Manteca City Council
June 20, 2023

of Lincoln LRSP - DRAFT January 2022 Page
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023

FINAL REPORT
FOR

CITY OF MANTECA

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
JUNE 13, 2023
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Department of Engineering
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, California 95337
Prepared by:
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.  June 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Manteca’s employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this Local Road Safety Plan. The City’s Community Development Department and Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

City of Manteca
Beshoy Demyan (Senior Engineer/City Project Manager)
Kyzen Nicolas (Assistant Engineer)
Frank Guillory (Senior Engineering Technician)
Joshua Sweeten (Traffic Sargent)
Daniel Peters (Traffic Officer)
Aaron Jeffery (Streets Manager)
Juan Portillo (Transit Supervisor)
Dawn Cortesi (Interim Director of HR)
Andrew Newquist (Risk Analyst)
Consultant Team
Robert Paderna (Project Manager)
Frederik Venter
Ali Mustafa
Amy Butler
Zachary Ramalingam
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
ii
ENGINEER’S SEAL
__________________________________________
Signature line
By signing and stamping this Local Road Safety Plan, the engineer is attesting to this report's technical information and engineering data upon which local agency's recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are made.

STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code – Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Document Organization.............................................................................................. 2

2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 3

3. PROCESS ............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Guiding Manuals ........................................................................................................ 5

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners .............. 5

3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual ..................................................................................... 6

3.2. Analysis Techniques .................................................................................................. 6

3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis ............................................................. 6

3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis ................................................................... 7

3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion ................ 8

3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) ....................................................... 8

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..............................................................................................10

4.1. Stakeholder Meetings ...............................................................................................10

5. REVIEW OF CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS ..............................................................................11

6. DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................12

6.1. Roadway Network .....................................................................................................12

6.2. Intersections ..............................................................................................................12

6.3. Crashes ....................................................................................................................12

7. SAFETY TRENDS ..................................................................................................................13

7.1. K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes ...............................................13

7.2. Severity Level ...........................................................................................................14

7.3. Highest Occurring Crash Types ................................................................................19

7.4. Lane Departure .........................................................................................................20

7.5. Impaired Driving Crashes ..........................................................................................20

7.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ................................................................................22

7.6.1. Bicycle Crashes ...............................................................................................22

7.6.2. Pedestrian Crashes ..........................................................................................22

7.7. Priority Locations.......................................................................................................24

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................26

8.1. Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................26

8.1.1. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) ..................................................................26

8.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................................27

8.1.3. Project Sheets for Priority Locations .................................................................31

8.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures ........................................................................36

9. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................38

9.1. Evaluation .................................................................................................................38

9.2. Implementation .........................................................................................................38

9.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas ....................................................................38

9.3. Updates to the LRSP ................................................................................................39

9.3.1. HSIP Analyzer ..................................................................................................39 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
iv

9.3.2. HSIP Eligibility ..................................................................................................40

9.4. Funding .....................................................................................................................40

9.4.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) .................................................40

9.4.2. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) .................................................41

9.4.3. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ..........................................41

9.4.4. California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) ..........................................................................41

9.4.5. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants ................................................42

10. NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................43

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Literature Review
Appendix B Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix C Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix D Project Sheets
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Crashes by Severity (Fatal and Serious) ..................................................................15 Figure 2 – Crashes by Severity (Other Injury, Complaint of Pain, and PDO) .............................16 Figure 3 – Serious Injury Crash Map .........................................................................................17 Figure 4 – Fatal Crash Map.......................................................................................................18 Figure 5 – Crashes by Type ......................................................................................................19 Figure 6 –Impaired Driving Crashes ..........................................................................................20 Figure 7 – Impaired Driving Crash Map .....................................................................................21 Figure 8 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ...............................................................................22 Figure 9 – Non-Motorized (Bicycle and Pedestrian) Crashes ....................................................23 Figure 10 – CMF Calculation .....................................................................................................26 Figure 11 – CMF Method Sample Calculation ...........................................................................26 Figure 12 – CRF Calculation .....................................................................................................27

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – City of Manteca K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes ......................14 Table 2 – Crashes by Severity ..................................................................................................15 Table 3 – Crashes by Type ......................................................................................................19 Table 4 – City of Manteca Short-List of Priority Locations .........................................................24 Table 5 – Manteca Countermeasures Toolbox ..........................................................................28 Table 6 – Priority Location Summary ........................................................................................32 Table 7 – Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................................37 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS
A Serious Injury Crash
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ARIDE Advance Roadside Impaired Enforcement
ATP Active Transportation Program
B Non-incapacitating Injury Crash
BCR Benefit/Cost Ratio
C Possible Injury Crash
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR Critical Crash Rate
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CTC California Transportation Commission
DEV Daily Entering Volume
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
K Fatal Crash
K+SI Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes
LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval
LRSM Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version

1.6, April 2022)
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
O No Injury Crash (Property Damage Only)
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
vii
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PDO Property Damage Only
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SB1 California Senate Bill 1
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
1 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Manteca is in Central Valley of California, located between the cities of Stockton and Modesto in San Joaquin County. The City has a population of approximately 85,800 and covers

21.4 square miles. The City’s transportation network includes 328 miles of City-maintained roads and 71 traffic signals located primarily on key arterial and collector roadways.

This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis, as well as at specific locations to identify Citywide safety trends, high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high-crash severities. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:
 Identify safety factors in the transportation network that may be challenging for various roadway users
 Improve safety at specific high-crash and high-risk locations  Develop safety measures aligning with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Five Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and reduce fatal and serious injury crashes
The process and analysis performed in development of the City’s LRSP, including establishing the initial vision and goals for the LRSP, performing crash history analysis, identification of emphasis areas and recommended engineering and non-engineering safety countermeasures, are summarized in this LRSP. The information compiled provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes of travel within the City.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data that was available at the start of the project (January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2021) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, crash patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
 Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
 Reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes  Develop lasting partnerships through collaboration among professionals in various disciplines
 Support for grant funding applications
 Assist in prioritizing investments in traffic safety throughout the City’s transportation network
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
2 1.1. Document Organization
The LRSP is organized into the following sections:

Section 1 Provides an introduction to the LRSP.

Section 2 Presents the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP.

Section 3
Summarizes the LRSP development process including guidance documents and analysis techniques.

Section 4 Presents the project stakeholders and stakeholder engagement.

Section 5 Summarizes the review of City planning documents.

Section 6 Contains the LRSP data sources.

Section 7 Provides a summary of safety trends.

Section 8 Includes recommended engineering and non-infrastructure countermeasures.

Section 9
Summarizes the evaluation and implementation of the safety countermeasures.

Section 10 Identifies next steps.

Appendices
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
3 2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES
This LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of travel modes, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort is also intended to use historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a list of Proven Safety Countermeasures. The list currently contains twenty (20) Proven Safety Countermeasures, one of which is the development of a LRSP. Implementation of LRSPs has improved safety in local jurisdictions across the country by providing a guide for local jurisdictions to systemically address the conditions that are known to contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized “roadmap” to directly address the jurisdictions’ most common safety challenges.

Following discussions with City staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision, Goal, and Objectives were established for this LRSP:

Vision:

Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users
Goal:

Identify transportation safety initiatives (projects and programs) and partnerships under the 5 Es of traffic safety including Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies, to continue reducing fatalities and serious injuries in the City of Manteca.

Objectives:
 Identify major contributing factors to crashes and define priority locations for roadway safety improvements
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety investments that can be applied systemically
 Promote safe, equitable, and multimodal mobility opportunities  Create an LRSP document to capitalize on established safety initiatives and identify other strategies to prioritize safety investments  Continuing documentation of the City of Manteca’s procedures for continuing crash data monitoring
 Document proposed countermeasures, implementation considerations, and benefit/cost for priority locations identified through this study to aid in the evaluation and preparation of grant applications
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
4 3. PROCESS
Using a network screening process, locations within the City’s roadway network that would most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historical crash data, crash risk factors for the entire City were explored. These outcomes would help inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that are most likely to improve roadway safety in the City of Manteca. The following sections describe the data analysis process.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) level. Both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations to be included in a LRSP.

The FHWA encourages:
 The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP
 Review crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern  Establish goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans’ guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
 Establish leadership
 Analyze the safety data
 Determine emphasis areas
 Identify strategies
 Prioritize and incorporate strategies
 Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP; existing safety efforts; crash data analysis; emphasis areas; and safety improvements for priority locations identified throughout the City. Furthermore, the development of the LRSP recommendations considers the “Five Es” of traffic safety defined by the California SHSP: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
5 3.1. Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within the City at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historical crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes as well as crashes involving active transportation users.

This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis described in the following sections.

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners The Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.6, April 2022) (LRSM) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network-wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.

According to the LRSM, “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for grant funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments, and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio (BCR). The LRSM suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and traffic control devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).

These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from implementation of a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply multiple CMFs appropriately.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
6 3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. This fourpart manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank locations that, based on the implementation of a countermeasure, are most likely to least likely realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

The HSM identifies five steps in this process:

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories. In addition to identifying the total number of crashes, this LRSP uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate (CCR) to analyze the data.

3.2. Analysis Techniques

3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
 Number of Crashes
 CCR (HSM Ch. 4)
 Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4)  Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
7 The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized or Unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each sub-population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These subpopulations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are occurring.

The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were:
 Crash severity - fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
 Crash type - broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, and other
 Environmental factors – lighting and wet roads
 Driver behavior - impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, CCR, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area within the City to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City.

3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of crashes at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level, but does not provide a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment on a daily basis. The HSM describes the CCR method, which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.

The CCR analysis compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a particular location based on facility type and traffic volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted Citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95-percent confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities. A CCR value of greater than zero reflects a location that has a higher crash rate than facilities with similar volumes, while a negative CCR value signifies a below-average crash rate. It should be noted that the CCR does not reflect the severity of the crashes occurring at the location, but rather the number of crashes for the given volume.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
8 Critical Crash Rate Formula
𝑅௖,௜ = 𝑅௔ + ൤𝑃 × ට
ோೌ
ொ௏೔
൨ + ൤
ଵ
൫ଶ×(ொ௏೔)൯
൨ Where,
Rc,i = Critical crash rate for intersection i
Ra = Weighted average crash rate for reference population P = P-value for corresponding confidence level
MEVi = Million entering vehicles for intersection i
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR is calculated using:
 Daily Entering Volume (DEV) for intersections, or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for roadway segments
 Intersection control types to separate them into like populations  Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations  Crash records in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures
Strengths
 Reduces low volume exaggeration
 Considers variance
 Establishes comparison threshold
Weaknesses
 Does not account for regression to the mean bias

3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion When analyzing crash data systematically, it is important to identify areas where certain types of crashes are occurring with greater frequency. The HSM describes a method of identifying locations where probability of a specific crash type exceeds the threshold population. This method prioritizes locations based on the probability that the true proportion (long-term predicted proportion) of a type of crash or injury level will exceed the threshold proportion. The threshold proportion is based on the proportion of a specific crash type/severity to all crashes within the dataset (HSM, Chapter 4). This analysis identifies locations where certain crash types are over-represented to be isolated for further analysis.

3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The EPDO method is described in the HSM. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (fatal, non-fatal injury, no injury) to develop a property damage only score.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
9 In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This value is then divided by the injury cost for a PDO crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This value allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs (HSM, Chapter 4).

EPDO Formula:

𝐸𝑃𝐷𝑂 =
(𝑁ி + 𝑁ௌ) ∗ 2,843,000 + (𝑁ை ∗ 159,900) + (𝑁஼ ∗ 90,900) + (𝑁௉஽ை ∗ 14,900) 14,900
Where,
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only (in units of crashes) NF = Number of fatal crashes
NS = Number of serious injury crashes
NO = Number of other visible injury crashes
NC = Number of complaint of pain crashes
NPDO = Number of PDO crashes
The cost to society for each crash type along non-signalized intersections is as follows:
 Fatal: $2,843,000
 Serious: $2,843,000
 Other Visible Injury: $159,900
 Complaint of Pain: $90,900
 PDO: $14,900
Source: Highway Safety Manual
To give an example from Appendix B, the intersection of Arrowsmith Drive and Lathrop Road experienced 10 crashes from 2017 to 2021. The crashes are broken down by severity as follows: 1 fatal crash, 1 crash resulting in serious injuries, 0 crashes resulting in other visible injuries, 4 crash resulting in complaint of pain, and 4 PDO crashes.

𝐸𝑃𝐷𝑂 =
(1 + 1) ∗ 2,843,000 + (0 ∗ 159,900) + (4 ∗ 90,900) + (4 ∗ 14,900) 14,900 = 410
The 10 crashes of ranging severity that took place at the intersection of Arrowsmith Drive and Lathrop Road comprise the monetary equivalent of 410 PDO crashes. This intersection has a CCR Differential value of 0.06. Together the EPDO and CCR Differential values demonstrate that the intersection has historically had a relative crash rate that is slightly higher than average for similar facilities, and that that the crashes that have occurred at this intersection have generally resulted in significant injuries. Locations with fatal and serious injury crashes will have a higher EPDO value compared to locations with less serious (or non-injury) crashes.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
10 4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure local perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. A stakeholder group comprised of City staff and external stakeholders was formed. This group consisted of members of City staff representing engineering, Street Division, ADA/Bicycle/Pedestrian Advocate, and transit, as well as representatives from the Manteca Police Department.

The stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety concerns present in the City’s transportation network. The summary of the stakeholder meetings is provided below.

4.1. Stakeholder Meetings
A project stakeholder workshop was conducted on February 1, 2023. At the virtual workshop, the LRSP stakeholder group was introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, data analysis approach, preliminary analysis results and priority/emphasis areas identified. In addition to the LRSP overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge for several “priority” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash data analysis process.

Additionally, the stakeholder group met in the field in March 2023, at 13 “priority” locations selected based on the crash analysis and stakeholder input. This meeting provided an opportunity to perform a field assessment and offer another opportunity to solicit feedback from members of the multidisciplinary stakeholder group. Potential safety countermeasures for each location were recommended and discussed at the field review meeting.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
11 5. REVIEW OF CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.

The following planning documents were reviewed to obtain planned and programmed projects:
 Manteca General Plan Update, 2023
 Manteca Active Transportation Plan, 2020
 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2022  State Route 120/McKinley Avenue Interchange Project, 2014  City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program, 2018
 State Route 99/120 and Austin Road Interchange Connector Project, 2023  SJCOG Measure K Adopted Projects, 2017
A matrix identifying plans and improvements is included in Appendix A. The intent of this matrix is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City and to reveal projects that may impact the safety analysis process.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
12 6. DATA SOURCES
The following data was obtained from the City for use in crash data analysis.

6.1. Roadway Network
The collision analysis, which is described in detail in Section 3, used California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) roadway classification system. The roadway network classification was assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either a major arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local road to develop crash rates specific to the functional design and capacity.

Comparative statistics were stratified by roadway classification (i.e., only major arterials are compared to major arterials).

6.2. Intersections
The crash analysis also required each intersection within the City to be classified by control type. Intersections throughout the City were classified as either signalized or unsignalized. The safety analysis also only compared intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections are only compared to signalized intersections) within the City.

6.3. Crashes
Crash data for the most recent five-year period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021 was used for the crash analysis. Using data for the past five-year period is sufficient to identify potential trends in crashes by location and type, while not being outdated as to have data that would include long-term technology and cultural changes. The crash data was obtained from Crossroads Software, which processes crash records from the Manteca Police Department. Crossroads provides the most up-to-date law enforcement records and geocodes them into a GIS format that can be used in the network screening process. Crash records were allocated to intersections and the roadway network segments.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
13 7. SAFETY TRENDS
The following sections contain the results of the analysis process which included evaluation of fatal and serious injury (K+SI) crashes to statewide K+SI crashes, among other evaluations including crash by severity level, cause, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes. Summary tables presenting the crash data analysis and network screening results for all intersections and roadway segments are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

7.1. K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California K+SI (fatal and serious injury) crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic stakeholders around the state. Table 1 contains a comparison of The City of Manteca’s fatal and serious injury crashes to the statewide averages based on SWITRS data.

The crash data can be attributed to fourteen of the sixteen challenge areas. Challenge areas where the city’s percentages were higher than the statewide percentages are noted in bold. The City of Manteca is notably higher than the statewide percentages in aggressive driving, commercial vehicles, and aging driver involved crashes.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
14 Table 1 – City of Manteca K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes California SHSP Challenge
Areas
City of Manteca
Comparison to Statewide
Percentages
City of Manteca Statewide
Percentages
Aggressive Driving Higher 49.2% 33.1%
Commercial Vehicles Higher 15.5% 6.4%
Aging Drivers Higher 16.6% 12.4%
Impaired Driving Higher 28.5% 25.3%
Driver Licensing* Higher 27.8% 24.7%
Motorcyclists Higher 22.3% 21.0%
Work Zones Higher 2.6% 1.4%
Distracted Driving Higher 5.2% 5.0%
Bicyclists Lower 7.3% 8.3%
Occupant Protection Lower 12.4% 14.2%
Young Drivers Lower 9.3% 13.1%
Pedestrians Lower 13.5% 19.2%
Lane Departure Lower 35.2% 43.3%
Intersections Lower 15.5% 23.6%
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Record (SWITRS, 2009 – 2018). *Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

1. Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or serious injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained)

2. California SHSP does not have reported crash data for the following two challenge areas: Emergency Response and Emerging Technology

7.2. Severity Level
Knowing the impacts of the crash (the injuries or type of damage which occurred) is a key part of assessing the environment and safety factors around the site of the crash. The National Safety Council developed the “KABCO” injury scale, which is frequently used by law enforcement for classifying injuries. The KABCO scale is referenced below:
 K – Fatal
 A – Serious injury
 B – Other Visible Injury
 C – Complaint of Pain
 O – No injury (property damage only)
Table 2 presents crash severity by location type—signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and roadway segments. As shown, of the 2,018 total crashes reported over the 5- year study period, fifty percent of crashes in the City of Manteca in the past five years have ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
15 occurred at an unsignalized intersection. The remaining 30 percent and 20 percent of the total crashes have occurred at signalized intersections and roadway segments, respectively.

Table 2 – Crashes by Severity
Severity
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Roadway
Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 4 19% 11 52% 6 29% 21 1%
Serious 15 26% 31 55% 11 19% 57 3%
Other Visible
Injury 102 29% 179 52% 67 19% 348 17%
Complaint of Pain 232 35% 328 50% 101 15% 661 33%
No Injury (PDO) 246 26% 472 51% 213 23% 931 46%
Total 599 30% 1,021 50% 398 20% 2,018
Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).

One percent of crashes recorded in the study period resulted in fatalities, and 3 percent resulted in serious injuries. Crashes resulting in property damage only accounted for 46 percent of all crashes. Crashes resulting in the various severity levels are presented in Figure 1 and Figure

2. Figure 1 – Crashes by Severity (Fatal and Serious)
Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).
4 15
11 31
6 11
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Fatal Severe Crashes
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
16 Figure 2 – Crashes by Severity (Other Injury, Complaint of Pain, and PDO) Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).

Figure 3 and Figure 4 on the following pages present the locations where fatal and serious injury crashes occurred throughout the City, broken down by intersection and roadway segment crashes.
102
232 246
179
328
472
67 101
213
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain No Injury (PDO) Crashes Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
17 Figure 3 – Serious Injury Crash Map
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
18 Figure 4 – Fatal Crash Map
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
19 7.3. Highest Occurring Crash Types
According to reported data, approximately 2,018 crashes occurred within City of Manteca during the five-year study period which had clear, discernable spatial data that did not occur on private property. As summarized in Table 3 and as shown in Figure 5, the most common crash types were broadside, hit object, and rear end. Unsignalized intersections experienced the highest number of crashes consistently among the various crash types.

Table 3 – Crashes by Type
Type
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Roadway
Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes
Broadside 165 31% 284 55% 71 14% 520
Hit Object 107 23% 235 50% 126 27% 468
Rear End 160 39% 178 43% 75 18% 413
Sideswipe 62 27% 116 50% 53 23% 231
Head On 45 27% 81 49% 39 24% 165
Overturned 0 0% 10 56% 8 44% 18
Impaired 67 25% 139 52% 62 23% 268
Figure 5 – Crashes by Type
Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).
165
107
160
62 45
0 284
235
178
116
81 10
71 126
75 53
39 8
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Broadside Hit Object Rear End Sideswipe Head On Overturned Crashes Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
20 7.4. Lane Departure
Caltrans defines crashes involving lane departure as those with crash types listed as ‘Head-On’, ‘Hit Object’, or ‘Overturned’. This also includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash. There were 651 lane departure crashes over the study period within the City. Lane departure crashes account for 29 percent of all fatal crashes and 28 percent of all serious injury crashes within the study period. Of the 651 lane departure crashes, 6 were fatal, 16 were reported with serious injuries, 83 with other visible injuries, 81 with complaints of pain, and 465 with PDO.

7.5. Impaired Driving Crashes
Crashes involving drugs or alcohol include all crashes where there was any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. This is different from impaired driving statistics in that drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted. Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potential to impact driver responsiveness and decision making. There were 268 impaired driving crashes between 2017 and 2021. There were 5 fatal crashes and 8 crashes resulting in serious injuries. Impaired driving was a contributing factor in 16 percent of all fatal and serious injury crashes within the study period. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of impaired driving crashes across intersections and roadway segments.

Figure 6 – Impaired Driving Crashes
Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).

Figure 7 presents a map of impaired driving crashes throughout the City. 67 139
62 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
Impaired Driving Crashes
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
21 Figure 7 – Impaired Driving Crash Map
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
22 7.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Figure 8 presents the location of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. As shown, bicycle and pedestrian crashes were most common at unsignalized intersections. Figure 9 illustrates the locations of pedestrian and bicycle crashes within the City. Additional information on pedestrian and bicycle crashes is provided in the following sections.

Bicycle and pedestrian crashes accounted for approximately 29 percent of all fatal and serious injury crashes in the 5-year study period. The intersection of North Union Road and Center Street experienced the highest number of bicycle crashes (4 crashes). The intersection of Yosemite Avenue and Veach Avenue (3 crashes, 1 resulting in Severe Injuries), and the intersection of Cottage Avenue and North Street experienced the highest number of pedestrian crashes (3 crashes).

Figure 8 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Source: Crossroads (2017 – 2021).

7.6.1. Bicycle Crashes
There were 94 bicycle-involved crashes that occurred across the City over the 5-year study period. Of the bicycle-involved injury crashes, 2 were fatal, 4 were reported with serious injuries, 48 with other visible injuries, 33 with complaints of pain, and 7 with no injuries (PDO).

7.6.2. Pedestrian Crashes
Over the span from 2017 to 2021, a total of 97 pedestrian-involved crashes occurred across the City. Of the pedestrian-involved injury crashes, 6 were fatal, 11 were reported with serious injuries, 30 with other visible injuries, 44 with complaints of pain, and 6 with no injuries (PDO). 34 30
47 56
13 11
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Bicycle Pedestrian
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
23 Figure 9 – Non-Motorized (Bicycle and Pedestrian) Crashes ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
24 7.7. Priority Locations
Based on the network screening analysis, the following priority locations have been identified for the City to consider for case studies and identification of site-specific safety countermeasures.

The short-list includes four signalized intersections, four Unsignalized intersections, and three roadway segments as presented in Table 4.

The full list of intersection and segment network screening results is included in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. Based on the crash data analysis and input received from the City and project stakeholders, the locations for field review and case study was narrowed down to 11 priority locations. Site-specific safety countermeasures were identified for these locations.

Table 4 – City of Manteca Short-List of Priority Locations Location Crashes Local CCR
Differential*
Equivalent
Property
Damage
Only
(EPDO)**
Notes
Signalized Intersections
North Union Road and
Center Street 23 0.03 143 1 Pedestrian and 4 Bicycle involved crashes, 13 Broadsides, 4 Dark
Airport Way and Yosemite
Avenue 23 0.08 242
1 Severe Injury crash, 1 Bicycle
involved crash, 2 Head On, 5 Rear
ends, 8 Broadside, 5 Dark
Commerce
Avenue/Northwoods Ave
and Yosemite Avenue
32 0.22 350
2 Pedestrians and 2 Bicycle
involved crash, 2 Severe Injuries, 2
Head On, 9 Rear Ends, 8
Broadside, 8 Sideswipes
Cottage Avenue and North
Street 18 0.28 84 3 Pedestrian and 1 Bicycle involved crash, 9 Broadside Unsignalized Intersections
Spreckels Avenue and
Norman Drive 17 0.47 125 2 Pedestrian and 2 Bicycle involved crash, 2 Head on, 7 Broadside Main Street and Edison
Street 7 -0.01 402 2 Fatal, 2 Pedestrian involved crash, 3 Dark Arrowsmith Drive and
Lathrop Road 10 0.11 410
1 Fatal, 1 Severe, 1 Bicycle
involved crash, 3 Head On, 6
Broadside, 7 Dark
Main Street and Sutter
Street 4 -0.09 199 1 Fatal, 1 Pedestrian involved crash ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
25 Location Crashes Local CCR
Differential*
Equivalent
Property
Damage
Only
(EPDO)**
Notes
Roadway Segments
Mission Ridge Drive,
between Syrah Court and
S Main Street
4 0.91 173 1 Severe injury crash
Yosemite Avenue, between
Union Road and Trevino
Avenue/ Pacific Road
25 2.14 434 2 Severe injury, 4 Bicycle involved
crash, 10 Broadside, 5 Dark
Yosemite Avenue, between
Cottage Avenue and
Commerce Avenue
11 0.70 205 1 Severe injury, 1 Pedestrian
involved crash, 1 Head on
* Local Critical Crash Rate (LCCR) Differential – The difference between the critical crash rate of a location and the maximum crash rate expected to occur at that location within the municipality. Positive LCCRs indicate a higher crash rate than expected.
** Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes – All severity levels are weighted and converted to PDO crashes for the benefit of having a single comparative value.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
26 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that are likely to address safety concerns within the City.

8.1. Engineering Countermeasures
While there are many safety countermeasures that could be used to systemically improve roadway safety, the following sections provide countermeasures for consideration by the City.

The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.

8.1.1. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs)
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the HSM. CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. In other words, a CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 10 illustrates the definition of CMFs.

Figure 10 – CMF Calculation
The CMF Method is used to calculate the expected number of crashes by taking the observed number of crashes and multiplying those crashes by the applicable CMF for the proposed countermeasure. It is recommended that CMFs be applied to a minimum of three years of crash data for urban and suburban sites and five years of crash data for a rural site. Figure 11 is a sample calculation of the CMF method with one CMF being applied to a particular site for a single year.

Figure 11 – CMF Method Sample Calculation
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
27 A CRF is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. Figure 12 presents how a CRF is calculated in relationship to a CMF.

Figure 12 – CRF Calculation
Caution should be used in the selection of appropriate CMFs. The following guidance should be considered when selecting CMFs for predictive crash analysis:
 CMFs should be selected from the HSM Part D, the LRSM, or from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/).  Read the countermeasure abstract to determine if the CMF is applicable to the proposed improvement.
 Only CMFs with a four-star rating or higher should be considered for use in analysis.  Be sure the selected CMF is applicable to the set of crash data being used for analysis.

Some CMFs may only be applicable to a subset of the crash data.  The application of multiple CMFs can overestimate the expected crash reduction.

Unless each CMF addresses independent crash types, multiple CMFs should not be used. It is suggested that no more than three independent CMFs be applied to a particular site.

The countermeasures proposed in this document were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes.

8.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective for the City are listed in Table 5, and include low-cost and higher-cost items that can be implemented in phases where appropriate. The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid the City in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
28 Table 5 – Manteca Countermeasures Toolbox
Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian Implement
and Bicycle
Signalized Intersections
Install intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 100% $$
Retroreflective backplates 0.85 15% X 100% $
Improve signal timing (coordination) 0.85 15% X 50% $$
Install Left Turn Lane, Add Left Turn Phase 0.45 55% X 100% $$$ Protected left turn phase 0.7 30% X 100% $$
Convert signal from pedestal-mounted to mast arm 0.7 30% X 100% $$$ Install raised pavement markers and striping 0.9 10% X 100% $ Install flashing beacons as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 100% $$ Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.45 55% X 100% $$$ Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 100% $$
Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Pedestrian countdown signal heads X 0.75 25% X 100% $
Pedestrian scramble X 0.6 40% X 100% $$
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle box X X 0.85 15% X 100% $ Modify signal to provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% X 100% $ Flashing yellow arrow 0.94 6% X N/A $
Signal ahead warning signs 0.85 15% X N/A $
Add Near-Side Traffic Signal Heads 0.85 15% X 90% $
Unsignalized Intersection
Add intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 100% $$
Install all-way STOP control 0.5 50% X 100% $
Convert intersection to roundabout Varies Varies X 100% $$$ Convert intersection to mini-roundabout 70% 30% X 90% $$ Install/upgrade intersection warning/regulatory signs 0.85 15% X 100% $ Upgrade pavement markings 0.75 25% X 100% $
Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections 0.85 15% X 100% $$ Install flashing beacons as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 100% $$ Clear sight triangles 0.8 20% X 90% $ - $$$
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
29 Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.55 55% X 100% $$$ Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 100% $$ Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Directional median openings to restrict turning movements 0.5 50% X 90% $$ Reduced Left-Turn Conflict (R-CUT) intersections 0.5 50% X 90% $$$ Install right-turn lane 0.8 20% X 90% $$
Install left-turn lane 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Pedestrian refuge island X 0.55 45% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) X 0.65 35% X 100% $ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X 0.65 35% X 100% $$ - $$$ Pedestrian Signal X 0.45 55% X 100% $$$
Retroreflective strips on signposts Not Available Not Available X $ Crosswalk lighting X 0.6 40% X 100% $$
Colored bicycle lanes X 0.61 39% X $
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X $$$
Roadway Segments
Add segment lighting 0.65 35% X 100% $$
Remove or relocate fixed object outside of Clear Recovery Zone 0.65 35% X 90% $$$ Install impact attenuators 0.75 25% X 100% $$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install bike lanes X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) X X 0.65 35% X 90% $ Install raised pedestrian crossing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X X 0.65 35% X 100% $$ - $$$ Speed feedback signs (mobile or fixed) Not Available Not Available X Opportunity
for OTS
funding
$
Curve Shoulder Widening (Outside Only) 0.55 45% X 90% $$$ Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 0.60 40% X 100% $ Install curve advance warning signs 0.75 25% X 100% $
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
30 Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) 0.70 30% X 100% $$ Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 0.80 20% X 100% $$ Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes 0.85 15% X 100% $$ Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatment) 0.45 55% X 100% $$$ Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 0.70 30% X 100% $$ Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 0.85 15% X 100% $
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 0.85 15% X 100% $ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
31 8.1.3. Project Sheets for Priority Locations
From the citywide analysis, eleven project case study locations were selected for further analysis and development of safety improvement recommendations. For each priority location, project sheets were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

Each project sheet includes location maps with a crash data summary and list of recommended safety countermeasures with corresponding CMFs, number of crashes anticipated to be reduced, 10-year crash reduction estimate and benefit, and planning level construction cost estimates. The potential safety countermeasures identified reflect safety improvements that can be applied to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment to determine their potential return on investment.

The calculated benefit/cost ratio (BCR) value indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of a possible countermeasure if it were to be implemented. A project with a BCR greater than 1 indicates that the proposed countermeasure’s benefit is greater than the cost to implement. This provides a basis of comparison of the benefits of potential safety countermeasures and compare their economic effectiveness.

These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure(s), and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history. These project sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.

Table 6 presents a summary of the potential safety countermeasures identified for each of the priority locations and corresponding BCR. A project sheet was developed for each of the priority locations containing additional information and are included in Appendix D.  North Union Road and Center Street
 Airport Way and Yosemite Avenue
 Commerce Avenue/Northwood Avenue and Yosemite Avenue
 Cottage Avenue and North Street
 Spreckels Avenue and Norman Drive
 Main Street and Edison Street
 Arrowsmith Drive and Lathrop Road
 Main Street and Sutter Street
 Mission Ridge Drive, between Syrah Court and South Main Street  Yosemite Avenue, between Union Road and Trevino Avenue / Pacific Road  Yosemite Avenue, between Cottage Avenue and Commerce Avenue / Northwoods Avenue
 Signalized Intersections Systemic Safety Improvements - Citywide Primary Arterials:
o Lathrop Road, Louise Avenue, Yosemite Avenue, Woodward Avenue, Airport Way, Union Road, and Main Street
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
32 Table 6 – Priority Location Summary
Location Countermeasure B/C
North Union Road and Center
Street
Modify signal phasing to implement Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 17.2
Install Advance Stop Bar 322.4
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 41.0 Refresh Intersection Striping with High-Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping (North and West Legs) 126.1
Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Signals 7.5
Signal timing Improvements (Review yellow, all-red
times) 241.6
Add Near-Side Traffic Signal Heads (All Approaches) 20.0 Verify and Increase the Number of ThroughMovement Signal Heads on Mast Arms per guidance in CA MUTCD

40.0 Add Additional Intersection Safety Lighting
(Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast corners) 6.5
Airport Way and Yosemite
Avenue
Install Advance Stop Bar 478.7
Install additional supplemental signal heads (EB and
WB approaches) 67.5
Upgrade to pedestrian countdown signals 20.5
Restrict right turn on red (NB approach) -
Install median island (east leg) for driveway access
restrictions 120.0
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 47.0
Signal timing Improvements (Review yellow and allred times, phasing modifications to provide NB rightturn overlap phase) 408.0
Enhance lighting with replacement of all 1-B poles
with type 15TS poles with luminaires 23.6
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
33 Location Countermeasure B/C
Commerce Avenue /
Northwood Avenue and
Yosemite Avenue
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 55.8
Install Advance Stop Bar 525.6
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 83.3 Refresh Intersection Striping with High-Visibility
Thermoplastic 153.6
Install retroreflective border for signal heads 329.0
Verify and Increase the Number of ThroughMovement Signal Heads on Mast Arms per guidance in CA MUTCD

65.1 Upgrade to pedestrian countdown signals 24.3
Install bulb-out (SE corner) -
Install left-turn lane marking though the intersection
for dual left-turns 32.2
Extend WB left turn storage by modifying the existing
landscaped median -
Restrict u-turns (WB & EB approaches) -
Enhance lighting with replacement of all 1-B poles
with type 15TS poles with luminaires 2.0
Signal coordination with the intersection of Yosemite
Ave & SR-99 NB Ramps and Yosemite Ave & SR-99
SB Ramps & Signal phasing update (lead/leg left
turns) (NBR overlapping with WBL after restricting uturn for WB) 590.4
Install a raised median on west leg 157.8
Cottage Avenue and North
Street
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 9.6
Install Advance Stop Bar 324.6
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 31.8 Install left turn pockets (striping improvements) 493.5 Install red curb to prohibit on-street parking at
intersection approach to provide room for left-turn
pockets
690.9
Signal timing improvements (add protected NB and
SB left-turn phases, split phase left-turns EB and
WB)
142.4
Install retroreflective border for signal heads 125.6
Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Signals 4.2
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
34 Location Countermeasure B/C
Spreckels Avenue and
Norman Drive
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 83.6 Restripe TWLTL to add a left turn pocket for NBL and
EBL, Install Green Bike Lane Striping in Conflict
Areas

17.3 Install Buffered Bike Lane with Raised Element 20.1 Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 6.5
Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK)) 1.8
Install Median Island with Pedestrian Refuge (North
Leg) 37.6
Add intersection lighting 17.9
Main Street and Edison Street
Install HAWK Signal 10.8
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 38.0
Add intersection lighting (NW and SE corners) 304.0
Install retroreflective strips on stop sign posts 3,593.1 Install R1-5 & Install "No Pedestrian Crossing"
regulatory sign on barricade 1,497.1
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 489.0 Refresh Intersection Striping with High-Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping, Install advanced stop bar and
yield line
210.3
Arrowsmith Drive and Lathrop
Road
Install median island providing dedicated receiving
lanes for back-to-back NB left-turn movement and
SB left-turn movement (from commercial driveway)
678.8
Install intersection ahead warning sign of intersection 2,036.4 Install retroreflective strips on stop sign posts 7,331.0 Re-locate merge signage to east leg of intersection 2,036.4 Re-design merge EB to be further downstream of
intersection (re-striping of segment) 912.9
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 23.6 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
35 Location Countermeasure B/C
Main Street and Sutter Street
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping 592.3 Install HAWK Signal 10.4
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 36.9
Add Intersection Lighting 0.4
Install left turn pocket (SB) 1,481.9
Remove crosswalk across the south leg and remove
unused existing curb ramp -
Refresh Intersection Striping with High-Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping, Install right edge line striping, Install advanced stop bar and yield line
113.8
Install “Yield Here to Pedestrians” R1-5 sign, Install
Pedestrian Crossing Ahead (W11-2 and W16-9P)
advanced warning signs, Install "No Pedestrian
Crossing" regulatory sign on barricade with
elimination of marked crossing (South leg)
740.9
Install median island (South leg) for driveway access
restrictions 265.0
Mission Ridge Drive (between
Syrah Court and South Main
Street)
Install buffered bike lane with raised element, Install green bike lane striping in conflict areas. 0.0
Install median island to more effectively define left
turn access 35.9
Install intersection ahead warning sign to enhance
driver awareness of driveway, upgrade merge
warning signs per current MUTCD standards.
430.3
Redesign merge along WB approach to be further
upstream of curve -
Install curve advisory speed warning sign 1,434.3
Yosemite Avenue, between
Union Road and Trevino
Avenue / Pacific Road)
Re-design splitter island at right-in/out driveway to
provide more effective turn restrictions (includes
signage)
430.6
Install "No Pedestrian Crossing" regulatory sign on
barricade at Yosemite Ave intersections at Watson
Ave and Grand Prix Ave
1076.6
Install buffered bike lane with raised element EB &
WB (removing parking). Install green bike lane
striping in conflict areas

62.1 Install HAWK Signal along Yosemite Ave between
Grand Prix Ave and Watson Ave 10.3
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
36 Location Countermeasure B/C
Restripe and shorten TWLTL to have defined turn
access at intersections (Watson Ave, Grand Prix
Ave) and at Yosemite Ave driveways
-
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk Striping with HighVisibility Thermoplastic Striping at Watson Ave, driveway adjacent to Carl's Jr, Grand Prix Ave
109.2
Refresh Intersection Striping with high visibility
thermoplastic 49.2
Yosemite Avenue, between
Cottage Avenue and
Commerce Avenue /
Northwoods Avenue
Install buffered bike lane with raised element (after
removing TWLTL), Install green bike lane striping in
conflict areas

56.8 Install median island (removing TWLTL) to provide
defined access for commercial driveways 19.1
Install pedestrian median fencing 16.4
Signalized Intersections
Systemic Safety
Improvements (Citywide -
Primary Arterials: Lathrop
Road, Louise Avenue,
Yosemite Avenue, Woodward
Avenue, Airport Way, Union
Road, and Main Street)
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high
speed approaches 67.2
Modify signal phasing to implement Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 35.5
Install Retroreflective Backplates 25.5

8.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based non-infrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas.

While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 7 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level. Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement is not included in the document but is something that could also be considered for the City. These non-infrastructure countermeasures can be implemented through securing grant funding such as California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants and other federal, state, and regional funding programs presented in Section 9.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
37 Table 7 – Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost to
Implement Use Time to Implement
Aggressive Driving
Automated enforcement systems
Red light camera systems used as a component of a
broader traffic safety and speed management program
to supplement traditional enforcement efforts to detect red-light violators
***** $$$† Medium Medium
Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints
Enforcement campaign where law enforcement
officers stop motorists at predetermined location(s) to check for driver impairment
***** $$$ Medium Short
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols
Large number of law enforcement officers patrolling
specific area(s) in search for impaired drivers
**** $$ High Short
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility enforcement
Short duration, highly publicized periods of increased
seat belt enforcement campaign
***** $$$ Medium Medium
Integrated nighttime seat belt enforcement
Short duration, highly visible seat belt enforcement
campaign in conjunction with nighttime impaired
driving and excessive speed enforcement initiatives
**** $$$ Unknown Medium
Distracted Driving
High visibility cell phone/text messaging
enforcement
High visibility enforcement campaign where officers
actively seek out cell phone users among drivers
**** $$$ Low Medium
Effectiveness:
***** Demonstrated to be effective by several high-quality evaluations with consistent results **** Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity †Can be covered by income from citations
Use:

High: More than two-thirds of States, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: Between one-third and two-thirds of States or communities Low: Less than one-third of States or communities
Unknown: Data not available
Time to Implement:

Long: More than 1 year
Medium: More than 3 months but less than 1 year
Short: 3 months or less
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
38 9. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

9.1. Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This process will be useful to ensure proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates are needed.
 Progress meetings are recommended to be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In addition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on a reoccurring basis.  An update to the plan should be considered after no more than five to seven years.  Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law enforcement.
 Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns, based on historical crash data.

9.2. Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through several avenues including development of projects, the establishment of new policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.

With regard to projects, the following identifies potential focus areas for the City in the near-tomid-term.

9.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this LRSP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
 Aggressive Driving
 Commercial Vehicles
 Aging Drivers
 Impaired Driving
 Motorcyclists
 Bicyclists
 Pedestrians
Analysis conducted at the Citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to fatal and serious injury crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this LRSP for both systemic and projectspecific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focus areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying citywide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
39 9.3. Updates to the LRSP
The following steps outline the process for updating the City’s LRSP every 5 to 7 years. 1) Access necessary data
 Roadway and intersection classification/configurations  Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Collected from counts where available)  Collision history
2) Network screening
 Calculate the CCR for each roadway functional classification and intersection control type
 Rank for each facility type
i) Roadway Segment
(1) Primary
(2) Secondary
(3) Local
ii) Intersection
(1) Signalized
(2) Unsignalized
3) Select locations
 Identify the location with a higher CCR than what is typical of comparable facility types within City
 Analyze the collision history and work with local officials to understand any significant exterior influences on the location
4) Countermeasures
 Using the Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox (Table 5) and Non-Infrastructure Toolbox (Table 7), identify potential countermeasures that can be applied to the location to enhance safety features
5) Calculate the benefit and the cost of each applicable countermeasure using Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) tool and LRSM countermeasures. If those are not available, refer to other resources such as the CMF Clearinghouse and follow a similar calculation (using 20-year cost and benefit numbers). See more information in the section HSIP Analyzer below.

Additional items the City can do to keep the LRSP current are:
1) When new or reconstruction projects arise, use the data processed to identify locations with similar characteristics and apply countermeasures which proved effective 2) Proactively update its roadway and transportation design standards to incorporate systemic safety improvements identified in the LRSP

9.3.1. HSIP Analyzer
The preferred way to calculate the BCR for the HSIP program uses Caltrans HSIP Analyzer tool in the form of an active PDF. The PDF tool contains 4 sections which are used to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio for the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
40 This tool can be accessed on the Caltrans website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safetyimprovement-program/apply-now Projects appropriate for other state grant programs can be analyzed using the Life-Cycle Benefit Cost Analysis Model (CalB/C) which has a much more comprehensive benefit assessment tool set.

9.3.2. HSIP Eligibility
Per Chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, funds are eligible for projects that improve the safety of its users on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members.

HSIP looks for safety projects that can be designed and constructed expeditiously and do not require significant acquisition of rights-of-way. Proposed projects should not require extensive environmental review and mitigation. Additional information on the HSIP project selection criteria can be accessed online.

HSIP project eligibility is subject to the California SHSP. The SHSP identifies statewide challenge areas that correspond to safety concerns at the statewide level and potential countermeasure to address them and determine HSIP project eligibility. SHSP’s are developed in compliance with FHWA requirements. A list of eligible project types can be seen in the current HSIP Analyzer. More information can be accessed online at the Caltrans HSIP grant website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safetyimprovement-program/apply-now

9.4. Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in the City of Manteca. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Manteca. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

9.4.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
 New or upgraded traffic signals
 Upgraded guard rails
 Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
41 applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level is available at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/
California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects – is available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safetyimprovement-program

9.4.2. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
 Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
 Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school)  Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active-transportationprogram

9.4.3. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.

9.4.4. California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB 1 is a transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
42 used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
 Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This funding will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in subsidy for these projects through the Active Transportation Program (ATP).
 Local Planning Grants: $25 million

9.4.5. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this LRSP) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
 Alcohol Impaired Driving
 Distracted Driving
 Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
 Motorcycle Safety
 Occupant Protection
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
 Police Traffic Services
 Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
 Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
43 10. NEXT STEPS
The City of Manteca has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified crash types, related primary crash factors, locations with frequent crashes and similar risk factors. Based on this process, emphasis areas were identified. These emphasis areas will guide traffic safety improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City. Using the analyzed crash data and results from this LRSP, the City will:
 Apply for HSIP grant funding for implementation of safety improvements throughout the City that address the various emphasis areas identified  Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, including vulnerable users
 Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design and operate a safer transportation network in the City of Manteca
 Complete annual review of safety data
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
Appendix

APPENDIX A

LITERATURE REVIEW
ATTACHMENT 2
ID Document Name Year Agency Document Description Transportation Improvements / Policies Safety 1 Manteca General Plan Update 2023 City of Manteca
Presents a vision for the City and
establishes priorities for allocation
of resources
-Goal C-1: Provide for a complete multimodal circulation system designed for the safe, balanced movement of all users, including children, persons with disabilities, seniors, underserved populations, goods, and services to destinations inside and outside of Manteca while minimizing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and public costs to build and maintain the system.
-Goal C-2: Provide a safe, high-quality, climate-resilient transportation system that addresses all modes of travel and includes attractive streetscapes with native and drought-resistant landscaping, street trees, planted berms, and landscaped medians. 2 Manteca Active Transportation
Plan 2020 City of Manteca
Outlines plan and vision to increase
quality of life of residents/visitors by
improving walkability and biking
convenience and comfort
Goal 1: Allow all users to move safely on City bicycle and pedestrian networks.

Goal 2: Develop convenient, low-stress bicycle and pedestrian networks that connect Manteca residents and visitors to destinations in the city and other jurisdictions. -Implement infrastructure improvements to reduce collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians.
-Implement programs to educate, encourage, and enforce safe travel by all modes to reduce collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians.
-Regularly review collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians and identify actions to reduce future collisions.
3 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy
2022 SJCOG
Provide a sustainability vision
through the year 2046 that
recognizes the significant impact
the transportation network has on
the region’s public health,
mobility and economic vitality
Strategy No. 5 - Optimize the public transportation system to provide efficient and convenient access for users of all income levels.

Strategy No. 7 - Provide transportation improvements to facilitate nonmotorized travel, including incorporation of complete streets elements as appropriate.

Strategy No. 10 - Facilitate projects that reduce the number of severity of traffic incidents.
4 SR 120/McKinley Avenue
Interchange Project In Progress City of Manteca
Outlines plans, designs, and
construction for a partial cloverleaf
interchange on SR 120
See the following webpages for project description:
https://www.mckinleyinterchangeproject.com/
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/engineering/project-information 5 Traffic Calming Program 2018 City of Manteca
Outlines new traffic calming
strategies as well as procedures for
implementing new traffic calming
measures

1. Define a process for neighborhoods to sponsor traffic calming plans and identify funding sources for specific streets, areas or neighborhoods

2. Provide guidance for the types of traffic calming measures that may be considered, both as part of the neighborhood process and during the City’s review of new development applications
Maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles
Alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users Bulbouts, ped islands, chicane, partial/full street closure 6 SR 99/120 Interchange
Connector Project
Proposed Caltrans
Relieve traffic congestion and
improve operations of SR 99 with SR
120 and Austin Road Interchanges
Phase 1C will complete the Austin Road Interchange and complete the local road improvements.
7 Measure K Bicylce, Pedestrian,
and Safe Routes to School and
Measure K Smart Growth
Incentive Program Adopted
Projects
2017-2021 SJCOG
Strategy to meet State and Federal
in terms of accessibility / physical
barriers
- Maintenance and repair projects, capital improvement projects and improvements for existing curb facilities
Literature Review: Table of Documents
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
Appendix

APPENDIX B

INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
ATTACHMENT 2
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
Signalized Intersections 8 32 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 25 26 27 MAIN ST & LOUISE AVE 32 0.16 261 0 1 4 14 13 6 4 8 1 7 0 2 3 5 7 4 COMMERCE AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 32 0.22 350 0 2 4 8 18 8 8 9 2 2 0 2 2 3 8 4 X NORTH UNION RD & YOSEMITE AVE 25 ‐0.04 158 0 0 9 9 7 11 0 8 2 3 0 1 0 4 10 1S MAIN ST & MISSION RIDGE DR 24 0.24 316 1 1 4 3 15 2 3 10 1 6 0 1 3 5 6 1AIRPORT WAY & YOSEMITE AVE 23 0.08 242 0 1 5 10 7 8 4 5 2 2 0 0 1 2 5 0 X NORTH UNION RD & LOUISE AVE 23 ‐0.03 326 0 2 2 9 10 7 2 4 1 8 0 0 1 1 7 1NORTH UNION RD & CENTER ST 23 0.03 143 0 0 5 14 4 13 3300014143 XCOTTAGE AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 22 0.00 121 0 0 6 8 8 10 1 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0SPRECKELS AVE & MOFFAT BLVD 18 0.29 201 0145841435012482 COTTAGE AVE & NORTH ST 18 0.28 84 0 0 0 13 592210031182 X AIRPORT WAY & LOUISE AVE 17 ‐0.09 309 1143840723010390
UNION RD & NORTHGATE DR 17 0.07 181 0125970206010462LATHROP RD & SR 99 SB RAMPS 17 ‐0.23 92 0039553512001270UNION RD & LATHROP RD 16 ‐0.12 81 0037651412020382CRESTWOOD AVE & LATHROP RD 16 0.04 90 0055643422000261MAIN ST & CENTER ST 16 0.07 46 0 0 1 4 11 3 2 5 1 5 0 0 1 1 3 1COTTAGE AVE & LOUISE AVE 16 0.13 55 0 0 3 2 11 3 2 2 1 7 0 0 1 2 4 2MAIN ST & ALAMEDA ST 14 ‐0.07 69 0035673200011141 AIRPORT WAY & DANIELS ST 13 ‐0.09 68 0027422800010040
S MAIN ST & YOSEMITE AVE 13 ‐0.16 44 0006721513001261
N FREMONT AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 13 ‐0.04 296 0 2 17321530020242BIKEPED_TIDEWATER BIKEWAY & LOUISE AVE 10 ‐0.08 60 0034300503011150MAIN ST & NORTHGATE DR 10 ‐0.10 35 0021710306000041MAIN ST & NORTH ST 10 ‐0.13 35 0013612313000111AIRPORT WAY & LATHROP RD 9 ‐0.23 40 0006340311000111 1 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
NORTH UNION RD & WAWONA ST 9 ‐0.20 53 0033332201010030AUSTIN RD & SHS_120 9 ‐0.19 49 0016220501001130 NORTH UNION RD & ALAMEDA ST 8 ‐0.23 23 0003530013010230N WALNUT AVE & CENTER ST 8 0.01 43 0023332210001231 S MAIN ST & MOFFAT BLVD 8 ‐0.20 38 0014310221012131POWERS AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 8 ‐0.19 38 0014302302010010 WINTERS DR & YOSEMITE AVE 7 ‐0.23 37 0014201122001140
UNION RD & W ATHERTON DR 7 ‐0.05 161 0115030120001031
BIKEPED_TIDEWATER BIKEWAY & LATHROP RD 7 ‐0.22 27 0012400313000240 UNION RD & DEL WEBB BLVD 6 ‐0.07 140 1011320112000131
NORTH UNION RD & CHERRY LN 6 ‐0.27 26 0004230110011000
AIRPORT WAY & DAISYWOOD DR 5 ‐0.27 20 0003211110000000
N WALNUT AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 5 ‐0.27 30 0021220110001000 MAIN ST & LANCASTER DR 5 ‐0.27 24 0020312100010130
S MAIN ST & W WESTMORE ST 5 ‐0.27 30 0013120010011010
S MAIN ST & E ATHERTON DR 5 ‐0.26 25 0012202111000020
BUENA VISTA DR & E WOODWARD AVE 5 ‐0.14 134 1010320003000020 PESTANA AVE & LOUISE AVE 5 ‐0.21 148 0121100023000111
LONDON AVE & LONDON AVE 4 ‐0.28 24 0012101201000011
PAGOLA AVE & E WOODWARD AVE 4 ‐0.23 24 0004040000000000 S VASCONCELLOS AVE & SHS_120 4 ‐0.31 90001320200000011UNION RD & SPRAGUE ST 3 ‐0.33 23 0012010200000000 ELM AVE & LOUISE AVE 3 ‐0.33 18 0003010200000000
ELM AVE & CENTER ST 3 0.09 22 0020100001020110
Villa Ticino Dr & W Louise Ave 3 ‐0.33 80001200201000110 Unsignalized Intersections
2 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
PESTANA AVE & SHS_120 18 0.21 317 0 1 7 8 2 11 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 SPRECKELS AVE & NORMAN DR 17 0.47 125 0086371122022032 X GRANT AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 14 0.23 73 0044640303021210COMMERCE AVE & HULSEY WAY 12 0.67 47 0015660113001110E WOODWARD AVE & MOFFAT BLVD 12 0.58 42 0014711153000372 GRAND PRIX AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 11 0.09 26 0003821214001140NORTH UNION RD & DANIELS ST 10 0.04 60 0034360002002020ARROWSMITH DR & LATHROP RD 10 0.11 410 1104460031001172 X S MAIN ST & E WOODWARD AVE 10 0.13 415 0 2 13430312000260S MAIN ST & WAWONA ST 9 0.06 39 0014420511001110 N LINCOLN AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 9 0.07 24 0011720105000342SPRECKELS AVE & HISTORICAL PLAZA WAY 9 0.15 54 0025260100011140AIRPORT WAY & W ATHERTON DR 8 0.21 247 0134071000000020SAINT DOMINICS DR & YOSEMITE AVE 8 0.05 53 0025141111000012OLEANDER RD & E WOODWARD AVE 8 0.30 18 0002610007000260 N VEACH AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 8 0.06 412 0 2 13101202030012 CRESTWOOD AVE & LOUISE AVE 8 0.05 18 0010700125000341
S MAIN ST & E OTIS ST 8 0.05 34 0005380000000010
SPRECKELS AVE & PHOENIX DR 8 0.09 43 0015260001100121
NB 99 RAMPS & SHS 120 8 ‐0.09 227 1022330201011020
FISHBACK RD & WAWONA ST 7 0.27 17 0002530004000132AL FONSECA LN & E WOODWARD AVE 7 0.24 32 0021400106000140 LOCUST AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 7 0.01 212 0103301310011122
MAIN ST & EDISON ST 7 ‐0.01 402 2 003211102020330 X
GARFIELD AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 7 0.01 27 0012412400000240
3 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
RAMP_117642 & YOSEMITE AVE 7 ‐0.10 202 1001501311010350BUTTON AVE & SHS_120 7 0.53 52 0025050100010011 EL RANCHO DR & SHS_120 7 ‐0.03 232 1015060100001000
MARGUERITE AVE & LOUISE AVE 6 ‐0.02 21 0003330012000010SHAEFER ST & SNYDER ST 6 3.48 16 0010500006000040EL PORTAL AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 6 ‐0.02 221 0113112110010111SYCAMORE AVE & W CENTER ST 6 0.50 41 0023131100010000MAIN ST & JASON ST 6 ‐0.04 26 0004220112000020 S MELLON AVE & INDUSTRIAL PARK DR 6 0.46 21 0003330102000010 FELICE WAY & LOUISE AVE 6 0.02 16 0010501014000110
SPRECKELS AVE & DUPONT CT 6 0.08 235 1032041010000010
AIRPORT WAY & WAWONA ST 5 ‐0.06 205 0102210211000010FISHBACK RD & YOSEMITE AVE 5 ‐0.03 205 0102220002001000NORTH UNION RD & EUCALYPTUS ST 5 ‐0.08 30 0021202200010120TRAILWOOD AVE & LOUISE AVE 5 ‐0.05 15 0002330002000030ALMOND AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 5 ‐0.05 10 0001402300000221 POPLAR AVE & CENTER ST 5 0.35 214 0120210001010130
MAIN ST & BIRCHWOOD ST 5 ‐0.04 25 0012220101001120
FRANK AVE & LOUISE AVE 5 ‐0.02 20 0011310301000441
S POWERS AVE & HUTCHINGS ST 5 0.39 40 0023000101012020COTTAGE AVE & ALAMEDA ST 5 0.02 35 0022121200000120COTTAGE AVE & PINE ST / COTTAGE CT 5 0.02 20 0011300012002140NORTHWOODS AVE & MC NARY CIR 5 0.24 34 0030200310010120 LONDON AVE & NORTHGATE DR 5 0.15 30 0013101101020110AIRPORT WAY & NORTHGATE DR 4 ‐0.09 19 0011220011000010ZURICH DR & LOUISE AVE 4 ‐0.08 14 0002210102000110 4 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
MADISON GROVE DR & LONDON AVE 4 ‐0.04 14 0010301012000210FOXFIRE DR & CROM ST 4 0.24 19 0011210002001011 WATSON AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 4 ‐0.09 398 0 2 11010100002000UNION RD & SHADY PINES ST 4 0.10 24 0012111020000121NORTH UNION RD & SAPPHIRE WAY 4 ‐0.10 40000400013000220AGATE AVE & LOUISE AVE 4 ‐0.07 40000400013000030JUNEWOOD PL & NORTHGATE DR 4 0.24 204 0102120100010110 SHERWOOD AVE & LATHROP RD 4 ‐0.09 14 0010310003000011
LOCUST AVE & WAWONA ST 4 0.06 14 0002230000010031SAND LN & W ATHERTON DR 4 0.01 204 0110201003000010MAYWOOD AVE & NORTHGATE DR 4 0.04 34 0022030100000010GOODALE CT & W YOSEMITE AVE 4 ‐0.08 14 0002201300000020 S WILLOW AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 4 ‐0.08 24 0012110200010001 MANTECA AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 4 ‐0.08 23 0020201101011020
POPLAR AVE & LOUISE AVE 4 ‐0.07 204 0102120001001010
SYCAMORE PL / SYCAMORE AVE & ALAMEDA ST 4 0.21 90001310101001121 MAPLE AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 4 ‐0.08 14 0002200301000010
MAIN ST & JOSEPH RD 4 ‐0.08 199 0101200101020241MAIN ST & ARGONAUT ST 4 ‐0.09 389 0 2 01110012000131MAIN ST & SUTTER ST 4 ‐0.09 199 1001200210010010 X GRANT AVE & NORTH ST 4 0.21 29 0013022000000000
VAN RYN AVE & E WOODWARD AVE 4 ‐0.02 29 0021110002010121 AUSTIN RD & MOFFAT BLVD 4 0.03 19 0011210200000120MCKINLEY AVE & WOODWARD AVE 3 ‐0.04 13 0010200011100031STREET‐UNNAMED_175577 & YOSEMITE AVE 3 ‐0.05 30000300003000000AIRPORT WAY & WOODWARD AVE 3 ‐0.08 80001220001000110 5 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
PASADA AVE & LATHROP RD 3 ‐0.11 22 0020100101000020UNION RD & PHEASANT HOLLOW WAY 3 ‐0.11 30000301002000001UNION RD & SAINT FRANCIS DR 3 ‐0.11 18 0011110001001000NORTH UNION RD & VIRGINIA ST 3 ‐0.12 30000300001200020 NORTH UNION RD & MISSION RIDGE DR 3 ‐0.12 23 0012020010000010JANET LN & MERCED WAY 3 1.29 30000311100000000 EL PORTAL AVE & WAWONA ST 3 0.08 18 0011100021000000
LOCUST AVE & MISSION RIDGE DR 3 0.01 8 0001220100000110 REDWOOD AVE & LATHROP RD 3 ‐0.11 80001200101100121
GREENBRIER AVE & ALAMEDA ST 3 0.06 80001212000000000
EASTWOOD AVE & NORTHGATE DR 3 ‐0.04 80001220000001010
POPLAR AVE & ALAMEDA ST 3 0.06 18 0011111100000000
PARK AVE & OREGON ST 3 0.89 80001210101000120S MAIN ST & LUPTON ST 3 ‐0.11 13 0010221000000010GRANT AVE & CENTER ST 3 0.06 18 0011112000000110 N LINCOLN AVE & NORTH ST 3 0.06 13 0002120001000000
N SHERMAN AVE & NORTH ST 3 0.06 23 0012010100010000
N SHERMAN AVE & CENTER ST 3 0.06 18 0003030000000010
N SHERMAN AVE & YOSEMITE AVE 3 ‐0.11 18 0011111100000000 MIKEY PL & E ALAMEDA ST 3 0.08 13 0002120100000010GARDEN GATE DR & LOUISE AVE 3 ‐0.11 18 0011110001100120 N GARFIELD AVE & NORTH ST 3 0.08 13 0010210020000000
S GARFIELD AVE & MOFFAT BLVD 3 ‐0.05 18 0011110101000001 N FREMONT AVE & SUTTER ST 3 0.59 30000302001000011S POWERS AVE & MOFFAT BLVD 3 ‐0.04 392 0 2 10011000010020 POWERS AVE & E ALAMEDA ST 3 0.01 208 1011010020000100
6 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
POWERS AVE & NORTH ST 3 ‐0.04 80001221000000110
VAN RYN AVE & INDUSTRIAL PARK DR 3 ‐0.07 30000300003000022 TESORO DR & ATHERTON DR 3 0.13 18 0011111001000020
PILLSBURY RD & E WOODWARD AVE 3 ‐0.03 80001200001010000STAFFORD WAY & NORTH ST 3 0.04 13 0002101100010000SR 99 SB RAMP & MOFFAT BLVD 3 ‐0.12 800012201000000011. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
7 / 76/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
Appendix

APPENDIX C

SEGMENT NETWORK SCREEN
ATTACHMENT 2
Facility Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Locations
Principal Arterial 3 4 10 34 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 AIRPORT WAY AIRPORT WAY WB RAMPS AIRPORT WAY EB RAMPS 12 2.08 72 0 0 363313120036050 YOSEMITE AVE SPRECKELS AVE COMMERCE AVE 12 0.92 206 0 1 227532110101131X LATHROP RD MADISON GROVE DR S UNION RD 12 0.82 46 0 0 318701040000061 AIRPORT WAY WAWONA ST YOSEMITE AVE 11 0.41 56 0 0 254016210017130 S MAIN ST SR 120 WB RAMPS SR 120 EB RAMPS 10 1.64 65 0 0 271205020016111 YOSEMITE AVE GRAND PRIX AVE NORTH UNION RD 10 0.97 60 0 0 262700010010110X S MAIN ST SR 120 WB RAMPS MISSION RIDGE DR 7 0.95 27 0 0 124222000112010 SHS_120/YOSEMITE AVE BUTTON AVE EL RANCHO DR 6 0.54 36 0 0 141402000002010 UNION RD SR 12O WB RAMPS SR 120 EB RAMPS 6 0.68 180 0 1 023013200003111 LOUISE AVE CITY LIMITS AIRPORT WAY 5 ‐0.09 15 0 0 023111010101120AIRPORT WAY DAISYWOOD DR LOVELACE RD 4 ‐0.12 183 0 1 111000130003030 AIRPORT WAY MISONE ST NORTHGATE DR 4 ‐0.01 19 0 0 031004000003120 LOUISE AVE MAIN ST FRANK AVE 4 0.50 24 0 0 121111010102020LATHROP RD CITY LIMITS AIRPORT WAY 4 ‐0.14 178 0 1 021002110001131 AIRPORT WAY CROM ST W YOSEMITE AVE 3 ‐0.11 18 0 0 111102000002010 YOSEMITE AVE FISHBACK RD SAINT DOMINICS DR 3 0.16 177 0 1 020201000000120 NORTH UNION RD YOSEMITE AVE CENTER ST 3 0.08 28 0 0 210210000001010MAIN ST JOSEPH RD NORTHGATE DR 3 0.13 172 1 0 011000020102030S MAIN ST WAWONA ST LUPTON ST 3 0.03 8 0 0 012111000001000 LOUISE AVE POPLAR AVE MAIN ST 3 0.19 8 0 0 012002000011120 UNION RD LOUISE AVE SAINT FRANCIS DR 3 0.31 3 0 0 003001020000220 Minor Arterial 0
S MAIN ST SR 120 WB RAMPS SR 120 EB RAMPS 13 4.72 83 0 0 382226020107111 YOSEMITE AVE MCKINLEY AVE SWANSON RD 4 0.10 24 0 0 121111100001110 Major Colletor 0
MOFFAT BLVD SPRECKELS AVE E WOODWARD AVE 8 0.31 192 1 0 124101031102240 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR SYRAH CT VAN RYN AVE 4 1.04 9 0 0 013000040001220 MISSION RIDGE DR SYRAH CT S MAIN ST 4 0.91 173 0 1 012020020002120XUNION RD DEL WEBB BLVD SHADY PINES ST 4 0.34 14 0 0 022001210000121BUTTON AVE SHS 120 NEHEMIAH DR 3 0.38 8 0 0 012010020002010WOODWARD AVE BELLA LAGO WAY JOSHUA ST 3 0.39 177 1 0 101001100100130WOODWARD AVE JOSHUA ST MCKINLEY AVE 3 1.09 8 0 0 012010011001020 1 / 26/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 Facility Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Locations
Local Roads 0
SYCAMORE AVE W NORTH ST W ALAMEDA ST 3 9.24 3 0 0 003021000002121 E ATHERTON DR S MAIN ST WELLINGTON AVE 2 ‐0.23 166 0 1 001000020001020

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
2 / 26/14/2023

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP June 2023
Appendix

APPENDIX D

PROJECT SHEETS
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca LRSP
Location: North Union Rd & Center StAgency Name: City of Manteca 23Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.03E-mail: [email protected] 143 005
14 4
13 33000
141
43 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 2.4 4.80 $ 159,900 $ 767,520
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 $ 159,900 $ 191,880
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.15 0.30 $ 14,900 $ 4,470
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.5 1.00 $ 159,900 $ 159,900
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 1.4 2.80 $ 90,900 $ 254,520
PDO 4 0.4 0.80 $ 14,900 $ 11,920
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.5 1.00 $ 159,900 $ 159,900
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 1.4 2.80 $ 90,900 $ 254,520
PDO 4 0.4 0.80 $ 14,900 $ 11,920
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 $ 159,900 $ 319,800
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.25 0.50 $ 14,900 $ 7,450
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 8 Push Buttons Install APS (accessible pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐
$ 2,000 $ 16,000 ‐
20 0.75 90% $ 5,460 $ 43,680 7.5 8 Pedestrian Signal Heads S17PB $ 327,250 Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Signals Bike + Ped $ 196,350 87 SQFT of Striping
‐ All 10 0.90 90% $ 426,340 1485 SQFT of Striping
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09
$ 7 $ 609 322.4
$ 7 $ 10,395 41.0
‐ Bike + Ped Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
S20PB Install Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Install Advanced Stop Bar (North, South, West Legs) ‐ Bike + Ped 10 0.85 90% Dark
$ 785,400 1 Lump Sum $ 45,600 $ 45,600 17.2
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Wet
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
PDO
Crash Type
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Complaint of Pain
10 0.40 90%
‐ All 483 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 3,381 126.1
Refresh Intersection Striping
with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic (north & west
legs)
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09 10 0.90 90% $ 426,340

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: North Union Rd & Center StAgency Name: City of Manteca 23Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.03E-mail: [email protected] 143 005
14 4
13 33000
141
43 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST NUMBER OF CRASHES (2017‐2021) Dark
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Wet
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
PDO
Crash Type
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Complaint of Pain
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 5 4.25 8.50 159,900 $ $ 1,359,150
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 11.9 23.80 $ 90,900 $ 2,163,420
PDO 4 3.4 6.80 $ 14,900 $ 101,320
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.75 1.50 $ 159,900 $ 239,850
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 2.1 4.20 $ 90,900 $ 381,780
PDO 4 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.75 1.50 $ 159,900 $ 239,850
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 2.1 4.20 $ 90,900 $ 381,780
PDO 4 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.6 3.20 $ 90,900 $ 290,880
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
‐
S01 Add Intersection Lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) Add Additional Intersection
Safety Lighting (Northwest,
Southwest, and Northeast
Corners)
‐ Night 20 0.60 90% $ 290,880 3 Luminaires $ 15,000 $ 45,000 6.5 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 40.0
$ 8,000 $ 32,000 20.0
‐ All
Signal Timing Improvements
(Checking Yellow / All‐Red
Time)
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) S03
$ 639,510 2 Signal Heads$ 639,510 4 Signal Heads
S02 10 0.85 90%S02 10 0.85 90%
‐ All
Verify and Increase the
Number of Through‐Movement
Signal Heads on Mast Arms per
guidance in CA MUTCD
Add Near‐Side Traffic Signal
Heads (All Approaches)
Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses,
Back‐Plates with Retroreflective
Borders, Mounting, Size, and
Number
Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses,
Back‐Plates with Retroreflective
Borders, Mounting, Size, and
Number
All
‐ ADA ramp upgrades ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 Ramps
10 0.15 50% $ 3,623,890 1 Lump Sum
‐
$ 15,000 $ 15,000 241.6
‐‐ ‐ $ 5,000 $ 20,000 ‐

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Airport Way & Yosemite AveAgency Name: City of Manteca 23Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.08E-mail: [email protected] 242 015
10 7
8 45220
012
50 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $ $ 536,100
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $ $ 536,100
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.75 1.50 $ 159,900 $ 239,850
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 1.5 3.00 $ 90,900 $ 272,700
PDO 7 1.05 2.10 $ 14,900 $ 31,290
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 1,787,000 $ $ 893,500
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 1,787,000 $ $ 893,500
OTHER VISIBLE 5 1.25 2.50 $ 159,900 $ 399,750
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 2.5 5.00 $ 90,900 $ 454,500
PDO 7 1.75 3.50 $ 14,900 $ 52,150
10 0.85 90% $ 1,079,940 2 Signal Heads $ 8,000 $ 16,000 67.5 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped Install advanced stop bar (All approaches) Install Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% $ 536,100 160 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 1,120 478.7 ‐ Bike + Ped 20.5 Upgrade to pedestrian countdown signals Install pedestrian countdown signal heads S17PB 20 0.75 90% $ 893,500 ‐ All
Install additional supplemental
signal heads (EB and WB
approaches)
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borderd, mounting, size, and
number
S02
‐‐ ADA ramp upgrades ‐‐ ‐
8 Pedestrian Signal
Heads $ 5,460 $ 43,680
‐‐ ‐ 3 Curb Ramp $ 5,000 $ 15,000 ‐
‐‐ Restrict right turn on red (NB) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 Sign $ 450 $ 450 ‐ ‐ 90% $ 1,799,900 250 LF $ 60 $ 15,000 120.0 Install median island (east leg) for driveway access restrictions Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) S12 20 0.75

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Airport Way & Yosemite AveAgency Name: City of Manteca 23Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.08E-mail: [email protected] 242 015
10 7
8 45220
012
50 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $ $ 2,144,400
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.85 1.70 1,787,000 $ $ 3,037,900
OTHER VISIBLE 5 4.25 8.50 $ 159,900 $ 1,359,150
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 8.5 17.00 $ 90,900 $ 1,545,300
PDO 7 5.95 11.90 $ 14,900 $ 177,310
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.4 0.80 1,787,000 $ $ 1,429,600
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.2 2.40 $ 159,900 $ 383,760
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.4 0.80 $ 90,900 $ 72,720
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
‐‐
Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals)
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Bike + Ped 1 Lump Sum $ 45,600 $ 45,600 47.0 Install LPI (lead pedestrian interval) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90% $ 2,144,400 ‐ 8 Push Buttons $ 2,000 $ 16,000 ‐
‐ Night
Enhance lighting with
replacement of all 1‐B poles
with type 15TS poles with
luminaires
Add Intersection Lighting (Signalized
Intersection => S.I.) S01 20 0.60
‐ All 0.15 50%
Signal timing improvements
(checking yellow & all‐red
time). Signal phasing
modification to provide NB
right turn overlap phase, in
conjunction with WB u‐turn
restriction
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) S03 10
90% $ 1,886,080 4 15TS Poles $ 20,000 $ 80,000 23.6
$ 6,119,660 1 Lump Sum $ 15,000 $ 15,000 408.0

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Commerce Ave & Yosemite AveAgency Name: City of Manteca 32Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.22E-mail: [email protected] 350 0248
18 8
89220
223
84 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $ $ 2,144,400
OTHER VISIBLE 2 1.2 2.40 $ 159,900 $ 383,760
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $ $ 536,100
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 $ 159,900 $ 95,940
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.15 0.30 $ 14,900 $ 4,470
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.2 0.40 1,787,000 $ $ 714,800
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.4 0.80 $ 159,900 $ 127,920
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 0.8 1.60 $ 90,900 $ 145,440
PDO 18 1.8 3.60 $ 14,900 $ 53,640
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.2 0.40 1,787,000 $ $ 714,800
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.4 0.80 $ 159,900 $ 127,920
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 0.8 1.60 $ 90,900 $ 145,440
PDO 18 1.8 3.60 $ 14,900 $ 53,640
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.3 0.60 1,787,000 $ $ 1,072,200
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 $ 159,900 $ 191,880
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 $ 90,900 $ 218,160
PDO 18 2.7 5.40 $ 14,900 $ 80,460
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.3 0.60 1,787,000 $ $ 1,072,200
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 $ 159,900 $ 191,880
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 $ 90,900 $ 218,160
PDO 18 2.7 5.40 $ 14,900 $ 80,460
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90%

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
‐ Bike + Ped Install Advanced Stop Bar 173 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 1,211 525.6 Install Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% $ 636,510 ‐ Bike + Ped $ 2,546,040 1 Lump Sum $ 45,600 $ 45,600 55.8

83.3 ‐ All Install retroreflective border for signal heads Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borderd, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85

0.90 90% $ 1,041,800 1787.5 SQFT of Striping ‐ All $ 7 $ 12,513 Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping (South,
East, West legs)
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09 10
90%
‐ All
Verify and Increase the
Number of Through‐Movement
Signal Heads on Mast Arms per
guidance in CA MUTCD
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borderd, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
$ 1,562,700 19 Retroreflective Borders $ 250 $ 4,750 329.0 $ 1,562,700 3 Signal Heads $ 8,000 $ 24,000 65.1
‐ All 969 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 6,783 153.6
Refresh Intersection Striping
with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09 10 0.90 90% $ 1,041,800

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Commerce Ave & Yosemite AveAgency Name: City of Manteca 32Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.22E-mail: [email protected] 350 0248
18 8
89220
223
84 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 1,787,000 $ $ 893,500
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 159,900 $ $ 159,900
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.25 0.50 $ 14,900 $ 7,450
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 18 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 18 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 18 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.2 0.40 1,787,000 $ $ 714,800
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.4 0.80 $ 159,900 $ 127,920
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 0.8 1.60 $ 90,900 $ 145,440
PDO 18 1.8 3.60 $ 14,900 $ 53,640
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 18 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Bike + Ped Upgrade to pedestrian countdown signals Install pedestrian countdown signal heads S17PB 20 0.75 90% ‐
$ 1,060,850 8 Pedestrian Signal Heads $ 5,460 $ 43,680 24.3 ‐‐ 8 Push Buttons $ 2,000 $ 16,000 Install APS (accessible pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐
Check crosswalk grade for ADA
compliance (east leg)
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐‐ Install bulb out (SE curb) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 Lump Sum $ 20,000 $ 20,000 ‐ 10 671 SQFT of Pavement $ 5 $ 3,355 ‐
$ ‐ 1 Lump Sum $ 60,000 $ 60,000 ‐

32.2 ‐ All
Extend WB left turn storage by
modifying the existing
landscaped median
‐ All 0.90 90% $ 1,041,800 1 Lump Sum $ 32,400 $ 32,400 Install left‐turn lane marking
though the intersection for
dual left‐turns
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (Through Intersection) S09

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Commerce Ave & Yosemite AveAgency Name: City of Manteca 32Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.22E-mail: [email protected] 350 0248
18 8
89220
223
84 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 18 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.4 0.80 159,900 $ $ 127,920
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 3 1.2 2.40 $ 14,900 $ 35,760
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 1.7 3.40 1,787,000 $ $ 6,075,800
OTHER VISIBLE 4 3.4 6.80 $ 159,900 $ 1,087,320
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 6.8 13.60 $ 90,900 $ 1,236,240
PDO 18 15.3 30.60 $ 14,900 $ 455,940
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.5 1.00 1,787,000 $ $ 1,787,000
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 $ 159,900 $ 319,800
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 2 4.00 $ 90,900 $ 363,600
PDO 18 4.5 9.00 $ 14,900 $ 134,100
‐‐
‐ Night 4 15TS Poles $ 20,000 $ 80,000 2.0
Enhance lighting with
replacement of all 1‐B poles
with type 15TS poles with
luminaires
Add Intersection Lighting (Signalized
Intersection => S.I.) S01 20 0.60 90% $ 163,680
‐ All Restict u‐turns (WB & EB) ‐‐ ‐ $ ‐ 2 Signs $ 450 $ 900 ‐ 590.4
‐ All Install raised median (West leg) Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) S12 20 0.75 ‐ All 0.15 50% $ 8,855,300 1 Lump Sum $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Signal coordination with the
intersection of Yosemite Ave &
SR‐99 NB Ramps and Yosemite
Ave & SR‐99 SB Ramps & Signal
phasing update (lead/leg left
turns) (NBR overlaping with
WBL after restricting u‐turn for
WB)
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) S03 10
90% $ 2,604,500 1 Lump Sum $ 16,500 $ 16,500 157.8

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Cottage Ave & North StAgency Name: City of Manteca 18Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.28E-mail: [email protected] 84 000
13 5
9 22100
311
82 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 2.4 4.80 $ 90,900 $ 436,320
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 $ 90,900 $ 109,080
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 1.3 2.60 $ 90,900 $ 236,340
PDO 5 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 7.15 14.30 $ 90,900 $ 1,299,870
PDO 5 2.75 5.50 $ 14,900 $ 81,950
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 7.15 14.30 $ 90,900 $ 1,299,870
PDO 5 2.75 5.50 $ 14,900 $ 81,950
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90%

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
‐ Bike + Ped 48 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 336 324.6 Install Advanced Stop Bar (All approaches) Install Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% $ 109,080 ‐ Bike + Ped $ 436,320 1 Lump Sum $ 45,600 $ 45,600 9.6‐‐ ADA ramp upgrades ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ All 0.90 90% Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping (North,
South, West legs)
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09 10
‐ ‐ 4 ADA Ramps $ 5,000 $ 20,000 ‐
$ 251,240 1128 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 7,896 31.8
‐ All Install left turn pockets (striping improvements) Install left‐turn lane and turn phase (signal has no left‐turn lane or phase before) S06 20 0.45 90% $ 1,381,820 400 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 2,800 493.5 ‐ All 400 LF of Curb $ 5 $ 2,000 690.9
Install red curb to prohibit on‐
street parking at intersection
approach to provide room for
left‐turn pockets
Install left‐turn lane and turn phase
(signal has no left‐turn lane or phase
before)
S06 20 0.45 90% $ 1,381,820

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Cottage Ave & North StAgency Name: City of Manteca 18Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.28E-mail: [email protected] 84 000
13 5
9 22100
311
82 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 11.05 22.10 $ 90,900 $ 2,008,890
PDO 5 4.25 8.50 $ 14,900 $ 126,650
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 1.95 3.90 $ 90,900 $ 354,510
PDO 5 0.75 1.50 $ 14,900 $ 22,350
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1 2.00 $ 90,900 $ 181,800
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 13 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
$ 376,860 12 Retroreflective Borders $ 250 $ 3,000 125.6 $ 2,135,540 1 Lump Sum $ 15,000 $ 15,000
‐ All Install retroreflective border for signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borderd, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
‐ All 0.15 50%
Signal phasing update (add
protected (NB/SB) and split left‐
turn phasing (EB/WB))
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) S03 10
‐‐ 8 Push Buttons $ 2,000 $ 16,000 ‐ Install APS (accessible pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ 181,800 8 Pedestrian Signal Heads ‐ Bike + Ped $ 5,460 $ 43,680 4.2 Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Signals Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 20 0.75 90% 90%
142.4

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Spreckels Ave & Norman DrAgency Name: City of Manteca 17Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.47E-mail: [email protected] 125 00863
7 11220
220
32 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.7 1.40 $ 159,900 $ 223,860
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.7 1.40 $ 90,900 $ 127,260
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 8 2 4.00 $ 159,900 $ 639,600
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 1.5 3.00 $ 90,900 $ 272,700
PDO 3 0.75 1.50 $ 14,900 $ 22,350
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.9 1.80 $ 159,900 $ 287,820
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.9 1.80 $ 90,900 $ 163,620
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 2 1.1 2.20 $ 159,900 $ 351,780
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 1.1 2.20 $ 90,900 $ 199,980
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.7 1.40 $ 159,900 $ 223,860
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.7 1.40 $ 90,900 $ 127,260
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
‐ Bike + Ped 90%
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (North
leg)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) NS22PB 20 0.65 6.5

0.45 90% $ 551,760 1 HAWK Signal $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1.8 $ 351,120 1 Lump Sum $ 54,000 $ 54,000
‐ Bike + Ped Install Buffered Bike Lane with Raised Element Install Seperated Bike Lanes R33PB 20 ‐ Bike + Ped
Install HAWK Signal
(North leg)
(includes associated approach
re‐striping)
Install Pedestrian Signal (including
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) NS23PB 20

0.55 90% $ 451,440 1500 $ 15 $ 22,500 20.1
‐‐ 3 ADA Ramps $ 5,000 $ 15,000 ‐ ADA Ramp Upgrades (NW, NE, SW corners) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ ‐ All $ 934,650 7700 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 53,900 17.3 Restripe TWLTL to add a left
turn pocket for NBL and EBL &
Narrow Travel Lanes & Install
Green Bike Lane Striping in
Conflict Areas
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (NS.I.) NS07 10 0.75 100%
90% $ 351,120 600 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 4,200 83.6

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping (West
Leg)
Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Spreckels Ave & Norman DrAgency Name: City of Manteca 17Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.47E-mail: [email protected] 125 00863
7 11220
220
32 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST NUMBER OF CRASHES (2017‐2021) Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.9 1.80 159,900 $ $ 287,820
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.9 1.80 $ 90,900 $ 163,620
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.8 1.60 $ 159,900 $ 255,840
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.4 0.80 $ 14,900 $ 11,920
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐ 1 Lump Sum $ 20,000 $ 20,000 ‐
‐ Bike + Ped Install Median Island with Pedestrian Refuge (North Leg) Install raised medians (refuge island) NS19PB 20 0.55 90% ‐‐
Install Bulb Outs (NW and SW
corners)
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Night 0.60 90% $ 267,760 1 Luminaires $ 15,000 $ 15,000 17.9 Add Intersection Lighting (NW corner) Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) NS01 20 $ 451,440 1 Lump Sum $ 12,000 $ 12,000 37.6

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Arrowsmith Dr & Lathrop RdAgency Name: City of Manteca 10Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.11E-mail: [email protected] 410 11044
6 00310
011
72 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.5 1.00 2,843,000 $ $ 2,843,000
SEVERE 1 0.5 1.00 2,843,000 $ $ 2,843,000
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 2 4.00 $ 90,900 $ 363,600
PDO 4 2 4.00 $ 14,900 $ 59,600
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 $ 90,900 $ 109,080
PDO 4 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 $ 90,900 $ 109,080
PDO 4 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 $ 90,900 $ 109,080
PDO 4 0.6 1.20 $ 14,900 $ 17,880
FATAL 1 0.25 0.50 2,843,000 $ $ 1,421,500
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 2,843,000 $ $ 1,421,500
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1 2.00 $ 90,900 $ 181,800
PDO 4 1 2.00 $ 14,900 $ 29,800
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 $ 90,900 $ 63,630
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
90% $ 1,832,760
‐ All Re‐locate merge signage to
east leg of intersection
Install / upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning / regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90% $ 1,832,760
‐ All Install retroflective strips on
stop sign post (South leg)
Install / upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning / regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All
Install median island providing
dedicated receiving lanes for
back‐to‐back NB left‐turn
movement and SB left‐turn
movement (from commercial
driveway)
Create directional median openings
to allow (and restrict) left‐turns and
u‐turns (NS.I.)
NS15 20 0.50
‐ All Install intersection ahead warning sign of intersection Install / upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning / regulatory signs NS06 10 0.85 90% 90% $ 6,109,200 150 LF $ 60 $ 9,000 678.8
250 SQFT of Striping
and 380 SQFTof
Striping Removal
$7 per SQFT
of Striping
$4.2 per
SQFT ofStriping
$ 3,346 912.9
$ 1,832,760 2 Signs $ 450 $ 900 2,036.4
1 Retroflective Strip $ 250 $ 250 7,331.0
2 Signs $ 450 $ 900 2,036.4
‐ Bike + Ped $ 7 $ 2,695 23.6
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping across
Arrowsmith Dr (South leg)
Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65 90% $ 63,630 385 SQFT of Striping
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
Re‐design merge EB to be
further downstream of
intersection (re‐striping of
segment)
‐ All 10 0.75 90% $ 3,054,600

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Main St & Edison StAgency Name: City of Manteca 7Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan -0.01E-mail: [email protected] 402 20032
1 11020
203
30 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 1 0.55 1.10 2,843,000 $ $ 3,127,300
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.55 1.10 $ 90,900 $ 99,990
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,843,000 $ $ 1,990,100
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 $ 90,900 $ 63,630
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 2 0.8 1.60 2,843,000 $ $ 4,548,800
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.4 0.80 $ 14,900 $ 11,920
FATAL 2 0.3 0.60 2,843,000 $ $ 1,705,800
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.45 0.90 $ 90,900 $ 81,810
PDO 2 0.3 0.60 $ 14,900 $ 8,940
FATAL 2 0.3 0.60 2,843,000 $ $ 1,705,800
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.45 0.90 $ 90,900 $ 81,810
PDO 2 0.3 0.60 $ 14,900 $ 8,940
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
‐ All
Install R1‐5 & Install "No
Pedestrian Crossing" regulatory
sign on barricade
Install / upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning / regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90% $ 1,796,550 1 Lump Sum
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
ADA ramp upgrades ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
‐ Bike + Ped Install HAWK Signal (North leg) 1 HAWK Signal $ 300,000 $ 300,000 10.8 Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) NS23PB 20 0.45 90% $ 3,227,290 ‐‐ ‐ 4 ADA Ramps $ 5,000 $ 20,000 ‐

38.0 ‐ Night Add Intersection Lighting (NW and SE corners) Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) NS01 20 0.60 ‐ Bike + Ped 0.65 90% $ 2,053,730 1 RRFB $ 54,000 $ 54,000 Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (North
Leg)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) NS22PB 20
‐ All
Install retroreflective strips on
stop sign posts (West and East
legs)
Install / upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning / regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90%
90% $ 4,560,720 1 Luminaire $ 15,000 $ 15,000 304.0
$ 1,796,550 2 Retroflective Strips $ 250 $ 500 3,593.1
$ 1,200 $ 1,200 1,497.1

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Main St & Edison StAgency Name: City of Manteca 7Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan -0.01E-mail: [email protected] 402 20032
1 11020
203
30 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,843,000 $ $ 1,990,100
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 $ 90,900 $ 63,630
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 2 0.5 1.00 2,843,000 $ $ 2,843,000
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.75 1.50 $ 90,900 $ 136,350
PDO 2 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
489.0
‐ All
Refresh Intersection Striping
with high visibility
thermoplastic & Install
advanced stop bar & yield line
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (NS.I.) NS07 10
‐ Bike + Ped 600 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 4,200
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping
Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65 90% $ 2,053,730

0.75 90% $ 2,994,250 2034 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 14,238 210.3

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Main St & Sutter StAgency Name: City of Manteca 4Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan -0.09E-mail: [email protected] 199 10012
0 02100
100
10 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,843,000 $ $ 1,990,100
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 1 0.55 1.10 2,843,000 $ $ 3,127,300
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,843,000 $ $ 1,990,100
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.4 0.80 $ 14,900 $ 11,920
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,843,000 $ $ 1,990,100
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 $ 90,900 $ 63,630
PDO 2 0.7 1.40 $ 14,900 $ 20,860
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
‐ Bike + Ped
Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping (North,
South, East legs)
Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
90% $ 1,990,100 480 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 3,360 592.3

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐‐ ADA ramp upgrades ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
20 3 ADA Ramps $ 5,000 $ 15,000 ‐
$ 1,990,100 1 RRFB $ 54,000 $ 54,000 36.9

0.60 90%
90%

10.4 ‐ Bike + Ped
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (North
leg)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) NS22PB 20 0.65
‐ Bike + Ped Install HAWK Signal (North leg) 0.45 90% $ 3,127,300 1 HAWK Signal $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) NS23PB ‐ All Install left turn pocket (SB) 200 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 1,400 1,481.9 Install left‐turn lane (where no left‐ turn lane exists) NS18 20 0.65 90% $ 2,074,590 ‐ Night $ 11,920 2 Luminaire $ 15,000 $ 30,000 0.4 Add Intersection Lighting (NE and SW corners) Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) NS01 20

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Main St & Sutter StAgency Name: City of Manteca 4Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan -0.09E-mail: [email protected] 199 10012
0 02100
100
10 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
FATAL 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 1 0.25 0.50 2,843,000 $ $ 1,421,500
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.25 0.50 $ 90,900 $ 45,450
PDO 2 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $ $ 852,900
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 $ 90,900 $ 27,270
PDO 2 0.3 0.60 $ 14,900 $ 8,940
FATAL 1 0.25 0.50 1,787,000 $ $ 893,500
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.25 0.50 $ 90,900 $ 45,450
PDO 2 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
‐ All
Refresh Intersection Striping
with high visibility
thermoplastic & Install right
edge line striping & Install
advanced stop bar and yield
line
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (NS.I.) NS07 10 0.75 90%
‐‐ ‐ $ ‐ 1 Lump Sum $ 4,000 $ 4,000 ‐
Remove crosswalk across the
south leg and remove existing
curb ramp
‐ ‐ ‐‐
‐ All
Install R1‐5 (20 to 50 ft) &
Install W11‐2 and W16‐9P &
Install "No Pedestrian Crossing"
regulatory sign on barricade
Install / upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning / regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90% $ 889,110 1 Lump Sum $ 1,200 $ 1,200
$ 1,481,850 1860 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 13,020 113.8
740.9
‐ All 60 LF $ 60 $ 3,600 265.0
Install median island (South
leg) for driveway access
restrictions
Install raised median on approaches
(S.I.) S12 20 0.75 90% $ 953,850

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: MISSION RIDGE DR (Btw: SYRAH CT & S MAIN ST)Agency Name: City of Manteca 4Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.91E-mail: [email protected] 173 01012
0 20020
001
20 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 2,461,000 $ $ 1,230,500
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.25 0.50 $ 90,900 $ 45,450
PDO 2 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,461,000 $ $ 738,300
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 $ 90,900 $ 27,270
PDO 2 0.3 0.60 $ 14,900 $ 8,940
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 2,461,000 $ $ 1,230,500
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.25 0.50 $ 90,900 $ 45,450
PDO 2 0.5 1.00 $ 14,900 $ 14,900
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped
Install buffered bike lane with
raised element (To narrow
lanes & extend bike lane to
intersection). Install green bike
lane striping in conflict areas.

Install separated bike lanes R33PB 20 0.55
‐ All
Install median island to more
effectively define left turn
access
Install raised median R08 20 0.75 90%
90% $ ‐ 2000 LF $ 15 $ 30,000 0.0
‐ All 4 Signs $ 450 $ 1,800 430.3
Install intersection ahead
warning sign to enhance driver
awareness of driveway &
update merging signs per
current MUTCD standards.

Install / Upgrade signs with new
fluores R22 10 0.85 90% $ 774,510
$ 1,290,850 900 LF $ 40 $ 36,000 35.9
‐ All Install curve advisory speed warning sign Install curve advance warning signs R24 10 0.75 ‐ All ‐‐
Redesign merge along WB
approach to be further
upstream of curve.
‐‐ ‐
90% $ 1,290,850 2 Signs $ 450 $ 900 1,434.3
‐ ‐
250 SQFT of Striping
and 250 LF of Striping
Removal
$7 per SQFT
of Striping
$4.2 per LF of
Striping
Removal
$ 2,800

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Yosemite Ave (Btw: Union Rd & Trevino Ave/ Pacific Rd)Agency Name: City of Manteca 25Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 2.14E-mail: [email protected] 434 023
1010
10 13150
042
50 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.8 1.60 2,461,000 $ $ 3,937,600
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.2 2.40 $ 159,900 $ 383,760
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 4 8.00 $ 90,900 $ 727,200
PDO 10 4 8.00 $ 14,900 $ 119,200
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.3 0.60 2,461,000 $ $ 1,476,600
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 $ 159,900 $ 143,910
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 1.5 3.00 $ 90,900 $ 272,700
PDO 10 1.5 3.00 $ 14,900 $ 44,700
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.45 0.90 2,461,000 $ $ 2,214,900
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.9 1.80 $ 159,900 $ 287,820
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.45 0.90 $ 14,900 $ 13,410
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.55 1.10 2,461,000 $ $ 2,707,100
OTHER VISIBLE 2 1.1 2.20 $ 159,900 $ 351,780
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 1 0.55 1.10 $ 14,900 $ 16,390
FATAL 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
PDO
10 ‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Bike + Ped
Install HAWK Signal along
Yosemite Ave between Grand
Prix Ave and Watson Ave
Install Pedestrian Signal (including
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) NS23PB 20 0.45 90% $ 3,075,270 1 HAWK Signal $ 300,000 $ 300,000 10.3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐‐
ADA ramp upgrades at
Yosemite Ave/Watson Ave
(north sidewalk at private
driveway splitter island)
‐ ‐ ‐‐
‐ All
Re‐design splitter island at right‐
in/out driveway at Yosemite
Ave/Watson Ave to provide
more effective turn restrictions
(includes signage)
Install splitter‐islands on the minor
road approaches NS13 20 0.60 90%
‐ ‐ 2 ADA Ramps $ 5,000 $ 10,000 ‐
‐ All 1,076.6
Install "No Pedestrian Crossing"
regulatory sign on barricade at
Yosemite Ave intersections at
Watson Ave and Grand Prix Ave
Install / Upgrade signs with new
fluoresent sheeting R22 10 0.85 90% $ 1,937,910
$ 5,167,760 1 Lump Sum $ 12,000 $ 12,000 430.6
‐ Bike + Ped
Install buffered bike lane with
raised element EB & WB
(removing parking). Install
green bike lane striping in
conflict areas.

Install separated bike lanes R33PB 20
4 Signs $ 450 $ 1,800

0.55 90% $ 2,516,130 2700 LF $ 15 $ 40,500 62.1
2020 SQFT of Striping
and additional Striping
Removal
‐ All $ 7 $ 14,140 ‐
Restripe and shorten TWLTL to
have defined turn access at
intersections (Watson Ave,
Grand Prix Ave) and at
Yosemite Ave driveways
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ ‐

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Yosemite Ave (Btw: Union Rd & Trevino Ave/ Pacific Rd)Agency Name: City of Manteca 25Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 2.14E-mail: [email protected] 434 023
1010
10 13150
042
50 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.35 0.70 2,461,000 $ $ 1,722,700
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.7 1.40 159,900 $ $ 223,860
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO
1 0.35 0.70 $ 14,900 $ 10,430
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 2 0.2 0.40 2,461,000 $ $ 984,400
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.3 0.60 $ 159,900 $ 95,940
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 1 2.00 $ 90,900 $ 181,800
PDO 10 1 2.00 $ 14,900 $ 29,800
‐ All
Refresh Intersection Striping
with high visibility
thermoplastic
Install Raised Pavement Markers
and Striping (Through Intersection) S09 10 0.90 90%
‐ Bike + Ped 90% $ 1,956,990 2560 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 17,920 109.2 Refresh Intersection Crosswalk
Striping with High‐Visibility
Thermoplastic Striping at
Watson Ave, driveway adjacent
to Carl's Jr, Grand Prix Ave
Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced safety features) R35PB 20 0.65
$ 1,291,940 3750 SQFT of Striping $ 7 $ 26,250 49.2

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Location: Yosemite Ave (Btw: Cottage Ave & Commerce Ave)Agency Name: City of Manteca 11Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan 0.70E-mail: [email protected] 205 01226
4 32110
101
31 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.45 0.90 2,461,000 $ $ 2,214,900
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 2,461,000 $ $ 1,230,500
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 $ 159,900 $ 159,900
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.5 1.00 $ 90,900 $ 90,900
PDO 6 1.5 3.00 $ 14,900 $ 44,700
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $ $ ‐
SEVERE 1 0.35 0.70 2,461,000 $ $ 1,722,700
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 $ 159,900 $ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 $ 90,900 $ ‐
PDO 0 0 0.00 $ 14,900 $ ‐
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
‐ Bike + Ped
Install buffered bike lane with
inflexible barrier (after
removing TWLTL) (Install green
bike lane striping in conflict
areas )
Install separated bike lanes R33PB 20 0.55
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
90% $ 2,214,900 2600 LF $ 15 $ 39,000 56.8

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All 1 Lump Sum $ 80,000 $ 80,000 19.1
Install median island (removing
TWLTL) to provide defined
access for commercial
driveways
Install raised median R08 20 0.75 90% $ 1,526,000
‐ Bike + Ped 0.65 90% Install pedestrian median fencing Install pedestrian median fencing R10PB 20 $ 1,722,700 1050 LF $ 100 $ 105,000 16.4

ATTACHMENT
2 City of Manteca LRSP
Systemic Safety Improvements
Location: Citywide Primary Arterials SignalizedAgency Name: City of Manteca 551Contact Name: Beshoy Demyan N/AE-mail: [email protected] 4563 4 1395
209230
147
57 151
40 104
0 233059
177
35 NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS FUNDING

NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2022)

QUANTITY/ NUMBER

OF UNITS UNIT COST COST ESTIMATE BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 4 1.6 3.20 1,787,000 $ $ 5,718,400
SEVERE 13 5.2 10.40 1,787,000 $ $ 18,584,800
OTHER VISIBLE 95 38 76.00 $ 159,900 $ 12,152,400
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 209 83.6 167.20 $ 90,900 $ 15,198,480 PDO 230 92 184.00 $ 14,900 $ 2,741,600
FATAL 1 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $ $ 2,144,400
SEVERE 5 3 6.00 1,787,000 $ $ 10,722,000
OTHER VISIBLE 22 13.2 26.40 $ 159,900 $ 4,221,360
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 18 10.8 21.60 $ 90,900 $ 1,963,440
PDO 7 4.2 8.40 $ 14,900 $ 125,160
FATAL 4 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $ $ 2,144,400
SEVERE 13 1.95 3.90 1,787,000 $ $ 6,969,300
OTHER VISIBLE 95 14.25 28.50 $ 159,900 $ 4,557,150
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 209 31.35 62.70 $ 90,900 $ 5,699,430
PDO 230 34.5 69.00 $ 14,900 $ 1,028,100
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Crash Type
BroadsideSideswipe
Signalized Intersections
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian

NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All
Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection for high speed
approaches
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
S04 10 0.60
‐ Ped+Bike
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 $ 19,176,360 $ 54,395,680 54 Detectors $ 15,000 $ 810,000 67.2
10 54 LPIs $ 10,000 $ 540,000 35.5

0.85 $ 20,398,380 25.5 1065 Retroreflective Backplates ‐ All $ 750 $ 798,750 Install Retroreflective Backplates Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02

ATTACHMENT
2