Marysville City Council
July 7, 2026

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

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

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

Adrian Engel, P.E.

Registered Professional Engineer
CHAPTER 5 Yuba County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 6 Marysville Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 7 Wheatland Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 8 Sutter County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 9 Yuba City Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 10 Live Oak Safety Analysis
Note: Chapters 5 through 10 serve as standalone documents.

Regional Safety Action Plan 5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction This Plan and Our Region
Yuba and Sutter Counties and four incorporated cities, Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, and Live Oak, are committed to prioritizing transportation safety and eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious injuries on their roadways.

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

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

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

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

Project team conducting walk audits
6 Yuba-Sutter 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Policy Considerations

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

2. Safety is a shared responsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Effective
Easier To Implement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe System Pyramid

1. Education
Driver Education Programs, Slow Down Campaigns

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

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

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

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

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

Our Community Engagement Journey Towards Vision Zero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Talk to Action
Speeding is a primary concern.

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

Pedestrian crossing safety is a major theme.

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

Infrastructure improvements are widely requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bicyclist using crosswalk at signalized intersection
22 Yuba-Sutter 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
886

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YUBA-SUTTER REGIONAL SAFETY CORRIDORS
34 Yuba-Sutter 35

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

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

Yuba-Sutter Region Focus Areas:

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
36 Yuba-Sutter 37

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

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

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

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

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

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

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CRASHES
44 Yuba-Sutter 45

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

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

CRASHES INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
46 Yuba-Sutter 47

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

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

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTIONS CRASH MAP

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTION CRASHES
48 Yuba-Sutter 49

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

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

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

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

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

HIT OBJECT CRASHES
50 Yuba-Sutter 51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing
Long Term
64 Yuba-Sutter 65

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing
Short Term
66 Yuba-Sutter 67

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Term
Long Term
68 Yuba-Sutter

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

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

Long Term
Marysville
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Marysville is the county seat of Yuba County,
with a population of nearly 13,000. It lies near
the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers
near Yuba City, which is located just across the
Feather River to the west.

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

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

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

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

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Marysville received a score of 42, where the
state had a score of 23, indicating that the
population of Marysville experience higher
levels of environmental impacts than the state
as a whole.

Marysville
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Figure 6.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty Plans
Marysville has already demonstrated a
commitment to roadway safety through the
adoption of several plans, namely the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan and the Local Roadway
Safety Plan. The city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan establishes goals and policies to support
a robust and safe network for people walking
and biking, expanding access to community
destinations, and supporting education
and enforcement programs that encourage
walking and biking. Similar to this Regional
Safety Action Plan (RSAP), the Marysville
Local Roadway Safety Plan identifies top
crash patterns and locations and recommends
countermeasures and projects to reduce
crashes at top crash locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 6.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 6.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 37%
21%
15%
7% 6% 6% 4% 3% 1%
41%
10%
21%
5% 5%
13%
5%
0% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Broadside Rear End Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Sideswipe Head-On Hit Object Other Overturned Not Stated 25%
17%
14%
8%
6%
4%
26%
18%
8% 8%
21%
15%
10%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle
Right of Way
Violation
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Pedestrian
Violation
Wrong Side of
Road
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Note: Lighting conditions for two crashes (1
percent) in Marysville were unreported.

Marysville
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Marysville that had the highest number
of crashes resulting in severe injury or death
(KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

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

Focus Areas

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions