Marine so that pedestrians and cyclists can utilize 27th Street safely, and residents can enjoy quieter streets and breathe better air.
Cut through, speeding. Consider planters
30th Street and Sepulveda, at 27th and
Sepulveda
62 Sheila Halcomb 8th St walk street btw Valley and Highland 8th Street walk street between Valley Dr. and Highland... We've lived on this walk street for 44 years and it has continued to deteriorate...it is a patchwork of damage, shoddy repairs, digging up for every construction project, then adding another bad patch...and so on...There are smooth spots and bumpy spots, big cracks and small...And besides that, the drainage is poor! We could REALLY USE a nice "new" street!!
roadway cracks and uneven surfaces
63 Margie Luong Pointsettia and Manhattan Beach Blvd Pointsettia and Manhattan Beach Blvd. There is a need for left turn lanes Northbound and southbound on MB blvd at that intersection. There are constantly accidents at that intersection because people have to brake unexpectedly for cars stopped waiting to make a left turn fromMB Blvd onto Pointsettia NB and SB left-turn lanes request
64 Angelina Zani Bike lanes along Manhattan Av e Manhattan Avenue- bike lines are so dang erous and unnecessary. I’ve lived in MB off and on my whole life and I’ve seen more accidents and confrontations from the cyclists that take over the roads. Roads are meant for vehicles, the Strand is for bikes
No bike lanes should be on Manhattan
Ave., it is dangerous
65 Vikki Baxter Marine Ave between PCH & Aviation All of Marine Ave between PCH & Aviation! If you attempt to make right onto Marine Ave going eastbound it’s VERY dangerous. The police don’t regularly issue speeding tickets and there is regularly people driving down hill at speeds far above the speed limit. Also, cars are parked so close to cross streets on Marine it’s hard to view if it’s safe to make a right hand turn (Meadows Ave, North Redondo, Herrin) focus should be given to slowing traffic on marine to make it so the traffic is keeping the speed limit
Speeding, sight clearance
66 Don Derossi Manhattan Beach Blvd and Redondo Ave Manhattan Beach Bl vd and Redondo Avenue. This is a narrow street and people on bicycles traveling 5 miles per hour impede auto traffic. Passing bicycles is dangerous, yet driving behind them this slow causes other issues. Bicycles also never stop at stop signs, they just fly right through. If bicycles are to "share the road", they should maintain road laws. These "bicycle painted" streets should perhaps only involve streets that have room for autos to pass safely Should not allow bicycles as they block
traffic along Redondo
67 Michael Hamilton Dianthus/MBB, Harkness/MBB Dianthus/Manhattan Beac h blvd doesn't have enough lighting at night Harkness/Manhattan Beach Blvd the pedestrian crossin
g isn't always visible to cars
No enough lighting, peds crossing not
visible sometime
68 Jill Burnham 23rd St at Highland & Alma, Marine from The S t23rd street crossings at Highland & at Alma. Everything on Marine Ave from The Strand to Valley. Please make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists
Pedestrian corssing safety
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ID Name Location Original Comment Summary
69 Katie Ranne 6th & Johnson, 8th & Sepulveda EB lanes 1. The intersec tion of 6th and Johnson is a 2-way stop with traffic on Johnson not having to stop. I have nearly been hit many times by people not stopping on 6th. 2. The lanes at the traffic light headed east on 8th at Sepulveda are confusing since they aren’t marked. There’s enough room for 2 lanes, but it’s unclear if the right lane is for straight and right turns or if the left lane is for the cars going straight. Proper markings would be helpful (they are marked at the light heading west on 8th just not on the other side headed East)
4-Way STOP at 6th & Johnson, EB 8th at
Sepulveda needs marking.
70 Richard Dumont Rosecrans btw Highland and Sepulveda Over the last few years, Rosecrans (between Sepulveda and Highland) has become a drag strip without the racing. And with a pandemic-induced reduction in traffic, it's only become worse. If measured, I bet you'd find the average speed is up 5- 7mph, and that's not even factoring in the cars that regularly travel at speeds in excess of 55-65mph (estimated, of course).
Speeding.
71 Robert A. Maynez 1540 Manhattan Beach Blvd EB downslope needs a radar sign. WB alread
y has a radar sign.
72 Pieter Viljoen Pennykamp Elementary; 1407/14011 2nd St Pennekamp Elementary school. Crossing markers are far away from opposing traffic causing traffic to stop mid i ntersection.
Diagonal crossing markers were half erased, but yellow lines are still visible, leading to some people still crossing diagonally.
New crossing added in front of 1407/14011 2nd is obscured by electricity pole, and by cars parking on side of road, leading to cars not stopping when people crossing are only visible mid road. This offset road crossing may be better served by diagonal
Crossings not appropriately aligned.
73 John Randolph MBB & Redondo Mb Bldv and Redond o Ave., on Redondo N-bound and S-bound. High volume due to MBMS. No true left turn lanes in either direction. Cars move into right turn lane to go straight, but N-bound traffic can't necessarily see that. Also, while two lanes could be designated for N-bound traffic, only 1 is so causes confusion and congestion. Suggest speeding up light cycle ofd of Mbb (very slow to switch to Redondo), then implementing partime single flow traffic light. Ex. All s-bound flow for a time, THEN add n-bound flow. Also implement this to coincide w mbms school schedule at minimum, but thes ease up (but still keep) during daylight hours, and perhaps even remove for night Signal adjustment to follow school peak
demand
74 David Gentry Marine/Redondo Marine / Redondo Intersection — One of every 4 or 5 cars coming South out of the AdventurePlex/Marine Parks/Northrop goes straight across Marine onto Redondo Ave. Current signage only allows a (double) left turn or right turn onto Marine.
There are LOTS of kids / teens in the area with MBMS, Meadows and all of the sports facilities. With no one expecting those cars to go straight across... we have seen a handful of accidents and near misses with kids on bikes or walking. VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. Please consider more fully enforcing current traffic flow, or changing it so people are aware cars may come straight across. Probably 20 - 30 an hour run the light.
SB NO through allowed, dangerous when
cars SB through
75 Linda Reeves WB lane of MBB west of Sepulveda The westbound lane s on Manhattan Beach Blvd just west of Sepulveda have several large potholes pothole 76 Kristen Z. Mor
gan Walk street from 4th Street to 11th Street Cars will drive down walk street near cost, i gnore or hit signs Cars drive down walk street. 77 Kevin and Regina Wang 700 South Redondo Ave, Redondo/Matthew Speeding along Redondo north of Matthew.
78 Am
y Sheals 653 Manhattan Beach Blvd speeding
79 Chris Lahoud 412 8th street We live on 8th street (412 8th street). The concrete walk street is in need of repair badly. concrete walk street needs repair.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
SAFETY PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
ADVANCED DILEMMA ZONE DETECTION MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & MANHATTAN AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & HIGHLAND AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & VALLEY DRIVE/ARDMORE AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & PACIFIC AVENUE/JOHN STREET (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & POINSETTIA AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & TARGET DRIVEWAY (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & MEADOWS AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & ROWELL AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & PECK AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & REDONDO AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & AVIATION BOULEVARD (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $360,000
$360,000
$36,000
$24,000
$120,000
$45,120
$18,000
$180,936
$94,087
$878,143
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
1.0 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD FROM MANHATTAN AVENUE TO AVIATION BOULEVARD S04
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
ADVANCED DILEMMA ZONE DETECTION SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & 30TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & 33RD STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND)
1 LS $30,000 $30,000
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & ROSECRANS AVENUE (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & MARINE AVENUE (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & 2ND STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD & MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $180,000
$180,000
$18,000
$12,000
$70,000
$22,560
$9,000
$93,468
$48,603
$453,631
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
2.0 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD FROM MANHATTAN AVENUE TO AVIATION BOULEVARD S04
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
ADVANCED DILEMMA ZONE DETECTION ROSECRANS AVENUE & HIGHLAND AVE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
ROSECRANS AVENUE & BLANCHE BOULEVARD (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
ROSECRANS AVENUE & PACIFIC AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 ROSECRANS AVENUE & SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 ROSECRANS AVENUE & VILLAGE DRIVE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 ROSECRANS AVENUE & MARRIOTT DRIVE/NASH STREET (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 ROSECRANS AVENUE & MARKET PLACE/APOLLO STREET (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 ROSECRANS AVENUE & DOUGLAS STREET/REDONDO AVENUE (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
ROSECRANS AVENUE & CONTINENTAL CIRCLE/MANHATTAN GATEWAY (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
ROSECRANS AVENUE & AVIATION BOULEVARD (EAST & WESTBOUND) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $300,000
$300,000
$30,000
$20,000
$70,000
$37,600
$15,000
$141,780
$73,726
$688,106GRAND TOTAL
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30% CONTINGENCY
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
3.0 ROSECRANS AVENUE FROM HIGHLAND AVENUE TO AVIATION BOULEVARD S04
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK MANHATTAN AVENUE & 25TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 29TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 31ST STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 33RD STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 35TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
$300,000
$300,000
$30,000
$50,000
$25,000
$100,000
$18,800
$15,000
$10,000
$164,640
$85,613
$799,053
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
4.0 MANHATTAN AVENUE FROM 25TH STREET TO 35TH STREET
R36PB
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
REGULATORY SIGNS OCEAN DRIVE & 34TH STREET (NORTH & S OUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 33RD STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 32ND STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 31ST STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 30TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 29TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 28TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 27TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 26TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 25TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 20TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 19TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 13TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 $26,000
$26,000
$2,600
$2,000
$52,000
$5,640
$1,300
$26,862
$13,968
$130,370
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
5.0 OCEAN DRIVE FROM 34TH STREET TO 13TH STREET
NS06
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK OCEAN DRIVE & ROSECRANS AVENUE (SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 35TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 33RD STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 31ST STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 29TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 24TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 20TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 18TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 16TH STREET 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
$540,000
$540,000
$54,000
$90,000
$45,000
$180,000
$169,200
$27,000
$18,000
$336,960
$175,219
$1,635,379
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
6.0 OCEAN DRIVE FROM ROSECRANS AVENUE TO 16TH STREET
R36PB
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK OCEAN DRIVE & 27TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 23RD STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 OCEAN DRIVE & MARINE AVENUE (NORTH LEG) 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 21ST STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 15HT STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 36TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 $18,000
$18,000
$6,000
$18,000
$24,000
$11,280
$1,800
$23,724
$12,336
$115,140
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
7.0 OCEAN DRIVE FROM 36TH STREET TO 15TH STRRET
NS20PB
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
REGULATORY SIGNS MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & THE STRA ND (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 MARINE AVEUNE & THE STRAND (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 23RD STREET & THE STRAND (NORTH & SOUTHBOUND) 4 EA $500 $2,000 $6,000
$6,000
$1,000
$1,000
$12,000
$5,640
$1,500
$8,142
$4,234
$39,516
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
8.0 THE STRAND FROM MARINE AVENUE TO 23RD STREET
NS06
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 1ST STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 2ND STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 3RD STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 4TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 5TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 6TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 7TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 8TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 9TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 10TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 11TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 12TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 13TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 14TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 15TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & MARINE AVE 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 23RD STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 24TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 25TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 26TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 27TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 29TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 30TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 31ST STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 32ND STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 33RD STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 34TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & 35TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
MANHATTAN AVENUE & ROSECRANS AVE 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
$930,000
$930,000
$93,000
$62,000
$145,000
$290,000
$349,680
$46,500
$29,000
$583,554
$303,448
$2,832,182
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
9.0 MANHATTAN AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET TO ROSECRANS AVE
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB)
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
OCEAN DRIVE & 2ND STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 3RD STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 4TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 5TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 6TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 7TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 8TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 9TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 10TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 13TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 16TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 17TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 18TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 19TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 20TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & MARINE AVE (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 23RD STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 24TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 25TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 26TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 27TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 28TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & 29TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 30TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 31ST STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 32ND STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 33RD STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 34TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 35TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
OCEAN DRIVE & 36th STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 OCEAN DRIVE & ROSECRANS AVENUE (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 $1,170,000
$1,170,000
$117,000
$78,000
$160,000
$320,000
$180,480
$58,500
$32,000
$634,794
$330,093
$3,080,867
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
SUBTOTAL
10.0 OCEAN DRIVE FROM 2ND STREET TO ROSECRANS AVE
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB)
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 5TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 6TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 7TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 8TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 9TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 10TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 11TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 12TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 LS $30,000 $60,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 13TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 14TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 17TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 18TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 19TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 25TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 26TH STREET (NORTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 27TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 29TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 30TH STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 32ND STREET 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
HIGHLAND AVENUE & 41ST STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $690,000
$690,000
$69,000
$46,000
$100,000
$200,000
$112,800
$34,500
$20,000
$381,690
$198,479
$1,852,469
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
11.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE FROM 2ND STREET TO 45H STREET
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB)
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
R14 R ECONFIGURE ROADWAY 1 LS $1,967,148 $1,967,148
$1,967,148
$1,967,148
$196,715
$90,000
$196,715
$295,072
$295,072
$98,357
$50,000
$956,724
$497,496
$4,643,300
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
SUBTOTAL
12.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE FROM 45TH STREET TO 38TH STREET (OPTION 1)
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
R14 R ECONFIGURE ROADWAY 1 LS $1,948,448 $1,948,448
$1,948,448
$1,948,448
$194,845
$90,000
$194,845
$292,267
$292,267
$97,422
$50,000
$948,028
$492,975
$4,601,098
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
13.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE FROM 45TH STREET TO 38TH STREET (OPTION 2)
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
IMPROVE SIGNAL TIMING MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & MEADOWS AVENUE 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
$15,000
$500
$1,000
$12,000
$5,640
$2,000
$10,842
$5,638
$52,620
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
14.0 MANHATTAN BEACH BETWEEN SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD AND MEADOWS AVENUE S03
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & MANHATTAN AVENUE 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD & HIGHLAND AVENUE 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 15TH STREET & HIGHLAND AVENUE 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
$45,000
$45,000
$4,500
$6,000
$35,000
$5,640
$2,250
$29,517
$15,349
$143,256
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
15.0 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEMS (MULTIPLE LOCATIONS) S05
EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMTION SYSTEMS
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS06 REGULATORY SIGNS 12TH STREET AND AVIATION BOULEVARD 1 EA $500 $500 $500
$500
$1,000
$1,000
$4,000
$1,880
$1,500
$2,964
$1,541
$14,385
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
16.0 12TH STREET AND AVIATION BOULEVARD
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS14 RAISED MEDIAN 12TH STREET AND AVIATION BOULEVARD 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
$10,000
$1,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
$9,400
$500
$2,500
$16,020
$8,330
$77,750
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
17.0 12TH STREET AND AVIATION BOULEVARD
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS06 REGULATORY SIGNS SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD AND 10TH STREET 1 EA $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$4,000
$1,880
$1,500
$3,114
$1,619
$15,113
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
18.0 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD AND 10TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION HIGHLAND AVENUE & 35TH STREET (NORTHEAST & WESTSIDE CORNER) 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
$100,000
$10,000
$20,000
$5,000
$20,000
$18,800
$5,000
$2,500
$54,390
$28,283
$263,973
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
19.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 35TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION HIGHLAND AVENUE & 34TH STREET (NORTHEAST & NORTHWEST CORNER) 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
$100,000
$10,000
$20,000
$5,000
$20,000
$18,800
$5,000
$2,500
$54,390
$28,283
$263,973
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
20.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 34TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION HIGHLAND AVENUE & 36TH STREET (NORTHEAST & SOUTHWEST CORNER) 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
$100,000
$10,000
$20,000
$5,000
$20,000
$18,800
$5,000
$2,500
$54,390
$28,283
$263,973
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
21.0 HIGHLAND AVENUE & 36TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION MARINE AVENUE & PACIFIC AVENUE (SOUTHEAST CORNER) 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$50,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$9,400
$2,500
$2,500
$31,320
$16,286
$152,006
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
22.0 PACIFIC AVENUE/ARDMORE AVENUE/VALLEY DRIVE/MARINE AVENUE
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION MARINE AVENUE & REDONDO AVENUE (NORTHWEST CORNER) 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
$150,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$9,400
$7,500
$2,500
$65,820
$34,226
$319,446
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
23.0 MARINE AVENUE & REDONDO AVENUE
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION VALLEY DRIVE & POINSETTIA AVENUE (NORTH CORNER) 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$50,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$9,400
$2,500
$2,500
$31,320
$16,286
$152,006
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
24.0 VALLEY DRIVE & POINSETTIA AVENUE
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB CURB EXTENSION ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET (SOUTHEAST CORNER) 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$50,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$9,400
$2,500
$2,500
$31,320
$16,286
$152,006
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
25.0 ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS21PB RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 $60,000
$6,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$18,800
$3,000
$2,000
$37,440
$19,469
$181,709
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
26.0 ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB) ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$3,000
$2,000
$15,000
$5,640
$1,500
$17,142
$8,914
$83,196
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
27.0 ARDMORE AVENUE & 17TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS06 REGULATORY SIGNS VALLEY DRIVE & BLANCHE ROAD 2 EA $500 $1,000 $1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$4,000
$1,880
$1,500
$3,114
$1,619
$15,113
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
28.0 VALLEY DRIVE & BLANCHE ROAD
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS20PB RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK ARDMORE AVENUE & 18TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 $60,000
$60,000
$6,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000
$18,800
$3,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FINAL DESIGN
29.0 ARDMORE AVENUE & 18TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB) ARDMORE AVENUE & 18TH STREET (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$3,000
$2,000
$15,000
$5,640
$1,500
$17,142
$8,914
$83,196
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
30.0 ARDMORE AVENUE & 18TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS20PB PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK MANHATTAN AVENUE & 36TH STREET (NORTH & SOUTH LEG) 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 $4,000
$4,000
$1,000
$4,000
$4,000
$940
$500
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FINAL DESIGN
31.0 MANHATTAN AVENUE & 36TH STREET
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS20PB PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK VALLEY DRIVE & FLOURNOY ROAD (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$4,000
$940
$500
$3,132
$1,629
$15,201
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
32.0 VALLEY DRIVE & FLOURNOY ROAD
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB) VALLEY DRIVE & FLOURNOY ROAD (SOUTH LEG) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$3,000
$2,000
$15,000
$5,640
$1,500
$17,142
$8,914
$83,196
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
33.0 VALLEY DRIVE & FLOURNOY ROAD
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS20PB PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK 40TH STREET & HIGHLAND AVENUE (NORTH LEG) 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$4,000
$940
$500
$3,132
$1,629
$15,201
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
34.0 40TH STREET & HIGHLAND AVENUE
SUBTOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
COUNTER
MEASURE COUNTERMEASURE NAME LOCATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT
PRICE ITEM TOTAL
NS22PB
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB) 2ND STREET & JOHNSON STREET (EAST & WEST LEG) 2 EA $30,000 $60,000 $60,000
$60,000
$6,000
$4,000
$10,000
$5,640
$3,000
$26,592
$13,828
$129,060
12% INFLATION (2% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)
GRAND TOTAL
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
LRSP SAFETY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
30% CONTINGENCY
35.0 2ND STREET & JOHNSON STREET
SUBTOTAL
TOAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION (10% MAX)
TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX
APPENDIX D
COLLISION BENEFIT ANALYSIS
City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
1 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, from Manhattan
Avenue to Aviation Boulevard
S04 ● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Manhattan Beach Blvd (eastbound & westbound approaches) at all traffic signals between Manhattan Avenue and Aviation Boulevard. This would include the following cross streeets:
- Manhattan Ave - Meadows Avenue - Highland Avenue - Aviation Boulevard - Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue - Rowell Avenue - Pacific Avenue/John St - Peck Avenue - Poinsettia Avenue - Redondo Avenue - Sepulveda Blvd (Caltrans jursidiction) - Target Driveway All 40% 10 91 $6,074,000
$4,859,200 $878,143 5.5 100%
2 Sepulveda Boulevard, from 30th Street to
Manhattan Beach Boulevard
S04 ● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Sepulveda Blvd (northbound & sounthbound approaches) at the following cross streets:
- 2nd St (Caltrans jursidiction)
- 30th St (Caltrans jursidiction)
- 33rd St (Caltrans jursidiction)
- Rosecrans Ave (Caltrans jursidiction)
- Marine Ave (Caltrans jursidiction)
- Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Caltrans jurisdication)
All 40% 10 91 $6,105,000
$4,884,000 $453,631 10.8 100%
3 Rosecrans Ave, from Highland Ave to
Aviation Blvd
S04 ● Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection on Rosecrans Avenue (eastbound & westbound approaches) at the following cross streets:
- Highland Ave - Market Pl/Apollo St
- Blanche Blvd - Douglas St/ Redondo Ave
- Pacific Ave - Continental Circle/Manhattan Gateway - Sepulveda Blvd - Aviation Blvd
- Village Drive - Marriott Dr/Nash St
All 40% 10 51 $2,656,700
$2,125,360 $688,106 3.1 100%
4 Manhattan Avenue, from 25th Street to 35th
Street (Multiple Locations)
R36PB ● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 25th Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 29th Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 31st Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 33rd Street
- Intersection of Manhattan Ave & 35th Street
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 2 $155,600
$217,840 $799,053 0.3 90%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 1 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
5 Ocean Drive, from 34th Street to 13th Street NS06 ● Install a "Pedestrian Crossing"(W11-2 & W16-7P) sign at (part of CIP projects for raised crosswalks):
- North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 34th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 33rd Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 32nd Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 31st Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 30th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 29th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 28th Street - Southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 27th Street
- North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 26th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 25th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 20th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 19th Street - North & southbound approach of Ocean Drive & 13th Street All 15% 10 5 $2,583,200 $774,960 $130,370 5.9 100%
6 Ocean Drive, from Rosecrans Avenue to 16th
Street (Multiple Locations)
R36PB ● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ocean Drive & Rosecrans Avenue intersection - Intersection of Ocean Drive & 35th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 33rd Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 31st Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 29th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 24th Street
- Instersection of Ocean Drive & 20th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 18th Street
- Intersection of Ocean Drive & 16th Street
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 1 $142,300
$199,220 $1,635,379 0.1 90%
7 Ocean Drive, from 36th Street to 15th Street
(Multiple Locations)
NS20PB ● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- South leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 27th Street - North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 23rd Street - North leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & Marine Avenue - North leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 21st Street - North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 15th Street - North & south leg at the intersection of Ocean Drive & 36th Street Pedestrian and
Bicycle
25% 10 1 $2,530,000
$1,265,000 $115,140 11.0 100%
8 The Strand, from Marine Avenue to 23rd
Street
NS06 ● Install a "No Motor Vehicles" (R5-3) & a "No Bicycles"(R5-6) at:
- North & southbound approach of the Manhattan Beach Blvd & The Strand intersection
- North & southbound approach of Marine Avenue & The Strand intersection - North & southbound approach of 23rd Street & The Strand intersection All 15% 10 1 $13,300
$3,990 $39,516 0.1 100%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 2 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
9 Manhattan Avenue, from 1st Street to
Rosecrans Avenue
NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks along - North and south leg of 1st St & Manhattan Ave
- 2nd St & Manhattan Ave
- 3rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 4th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 5th St & Manhattan Ave
- 6th St & Manhattan Ave
- 7th St & Manhattan Ave
- 8th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 9th St & Manhattan Ave
- 10th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 11th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 12th St & Manhattan Ave
- 13th St & Manhattan Ave
- North leg 14th St & Manhattan Ave
- 15th St & Manhattan Ave
- Marine Ave & Manhattan Ave
- North leg of 23rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 24th St & Manhattan Ave
- 25th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 26th St & Manhattan Ave
- North and south leg of 27th St & Manhattan Ave
- 29th St & Manhattan Ave
- 30th St & Manhattan Ave
- 31st St & Manhattan Ave
- 32nd St & Manhattan Ave
- 33rd St & Manhattan Ave
- 34th St & Manhattan Ave
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 7 $744,300 $1,042,020 $930,000 1.1 100%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 3 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
10 Ocean Drive, from 2nd Street to Rosecrans
Avenue
NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks along Ocean Dr:
- 2nd St & Ocean Dr - 13th St & Ocean Dr - 3rd St & Ocean Dr - 16th St & Ocean Dr - 4th St & Ocean Dr - 17th St & Ocean Dr - 5th St & Ocean Dr - 18th St & Ocean Dr - 6th St & Ocean Dr - 19th St & Ocean Dr - 7th St & Ocean Dr - 20th St & Ocean Dr - 8th St & Ocean Dr - 24th St & Ocean Dr - 9th St & Ocean Dr - 25th St & Ocean Dr - 10th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of Manhattan Beach Blvd & Ocean Dr - North and south leg of Marine Ave & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of 23rd St & Ocean Dr
- North leg of 26th St & Ocean Dr
- South leg of 27th St & Ocean Dr
- North and South leg of 28th St & Ocean Dr
- 29th St & Ocean Dr
- 30th St & Ocean Dr
- 31st St & Ocean Dr
- 32nd St & Ocean Dr
- 33rd St & Ocean Dr
- 34th St & Ocean Dr
- 35th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of 36th St & Ocean Dr
- North and south leg of Rosecrans Ave St & Ocean Dr
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 3 $2,685,600
$3,759,840 $3,080,867 1.2 100%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 4 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
11 Highland Avenue, from 2nd Street to 45th
Street
NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at all existing non-signalized crosswalks at:
- North and south leg of 5th St & Highland Avenue
- 6th St & Highland Avenue
- 7th St & Highland Avenue
- 8th St & Highland Avenue
- 9th St & Highland Avenue
- 10th St & Highland Avenue
- 11th St & Highland Avenue
- North and south leg of 12th St & Highland Avenue
- North leg of 13th St & Highland Avenue
- North leg of 14th St & Highland Avenue
- 17th St & Highland Avenue
- 18th St & Highland Ave
- 19th St & Highland Ave
- 25th St & Highland Ave
- North leg of 26th St & Highland Ave
- South leg of 27th St & Highland Ave
- 29th St & Highland Ave
- 30th St & Highland Ave
- 32nd St & Highland Ave
- South leg of 41st St & Highland Ave
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 16 $1,521,400 $2,129,960 $1,852,469 1.1 100%
12 Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th
Street (Option 1)
R14 ● Reconfigure roadway to provide bike lanes on Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th Street
- Install 5' bike lanes
- Stripe edgeline for the on-street parking (remove peak period restrictions) - Restripe roadway to reduce travel lane width
- Widen sidewalk by 2' (existing sidewalk width is 5' and recommending a 7' sidewalk)
All 30% 20 25 $2,841,000
$3,409,200 $4,643,300 0.7 90%
13 Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th
Street (Option 2)
R14 ● Reconfigure roadway to provide bike lanes on Highland Avenue, from 45th Street to 38th Street
- Stripe edgeline for the on-street parking (remove peak period restrictions) - Remove one travel lane from each direction
- Add center turn lane
- Widen sidewalk by 2' (existing sidewalk width is 5' and recommending a 7' sidewalk)
All 30% 20 25 $2,841,000
$3,409,200 $4,601,098 0.7 90%
14 Manhattan Beach Blvd between Sepulveda
Blvd and Meadows Ave
S03 ● Improve Signal Timing:
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Sepulveda Blvd (Caltrans jurisdiction) - Manhattan Beach Blvd & Target Dwy (TSS P project)
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Meadows Ave (TSS P project)
All 15% 10 38 $3,200,300
$960,090 $52,620 18.2 50%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 5 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
15 Emergency Vehicle Preemption System
(Multiple Locations)
S05 ● Install EVP (GPS units) at the following intersections:
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Manhattan Ave
- Manhattan Beach Blvd & Highland Ave
- 15th St & Highland Ave
Emergency
Vehicle
70% 10 0 $0
$0 $143,256 0.0 100%
16 12th St and Aviation Blvd NS06 ● Upgrade to larger "no left turn/u-turn" regulatory sign in the norththbound approach at the intersection of Aviation Blvd & 12th Street All 15% 10 11 $410,500 $123,150 $14,385 8.6 100%
17 12th St and Aviation Blvd NS14 ● Install raised median in the north leg of the intersection of Aviation Blvd & 12th Street
All 25% 20 11 $410,500 $410,500 $77,750 5.3 90%
18 Sepulveda Blvd and 10th St NS06 ● Upgrade to larger "no left turn/u-turn" regulatory sign in the southbound approach of the intersection of Sepulveda Blvd & 10th Street All 15% 10 12 $430,000 $129,000 $15,113 8.5 100%
19 Highland Avenue & 35th Street NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at - Northeast & westside corner of the Highland Avenue & 35th Street intersection (t-intersection)
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 3 $175,100
$245,140 $263,973 0.9 100%
20 Highland Avenue & 34th Street NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- Northeast & northwest corner of the Highland Avenue & 34th Street intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $263,973 0.0 100%
21 Highland Avenue & 36th Street NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- Northeast & southwest corner of the Highland Avenue & 36th Street intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 1 $80,900 $113,260 $263,973 0.4 100%
22 Pacific Avenue/Ardmore Avenue/Valley
Drive/Marine Avenue
NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- Southeast corner of the Marine Avenue & Pacific Avenue interesection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 1 $80,900 $113,260 $152,006 0.7 100%
23 Marine Avenue and Redondo Avenue NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- Northwest corner of the Marine Avenue & Redondo Avenue intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 1 $80,900 $113,260 $319,446 0.4 100%
24 Valley Drive and Poinsettia Avenue NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- North corner (Valley Drive) of the Valley Drive & Poinsettia Avenue intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $152,006 0.0 100%
25 Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street NS21PB ● Install a curb extension at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0
$0 $152,006 0.0 100%
26 Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street R36PB ● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $181,709 0.0 100%
27 Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at:
- Ardmore Avenue & 17th Street (existing CIP project)
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100%
28 Valley Drive & Blanche Road NS06 ● Install a "Bicycle Wrong Way" (R5-1b) sign at:
- East & westbound approach at the Valley Dr & Blanche Rd intersection All 15% 10 4 $249,800
$74,940 $15,113 5.0 100%
29 Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street R36PB ● Install a raised crosswalk at:
- South leg of Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street intersection Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $181,709 0.0 100%
30 Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at:
- Ardmore Avenue & 18th Street
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 6 City of Manhattan Beach LRSP
SAFETY PROJECTS
Collision Database From 2016 to 2020
Locations CM # Description
Collision
Type
Addressed CRF
Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost Ratio
HSIP Max
Share
31 Manhattan Avenue & 36th Street NS20PB ● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- North & south leg at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 36th Street Pedestrian and
Bicycle
25% 10 0 $0 $0 $21,025 0.0 100%
32 Valley Drive & Flournoy Road NS20PB ● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
- South leg (Valley Drive) at the intersection of Valley Drive and Flournoy Road Pedestrian and
Bicycle
25% 10 0 $0 $0 $15,201 0.0 100%
33 Valley Drive & Flournoy Road NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at:
- South leg (Valley Drive) of the intersection of Valley Drive & Flournoy Road Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $83,196 0.0 100%
34 40th Street and Highland Avenue NS20PB ● Install a pedestrian crossing at:
-North leg at the intersection of 40th Street and Highland Avenue Pedestrian and
Bicycle
25% 10 0 $0 $0 $15,201 0.0 100%
35 2nd Street & Johnson Street NS22PB ● Install an RRFB at:
- East & west leg of the intersection of 2nd Street & Johnson Street Pedestrian and
Bicycle
35% 20 0 $0 $0 $129,060 0.0 100%
C:\Users\ihang\Desktop\Manhattan Beach Recommended CM v5 20220216.xlsx - Safety Project Benefits Page 7