CITY OF MAYWOOD - CIRCULATION ELEMENT
1 Appendix A
Maywood Complete
Streets Policy
DE LA RIVA, GARCIA, TORRES, MARQUEZ, LARA
RESOLUTION NO. 6267
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF MAYWOOD
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
WHEREAS, On November 27, 2019, the City submitted the LRSP grant funding request to the State; and WHEREAS, On March 24, 2021 the State funding agreement for $72,000 with a local match requirement of $8,000 was executed; and
WHEREAS, On November 24, 2021, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of the LRSP; and
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (“LRSP”) is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements; and WHEREAS, it is required that all state, county, and local agencies adopt an LRSP to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other grants such as Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A); and WHEREAS, the LRSP attached herein as Exhibit A was developed using outreach and the process outlined by Caltrans to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements and guide the City to look at ways to set goals and measures that encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for people using all modes of transportation and prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles that will achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAYWOOD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All of the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 2. The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) attached herein as Exhibit A is hereby approved.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and it shall become effective immediately.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th day of September, 2022. _______________________
Heber Marquez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ ___________________________
Andrea Aguilar, City Clerk Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF MAYWOOD )
I, Andrea Aguilar, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Maywood, do hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 6267 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Maywood, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 28th day of September, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: DE LA RIVA, LARA, TORRES, GARCIA, MARQUEZ
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________
Andrea Aguilar, City Clerk
a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
CITY OF MAYWOOD - CIRCULATION ELEMENT
1 Appendix B
City of Maywood
Local Roadway Safety Plan
City of Maywood
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
September 2022
FINAL
Prepared By:
EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
(Per Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] REPORTS
DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS,AND INFORMATION—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.)
SIGNED BY ____________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Executive Summary
Maywood has created a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The LRSP was developed in response to local issues and needs. Through the analysis, this report has identified emphasis areas to inform and further guide safety evaluation and planning for the City’s transportation network. The LRSP also analyzes collision data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of collision history on the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to: 1) identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific high-collision locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the 5E’s of transportation safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
As one of the smallest and most densely developed communities in Los Angeles County, Maywood relies on its roadway network. Due to the heavy use of its transportation routes throughout the City Maywood is ranked 49 out of 94 in traffic and roadway safety in its California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings. Compared to peer cities in the same category the City performs lower than 50% of its peer cities. The City plans to implement new safety efforts through this plan by identifying areas of emphasis and opportunities for system improvement that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of collision data (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020) and recent roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of concern.
During the LRSP development process, the City has drafted a vision for traffic safety and outlined the goals that will help mark plan success. The vision is to enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related collisions. The goals were identified as:
• Identify areas with a high risk for collisions.
• Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. • Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term implementation. • Define safety projects for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.
Maywood’s collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations that have more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. The figure below shows the results of collision analysis, including the number of crashes that occurred at each intersection and along each roadway segment in the City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Number of Collisions per Intersection and Roadway Segment DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges were observed, the following emphasis areas were developed:
1. Aggressive Driving
2. Vulnerable Road Users
3. Signal Improvements
4. Impaired Driving
The LRSP identified countermeasures for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements. The report then applies Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), which are used to estimate the safety effects of safety improvements to compare and prioritize the improvements. This provides a planning level cost/benefit estimate that the City can use to prioritize improvements.
Site-specific opportunities for improvement were identified for the following 9 case study locations. The case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection designs throughout the City.
1. Signalized Intersection: Pine Ave & Slauson Ave
2. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Slauson Ave
3. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & 57th St
4. Segment: 59th (Atlantic to King)
5. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Cir/Heliotrope Ave & 60th St
6. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Cir/Heliotrope Ave & 59th St
7. Segment: Slauson Ave (Alamo Ave to City Limits)
8. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Ave & 52nd Pl/56th St
9. Unsignalized Intersection: Loma Vista Ave & Fruitland Ave
10. Unsignalized Intersection: Loma Vista & 56th St
11. Signalized Intersection: Everett Ave & Slauson Ave
The report also identifies opportunities that can be implemented systemically throughout the City. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below and include both engineering-based and non-engineering countermeasures. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox (Engineering Opportunities) LRSM/
CMF
ID Potential Countermeasures
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS03 Install signals 30% $400,000 per intersection
R02
Remove or relocate fixed objects outside
of Clear Recovery Zone 35% $1,000 per location
R22
Install retroreflective stripes on stop
signs 15% $1,500 per sign
R27
Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers 15% $75 per linear foot
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines 25% $20,000 per mile DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
LRSM/
CMF
ID Potential Countermeasures
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
R35PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features) 35% $9,500 per curb ramp
S02 Install/update retroreflective backplates 15% $12,000 per intersection S02
Update signal heads from 8-inch to 12-
inch vehicle heads 15% $1,500 per signal heads
S03
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phasing, red, yellow, operation) 15% $7,667 per intersection S04 Install advanced dilemma zone detection 40% $34,000 per intersection S10
Install flashing beacons as advance
warning (S.I) 30% $3,000 per beacon
S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) 25% $25,000 per location S17PB
Install ADA-compliant pedestrian push
buttons 25% $15,000 Per intersection
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $12,000 per intersection 128 Install tapered bump-outs (chicanes) 32% $25,000 per location 132 Install speed humps 40% $5,000 per speed hump
- Install haptic crosswalk button *5% $5,000 per crosswalk button - Review enforcement policies *5% Varies
- Add ADA mats to corners *5% $15,000 per location
- Hash out and formalize parking *5% $15,000 per location -
Neighborhood traffic calming
policy/study *5% Varies
- Review school zone enforcement policy *5% Varies
- Upgrade traffic signal controller cabinets *5% $60,000 per location *These countermeasures do not have documented CRF’s and a conservative 5% CRF was assigned to allow them to show some benefit.
Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures:
The identified non-engineering countermeasures below were derived from the collision analysis and build on the actions identified in Section 9.2. These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services and Emerging Technologies.
Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox (Non-Engineering Opportunities)
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
ENFORCEMENT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE Establish enforcement and
visibility program for
aggressive driving
Local law enforcement; CHP
CHP’s Regulate
Aggressive Driving and
Reduce Speed
(RADARS) Program
Continued enforcement in
school zones
Local law enforcement; CHP; school
districts; LACMTA; SCAG
Obtain grant funding for
additional personnel in
school zones
Increased enforcement of
safe driving & active
transportation behaviors near
busy crosswalk locations
Local law enforcement; CHP
Obtain grant funding for
additional enforcement
near high pedestrian
activity locations
EDUCATION
Campaign to target
aggressive driving and DUIs
Local law enforcement; CHP; California
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
CHP’s Regulate
Aggressive Driving and
Reduce Speed
(RADARS) Program
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
campaign Local law enforcement; LACMTA; SCAG
SCAG’s ‘Go Human’
Campaign; ‘ OTS’ ‘Ride
With Traffic’ campaign
Planned educational
events at high activity
locations such as future
CV Link locations
(bicycle, pedestrian,
and low-speed (up to
25 mph) electric vehicle
pathway)
Explore safe routes to school
education grants to expand
program
Local school districts; local law
enforcement; LACMTA; SCAG
Safe Routes to School
Program, funded by
Caltrans
Coordinate safety education
campaigns with SCAG SCAG; local law enforcement
Roadway safety fairs at
schools
Education campaign for
aging drivers
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Continue to work on
interdepartmental
communication between City
staff and City police
department and fire
department
Local law enforcement & fire department
Incorporate law
enforcement/fire
department as
stakeholders on
transportation
improvement projects
Incorporate public health
agencies and fire
departments as stakeholders
in safety projects
Local public health agencies and fire
departments
Adjust safety project
development processes
to include public health
and fire department
feedback
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE Continue to use best
practices for pedestrian
crossings at high pedestrian
traffic areas
City Public Works; LACMTA; Caltrans
Continuously update
pedestrian crossing
design standards in
accordance with latest
best practices
Utilize new data sources to
monitor traffic conditions and
inform County safety plans
City Public Works; LACMTA; Caltrans
Utilization of data from
LACMTA traffic
management center
An evaluation and implementation plan were created that identifies actionable items that will help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section laid out next steps for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 VISION AND GOALS ...................................................................................... 2 PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Guiding Manuals.......................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Analysis Techniques .................................................................................................... 5 SAFETY PARTNERS ...................................................................................... 9
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1 ............................................................................................... 9
4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop................................................................................ 9
4.3 Public Comment Period ............................................................................................... 9 EXISTING EFFORTS ...................................................................................... 9 DATA SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 10
6.1 Roadway Network.......................................................................................................10
6.2 Intersections ...............................................................................................................11
6.3 Count Data .................................................................................................................11
6.4 Collision Data..............................................................................................................11 CRASH SAFETY TRENDS ........................................................................... 15
7.1 All Crashes .................................................................................................................15
7.2 Fatalities .....................................................................................................................15
7.3 Injury Levels................................................................................................................16
7.4 Cause of Crash...........................................................................................................17
7.5 Vulnerable Users ........................................................................................................17
7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles..................................................................20
7.7 Equity..........................................................................................................................20
7.8 Initial Findings.............................................................................................................20
7.9 Statewide Comparison................................................................................................26 EMPHASIS AREAS ...................................................................................... 26 OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................... 28
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements .......................................................................................28
9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements................................................................................30 General Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox ..........................................................................33 EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................... 38
10.1 Evaluation...................................................................................................................38
10.2 Implementation ...........................................................................................................38 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
10.3 Funding.......................................................................................................................39
10.4 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................41 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion.......................... 8 Figure 3: Functional Classification and Intersection Type..........................................................12 Figure 4: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2015-2019)..........................................................13 Figure 5: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Roadway Segments (2015-2019)............14 Figure 6: Collision Type by Year (2016-2020)...........................................................................15 Figure 7: Crashes by Injury Levels (2016-2020)........................................................................16 Figure 8: Cause of Crashes (2015-2019) ..................................................................................17 Figure 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2016-2020) ............................................................19 Figure 10: Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts (Historically Disadvantaged Communities)............................................................................................................................20 Table of Tables
Table 1: Fatal Crashes and Severe Injury Categorized by Modes Involved...............................16 Table 2: Analysis Rankings – Intersections ...............................................................................21 Table 3: Analysis Rankings – Segments ...................................................................................25 Table 4: Comparison of Statewide and Maywood Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes ....................26 Table 5: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Maywood.....................30 Table 6: Citywide Safety Project Opportunities (Countermeasure Toolbox) ..............................34 Table 7: Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures ...................................................36 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
1 Introduction
Maywood is a vibrant community in the Gateway Cities area of Los Angeles County, with a population of around 27,000 residents. With an economy based on manufacturing, retail, and commerce, this area has numerous traffic safety needs.
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to focus and guide further safety enhancement to the City’s transportation network. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network provided the opportunity to: 1) identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the five E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies to encourage safer driver behavior and reduced collision severities.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP is described in this document. The plan includes a vision and associated goals for safety, crash history analysis, and specific emphasis areas that represent the most challenge for safety in the City. The plan provides a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes.
Maywood has started to take steps to enhance safety for all modes throughout the City. Though their California Office of Traffic Safety rankings identifies it amongst the 50% tier for safety as compared to peer cities in most categories, the City is continuing to implement safety efforts through this plan by identifying areas of emphasis and opportunities for system improvement that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent 5-year period of available crash data (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2020) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of elevated collision activity. 2020 was also analyzed to identify trends related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Help prioritize investments in traffic safety.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
2 Vision and Goals
The Maywood LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort is intended to use historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
LRSPs have been effective across the country as part of the effort to reduce fatal and severeinjury crashes because they provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Consistent with these findings, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project.
VISION: To enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes.
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for collision.
Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.
Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for collisions based on present characteristics closely associated with severe collisions. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.
Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied citywide.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future HSIP and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles to apply for funding.
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. • Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP funding consideration. • Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
3 Process
Providing safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for residents and visitors is a primary goal for the City and its safety partners. The City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community through the development of the LRSP and its implementation.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level.
FHWA encourages:
• The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP.
• Review crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern. • Establish goals, priorities, and countermeasures to identify opportunities for improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively.
Caltrans guidance includes:
• Establish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and resulting emphasis areas. The identification of opportunities to enhance safety presented in this LRSP are connected to the five E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.
3.1 Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Maywood at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements will be identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network were documented. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes with active transportation users.
This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis described as follows.
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
4 and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
“The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.”2 This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.
1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
5 2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
4. Select Screening Method: There are three principle screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories. In addition to identifying the total number of crashes, this study uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate to analyze the data.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
• Number of Crashes
• Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
• Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4) • Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this study, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized, Unsignalized, Roundabout) and segments by their roadway category (Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each subpopulation. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are seen.
The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were 1) crash injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2) crash type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3) environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and 4) driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, distracted driving). With these additional factors, the locations were further analyzed.
From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Maywood DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
6 to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City. Ten locations will ultimately be selected for mitigation analysis.
3.2.2 Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level but does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment on a daily basis. The Highway Safety Manual describes the Critical Crash Rate method, which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.
The Critical Crash Rate compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a particular location based on facility type and volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95% confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities. A negative CCR differential value indicates that there are less collisions than expected for a location while a positive CCR differential value means there are more collisions than expected.
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR can be calculated using:
• Daily entering volume for intersections, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for roadway segments,
• Intersection control types to separate them into like populations, • Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations, • Collision records in GIS or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
7 Strengths
• Reduces low volume exaggeration
• Considers variance
• Establishes comparison threshold
3.2.3 CCR Methodology
The Process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial ranking of locations.
The first step in the process was to establish a citywide crash rate for each facility population.
These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories:
• Intersection:
o Signalized
o Unsignalized
• Roadway Classification:
o Major Arterial
o Primary Arterial
o Secondary Arterial
o Collector Arterial
o Local
The individual crash rate for each location was then calculated based on the associated traffic volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This Threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance (how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the collision occurring at the location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used. The local crash rates were then compared to Significance Threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked by their categories according to that level of exceedance.
3.2.4 Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.
Data Needs
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using collisions records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.
Strengths
• Can be used as a diagnostic tool
• Considers variance in data
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
8 • Not affected by selection bias
The HSM methodology first determines the frequency of a specific collision type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that collision type relative to all collision types at that location. A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific collision type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the collision type observed in the entire reference population (e.g. throughout the entire City of Maywood).
These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type.
Figure 2 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion Source: Highway Safety Manual
3.2.5 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
9 Safety Partners
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure that a diverse set of local perspectives were consistently involved in this planning effort. In addition to the Project Team which included City Staff from the Public Works Department, a stakeholder group was organized. This group consisted of members from LA County Sherriff’s Department, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and other community members.
These leaders in the City and community were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas.
The summary of the stakeholder meetings are outlined below.
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually using the Zoom platform on March 29th, 2022. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.
In addition to the overview, Stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at 12 “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process.
Stakeholder feedback regarding the plan and opportunities were reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.
4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop
On April 5th, 2022 the stakeholder group visited each of the 12 “case study” locations to identify potential issues that are contributing to the collision patterns. Potential countermeasures were identified and discussed. Additionally, potential emphasis/challenge areas were proposed during the meeting to include vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists), signalized intersection, speeding, and aging drivers.
4.3 Public Comment Period
The LRSP document was posted online in August 2022 for public engagement and comment.
Public comments will be used to inform future iterations of the report and plans.
Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City of Maywood were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. Information reviewed included the following:
• Maywood General Plan: A long-term planning document that defines the city’s longrange intentions regarding the vision, nature, and direction of future City developments DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
10 • Active Transportation Plan (in development): A strategic plan that outlines the visions, strategies, and actions to be implemented to improve active transportation in Maywood Data Summary
As a data driven process, utilizing the most recent and accurate data is crucial. The following section describes the data inputs used for the analysis process of this LRSP.
6.1 Roadway Network
The Caltrans California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Functional Classifications were then imported from the City’s General Plan. Traffic volumes and signal locations were provided by the City and were included in the analysis network. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be evaluated against similar facilities. Figure 3 illustrates Maywood’s roadway network and intersections as classified for this study.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
11 6.2 Intersections
The collision analysis requires each intersection be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. The safety analysis compares intersection safety performance to locations with similar control types. This information is also displayed in Figure 3.
6.3 Count Data
Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was pulled from the City’s latest Traffic and Engineering Survey. For locations without volume or count data, a reasonable assumption was made based upon available roadways with similar classifications. The traffic volume information allowed the team to assess locations for risk to a given roadway user as well as reviewing locations with the highest number of collisions
6.4 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads Software for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the City.
Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the following collision trends and patterns.
The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 4, and the number of collisions per intersections and roadway segments are shown in Figure 5.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
12 Figure 3: Functional Classification and Intersection Type DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
13 Figure 4: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
14 Figure 5: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Roadway Segments (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
15 Crash Safety Trends
The following section breaks down the collision data by a variety of factors and user types. This information will be used to highlight areas of concern for the City.
7.1 All Crashes
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on City streets. New data is added to the system on an ongoing basis which means that each time the City updates the analysis, a full 5-year draw from the database, rather than just adding records from the last query should be standard practice. Data used for this report were extracted from Crossroads Software analytics on July 7, 2021 and was current as of that date. Collision data from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 1,131 collisions recorded within Maywood.
During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Sideswipe (37%) and Broadside (21%). The total number of collisions stayed mostly consistent through the 5-year draw from the database.
Figure 6: Collision Type by Year (2016-2020)
7.2 Fatalities
During the study period, 2 fatal collisions occurred, as seen in Figure 4. The 2 fatalities involved other motor vehicles, and took place in broad daylight during early afternoon. Additionally, 16 severe injuries were reported, of which 2 bicycle, 1 fixed object, 1 motor vehicle on other 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
No. of Collisions
Study Years
Sideswipe
Broadside
Rear-End
Head-On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Other
Overturned
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
16 roadway. 3 motor vehicle, 1 other object, 1 parked motor vehicle, and 7 pedestrian were reported. Table 1 outlines the fatal collisions categorized by modes involved.
Table 1: Fatal Crashes and Severe Injury Categorized by Modes Involved (2016-2020) Involved With # of Fatal Collisions # Severe Injury
Bicycle 0 2
Fixed Object 0 1
Motor Vehicle on Other
Roadway 0 1
Other Motor Vehicle 2 3
Other Object 0 1
Parked Motor Vehicle 0 1
Pedestrians 0 7
7.3 Injury Levels
84% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 1% of all collisions.
Figure 7: Crashes by Injury Levels (2016-2020)
84%
12%
3%
1% 0%
Property Damage Only
Complaint of Pain
Other Visible Injury
Severe Injury
Fatal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
17 7.4 Cause of Crash
The highest recorded cause of collisions in Maywood during this time period is Improper Turning at 33%, followed by Auto Right-of-Way Violation at 12%, Unsafe Speed at 11%. And Traffic Signals and Signs also at 11%. Issues with Unsafe Starting or Backing also had a substantial impact on the City, comprising 6% of the collisions.
Figure 8: Cause of Crashes (2015-2019)
7.5 Vulnerable Users
7.5.1 Pedestrians
39 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, 7 severe injury, and 21 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. 23% of the collisions occurred at night.
Figure 9 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period.
33%
12%
11%
11%
6%
5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2% 2% 1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0% Improper Turning
Auto R/W Violation
Unsafe Speed
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown
Following Too Closely
Other
Wrong Side of Road
Unsafe Lane Change
Improper Passing
Other Improper Driving
Driving Under Influence
Other Hazardous Movement
Ped R/W Violation
Pedestrian Violation
Other Than Driver or Ped
Hazardous Parking
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
18 7.5.2 Bicycle
During the study period, 25 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, 0 were fatal, and 2 resulted in severe injuries. The collision history shows 76% of the collisions occurred during daylight. 38% of these collisions were attributed to wrong side of road, and 13% of collisions were attributed to other hazardous movements. Figure 9 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
19 Figure 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2016-2020) DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
20 7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles
• 35 percent of collisions (395) occurred either at night or during dusk/dawn. Many of these collisions still occurred at or near intersections.
• 21 percent of the total collisions (243) were broadsides. Although significant in number, there are no discernable patterns to these collisions.
• Drivers aged 65 or older were found to be at fault in 4 percent of collisions. • Drivers aged between 16 and 20 years old were found to be at fault in 5 percent of collisions.
7.7 Equity
Figure 10 below displays in yellow the locations in the Los Angeles area which are classified as a Historically Disadvantaged Community. The entire City of Maywood is included in this statistic, therefore the entire city is deemed to be disadvantaged in relation to transportation issues. This document suggests transportation improvements throughout the City, and therefore focuses on equity throughout.
Figure 10: Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts (Historically Disadvantaged Communities)4
7.8 Initial Findings
Through the initial crash and network screening analysis, an initial ranking of locations of interest was developed. The intersections and roadway segments by sub-population are identified in Table 2 and Table 3. Locations were only considered if they had three or more crashes to be statistically relevant.
A complete table of crash analysis for intersections and segments can be found in Appendix B. 4 Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts (Historically Disadvantaged Communities). https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/d6f90dfcc8b44525b04c7ce748a3674a DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
21 Table 2: Analysis Results– Intersections
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
EPDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
Atlantic Blvd & E Slauson Ave 72 0.19 687 0 3 7 11 51 20 21 12 8 1 0 2 2 3 15 0 0 0 4 Pine Ave & E Slauson Ave 37 0.00 265 0 1 4 5 27 13 9 5 3 2 0 0 6 1 17 0 0 0 1 Alamo Ave & E Slauson Ave 31 7.03 378 0 2 1 2 26 7 10 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 11 0 1 0 1 Heliotrope Ave & E Slauson Ave 27 -0.07 52 0 0 0 5 22 10 10 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 61st St 26 -0.06 56 0 0 1 4 21 4 7 8 3 3 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 2 King Ave & E Slauson Ave 24 -0.12 69 0 0 2 5 17 7 6 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 60th St 23 -0.12 64 0 0 0 8 15 11 5 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 S Maywood Ave & E Slauson Ave 22 -0.19 52 0 0 1 4 17 4 4 9 0 4 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Carmelita Ave & E Slauson Ave 21 -0.23 36 0 0 1 1 19 5 3 7 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 2 Gifford Ave & E Slauson Ave 21 -0.23 57 0 0 0 7 14 3 6 4 2 0 1 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 1 Corona Ave & E Slauson Ave 20 -0.24 189 0 1 0 1 18 2 7 7 2 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Blvd & E 57th St 20 -0.16 194 0 1 0 2 17 5 7 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 0 1 Everett Ave & E Slauson Ave 19 -0.23 217 0 1 2 3 13 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 Mayflower Ave & E Slauson Ave 18 -0.23 33 0 0 0 3 15 5 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Blvd & E 58th St 18 -0.21 33 0 0 0 3 15 8 5 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 Fishburn Ave & E Slauson Ave 17 -0.30 37 0 0 0 4 13 8 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 55th St 17 -0.27 32 0 0 0 3 14 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 Loma Vista Ave & E Slauson Ave 16 -0.31 36 0 0 1 2 13 4 2 7 0 1 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 Woodlawn Ave & E Slauson Ave 12 -0.34 17 0 0 0 1 11 1 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
22 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
EPDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Atlantic Ave & Randolph St 10 -0.39 20 0 0 0 2 8 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 Unsignalized Intersections
Malburg Way & E Slauson Ave 22 -0.14 380 0 2 0 6 14 9 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 Loma Vista Ave & E 56th St 11 0.68 31 0 0 1 2 8 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 Corona Ave & E 57th St 10 1.31 15 0 0 0 1 9 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Alamo Ave & E 59th Pl 9 0.20 14 0 0 0 1 8 1 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Blvd & E 52nd Pl 9 -0.38 19 0 0 1 0 8 3 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 2 Loma Vista Ave & E 54th St 9 0.55 9 0 0 0 0 9 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Pine Ave & E 61st St 8 0.00 18 0 0 0 2 6 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 King Ave & E 59th Pl 8 0.69 8 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Pine Ave & E 54th St 8 0.55 13 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Flora Ave & E Slauson Ave 7 -0.42 7 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Maywood Ave & E 54th St 7 0.50 22 0 0 1 1 5 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Mayflower Ave & E 60th St 6 0.41 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Heliotrope Ave & E 59th Pl 6 -0.08 179 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Gifford Ave & E 58th St 6 0.06 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Everett Ave & E 56th St 6 0.52 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Carmelita Ave & E 55th St 6 0.66 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Corona Ave & E 52nd St 6 0.02 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Loma Vista Ave & Fruitland Ave 6 -0.28 170 1 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 King Ave & E 61st St 5 -0.08 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Heliotrope Ave & E 60th St 5 2.35 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Woodlawn Ave & E 60th St 5 0.14 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
23 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
EPDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Woodlawn Ave & E 59th Pl
5 0.39 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Heliotrope Cir & E 59th Pl
5 0.08 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mayflower Ave & E 59th Pl
5 0.44 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
S Maywood Ave & E 58th St
5-0.17 5 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & E 57th St
5-0.20 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Carmelita Ave & E 56th St
5 0.17 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Corona Ave & E 53rd St
5 0.31 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carmelita Ave & E 53rd St
5 0.26 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Everett Ave & E 52nd St
5 0.16 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pala Ave & E 61st St
4-0.05 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Vinevale Ave & E 61st St
4-0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Heliotrope Ave & E 60th Pl
4-0.32 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
King Ave & E 60th St
4-0.22 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alamo Ave & E 60th St
4-0.37 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
E 52nd Pl & E 52nd Pl
4 0.13 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishburn Ave & E 58th St
4-0.21 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Carmelita Ave & E 58th St
4-0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2
Pine Ave & E 57th St
4-0.26 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 55th St
4-0.18 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 54th St
4 0.00 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & E 53rd St
4-0.26 168 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 52nd St
4-0.10 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
S Maywood Ave & E 52nd St
4-0.17 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
24 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
EPDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Woodlawn Ave & Randolph St 3 -0.31 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Prospect Ave & E 61st St 3 -0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Woodward Ave & E 61st St 3 -0.34 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Flora Ave & E 60th St 3 -0.27 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pine Ave & E 60th St 3 -0.47 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walker Ave & E 60th St 3 -0.29 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodward Ave & E 60th St 3 -0.22 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pine Ave & E 58th St 3 -0.43 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 King Ave & E 57th St 3 -0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Corona Ave & E 58th St 3 -0.37 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Everett Ave & E 58th St 3 -0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Gifford Ave & E 57th St 3 -0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mayflower Ave & E 56th St 3 0.08 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 King Ave & E 56th St 3 -0.14 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carmelita Ave & E 57th St 3 -0.33 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pine Ave & E 56th St 3 -0.41 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishburn Ave & E 56th St 3 -0.34 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Gifford Ave & E 56th St 3 -0.35 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mayflower Ave & E 52nd Dr 3 -0.07 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Fishburn Ave & E 53rd St 3 -0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pine Ave & E 52nd St 3 -0.28 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Everett Ave & Fruitland Ave 3 -0.49 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
25 Table 3: Analysis Results – Segments
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Principal Arterial
E Slauson Ave Alamo Ave - City
Limits 5 0.32 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Atlantic Blvd E 61st St - Randolph
St 3 -0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Heliotrope Ave -
Woodlawn Ave 3 -0.14 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Slauson Ave Atlantic Blvd - King
Ave 3 -0.13 167 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Pine Ave - Atlantic
Blvd 3 -0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Carmelita Ave -
Corona Ave 3 -0.17 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Local
E 59th Pl Atlantic Blvd - King
Ave 3 8.77 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
26 7.9 Statewide Comparison
A comparison of fatal & severe injury collision data to the State averages were conducted for data from 2015-2018 (the most recent statewide data available). These numbers may vary slightly from those mentioned previously, due to the differences in the years of the study period.
The following are areas where Maywood’s collision rates are higher or lower than those of the State. These numbers specifically compare the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes that have the characteristics listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Comparison of Statewide and Maywood Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes (2015- 2018)
Challenge Area Statewide % Maywood % Percentage
Difference
Maywood has a Higher Percentage of F&SI Crashes
Pedestrians 19.2% 50.0% 30.8%
Intersections 23.6% 45.8% 22.2%
Occupant Protection 6.4% 12.5% -1.7%
Impaired Driving 5.0% 20.8% -4.4%
Maywood has a Lower Percentage of F&SI Crashes
Bicyclists 33.1% 20.8% 12.5%
Distracted Driving 12.4% 8.3% 3.3%
Work Zones 8.3% 4.2% 2.7%
Commercial Vehicles 14.2% 4.2% -2.2%
Aging Drivers (65+) 13.1% 8.3% -4.0%
Young Drivers (15-20) 43.3% 4.2% -8.9%
Motorcyclists 21.0% 8.3% -12.6%
Aggressive Driving 23.6% 16.7% -16.4%
Lane Departure 25.3% 20.8% -22.4%
Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Areas are behavioral, road user, or road condition characteristics that the City of Maywood can strategically focus efforts on to have a large impact on transportation safety.
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the Vision and Goals developed at the onset of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges were observed, Emphasis Areas and strategies were developed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
27 Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving
Description: Behaviors that involve driving too fast, tailgating, and additional reckless driving maneuvers are included in the Aggressive Driving category. About 27% of total collisions in Maywood involved aggressive driving.
Goal for Emphasis Area #1:
• Reduce the number of collisions of aggressive driving. • Identify hot spots to implement improvement to address aggressive driving. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to help decrease aggressive driving in the City.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #1
• Engineering improvements such as speed safety cameras, dynamic speed signage, roadway design changes and appropriate speed limits for all road users. • Educational campaigns to improve behaviors of aggressive driving such as youth traffic safety education, and community-based programs.
Emphasis Area #2: Pedestrians & Bicyclists (Vulnerable Road Users) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable road users, meaning they have the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. Pedestrian and bicycle activity is high in Maywood. 5.7% of all collisions in the study period involved pedestrians or bicyclists. 14.1% of these collisions resulted in severe injuries and 14.1% in other visible injury.
Goals for Emphasis Area #2:
• Reduce the number of collisions involving vulnerable road users • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for addressing vulnerable road user collisions • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address pedestrian & bicyclist collisions
Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
• Implement pedestrian and bicycle countermeasures/improvements at key locations • Install active transportation counters to identify high volume locations and implement infrastructure improvements at these locations
• Establish education and training programs to improve vulnerable road user safety citywide
These strategies can be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, LACMTA, NHTSA, CHP and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, ATP, STIP, SRTS, GGRF and SB1 grand funding programs.
Emphasis Area #3: Signal Improvements
Description:
45.8% of all collisions within the study period occurred within 250 ft of a signalized intersection.
3.0% of these collisions resulted in severe injuries, 6.1% resulted in visible injury and 23.9% resulted in complaint of pain.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
28 Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
• Reduce the number of collisions at signalized intersections • Identify hot spots for signalized intersection collisions • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures at City signals Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
• Address intersection collisions by implementing proven countermeasures • Identify priority corridors for intersections collisions and implement countermeasures on these corridors
• Analyze signal timing and determine if adjustments are need Emphasis Area #4: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving crashes are a high priority challenge area within the Caltrans SHSP. Caltrans defines these as crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver was not over the legal limit. 12% of these collisions attributed to impaired driving resulted in fatalities or severe injuries.
Goal for Emphasis Area #4
• Reduce the number of crashes attributed to impaired driving • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for countermeasures to reduce impaired driving • Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
• Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs • Implement an impaired driving education campaign
• Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group • Additional enforcement presence
• Create effective media campaigns in both visual and print media Opportunities
The following provides more information on general identified issues, crash modification factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Maywood, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis.
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements and apply CMFs to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce collisions. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase collisions. The application of an appropriate CMF can influence the decision to implement a particular project, and the misapplication of CMFs can lead to misinformed decisions. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
29 1. Selection of an appropriate CMF,
2. Estimation of collisions without treatment,
3. Application of CMFs by type and severity, and
4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf) and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/).
Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a citywide level and are discussed in Section 0 of this Report.
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the citywide analysis, ten project case study locations were selected for further analysis and opportunity identification. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their collision histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most costeffective safety benefits.
A Safety Project Case Study was developed for these locations:
1. Signalized Intersection: Pine Ave & Slauson Ave
2. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Slauson Ave
3. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & 57th St
4. Segment: 59th (Atlantic to King)
5. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Cir/Heliotrope Ave & 60th St
6. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Cir/Heliotrope Ave & 59th St
7. Segment: Slauson Ave (Alamo Ave to City Limits)
8. Unsignalized Intersection: Heliotrope Ave & 52nd Pl/56th St
9. Unsignalized Intersection: Loma Vista Ave & Fruitland Ave
10. Unsignalized Intersection: Loma Vista & 56th St
11. Signalized Intersection: Everett Ave & Slauson Ave
Appendix A contains the Case Study pages which summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
30 9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements
Non-Infrastructure improvements have also been proven to impact safety conditions of the transportation network. These education and enforcement measure opportunities are developed to target specific behavior types and populations. Based on a review of the existing plans, policies, and programs within the City, the following topics have been reviewed to identify areas where the City can implement or enhance safety efforts.
Table 5: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Maywood Topic Current Status
Implement
or
Enhance
Active Transportation
Coordinator None at this time Utilize on-call support for asneeded services Safety or Active Advisory
Committee None at this time Consider creating committee and implement regular meetings
Active Transportation Safety
Education Program None at this time
City is always looking for
improvements and grant
opportunities
Complete Street Plans None at this time Consider implementing a complete streets plan
Traffic Impact Fees None at this time Consider implementing traffic impact fees
Safe Routes to School
Program None at this time
Consider implementing a Safe
Routes to School program; seek
funding opportunities to fund this
program
Traffic Safety Education None at this time
Consider applying for grant
funding to support a traffic safety
education program
Traffic Calming Policies No formal program in place
Consider implement a
neighborhood traffic calming
policy
Speed Surveys Regular as required by California
Vehicle Code
Continue to update as required
by California Vehicle Code;
review new guidance from
Assembly Bill 43
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
31 Topic Current Status
Implement
or
Enhance
Warrants for Stop Signs and
Signals
Yes, utilizes MUTCD for
warrants
Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, MUTCD
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) or
Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VTM) Reduction Policies
None at this time Consider implementing TDM or
VTM reduction policies
Traffic Crash Monitoring No regular crash monitoring
Consider implementing
Crossroads database integration
between PD & Engineering and
have regular collision monitoring
Active Transportation
Master Plan None at this time
Consider implementing
active transportation
master plan to improve
bike/pedestrian safety and
reduce conflicts with
vehicles
Crosswalk at High
Pedestrian Locations Yes
Review locations where
crosswalks can be added as
pedestrian volumes fluctuate
Traffic Enforcement Current enforcement by Sheriff’s
department
Continue to enforce traffic laws,
identify areas where enforcement
can be increased
Bicycle Policy Bicycle policy being developed
as part of the General Plan
Continue to implement bicycle
improvements as part of bicycle
policies
Types of Transit Metro bus & City run transit
Continue to provide high-quality
transit service and amenities
such as shelters, wayfinding
signage, etc.
Types of Wayfinding None at this time
City can implementing a
wayfinding program, coordinate
with LA Metro
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals None at this time
Consider creating an inventory;
include pedestrian infrastructure;
digitize in GIS database
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
32 Topic Current Status
Implement
or
Enhance
Inventory/Mapping of Active
Transportation Routes None at this time
Consider creating an inventory of
active transportation routes;
digitize in GIS database
Utilize Crossroads Database
for Collisions Yes; uses SWITRS Continue to integrate; regularly monitor as necessary
Active Transportation
Volume Counting None at this time
Consider implementing traffic &
active transportation volume
collection; utilize this data
in collision analysis
Resident Feedback Call/email/MyMaywood app
Continue to seek out
resident feedback and
incorporate into policies
and implementations;
expand opportunities for easy
feedback from citizens
Coordination with Other City
Organizations
Other departments & Sheriffs/fire
department
Maintain formal
coordination between city
departments; involve in
collision analysis and
planning process.
School Engagement None at this time
Coordinate
with schools and district,
involve in collision analysis
and planning process
Law
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)
Continue to coordinate
with EOC; involve in collision
analysis and planning
process. Engage health
agencies as stakeholders.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
33 General Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox
This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Countermeasures for each of the 5Es of Safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies) were identified. These include both infrastructure opportunities, non-infrastructure opportunities. The citywide safety project opportunities can be referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox”. Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its LRSM ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) also known as Crash Modification Factor (CMF), are “multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)5
.”
For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.
Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20-year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per-year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 6 should be considered initial planning costs using 2021 dollars and not assumed final. 5 LRSM Version 1.5 (2020), Page 27
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Table 6: Citywide Safety Project Opportunities (Countermeasure Toolbox)
LRSM/CMF
ID Potential Countermeasures
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS03 Install signals 30% $400,000
per
intersection
R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone 35% $1,000 per location R22 Install retroreflective stripes on stop signs 15% $1,500 per sign R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 15% $75 per linear
foot
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines 25% $20,000 per mile R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 35% $9,500 per curb
ramp
S02 Install/update retroreflective backplates 15% $12,000 per
intersection
S02 Update signal heads from 8-inch to 12-inch vehicle heads 15% $1,500 per signal
heads
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phasing, red, yellow, operation) 15% $7,667 per
intersection
S04 Install advanced dilemma zone detection 40% $34,000 per
intersection
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I) 30% $3,000 per beacon S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) 25% $25,000 per location S17PB Install ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons 25% $15,000 Per
intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $12,000 per
intersection
128 Install tapered bump-outs (chicanes) 32% $25,000 per location 132 Install speed humps 40% $5,000
per speed
hump
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
35 LRSM/CMF
ID Potential Countermeasures
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
- Install haptic crosswalk button *5% $5,000
per
crosswalk
button
- Review enforcement policies *5% Varies
- Add ADA mats to corners *5% $15,000 per location
- Hash out and formalize parking *5% $15,000 per location - Upgrade traffic signal controller cabinets *5% $60,000 per location - Neighborhood traffic calming policy/study *5% Varies
- Review school zone enforcement policy *5% Varies
*These countermeasures do not have documented CRF’s and a conservative 5% CRF was assigned to allow them to show some benefit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
36 Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures:
These potential countermeasures were derived from the collision analysis and build on the actions identified in Section 9.2. These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services and Emerging Technologies. Table 6 7 describes additional opportunities for the remaining categories of traffic safety which includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technology.
Table 7: Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures
PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
ENFORCEMENT
Establish enforcement and visibility program for
aggressive driving Local law enforcement; CHP CHP’s Regulate Aggressive Driving and Reduce Speed (RADARS) Program Continued enforcement in school zones
Local law enforcement;
CHP; school districts;
LACMTA; SCAG
Obtain grant funding for additional personnel in school zones
Increased enforcement of safe driving & active
transportation behaviors near busy crosswalk locations Local law enforcement; CHP Obtain grant funding for additional enforcement near high pedestrian activity locations
EDUCATION
Campaign to target aggressive driving and DUIs
Local law enforcement;
CHP; California Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS)
CHP’s Regulate Aggressive Driving and Reduce Speed
(RADARS) Program
Bicycle and pedestrian safety campaign Local law enforcement; LACMTA; SCAG
SCAG’s ‘Go Human’ Campaign; ‘ OTS’ ‘Ride With Traffic’
campaign
Planned educational events at high active transportation activity locations
Explore safe routes to school education grants to
expand program
Local school districts; local
law enforcement; LACMTA;
SCAG
Safe Routes to School Program, funded by Caltrans
Coordinate safety education campaigns with SCAG SCAG; local law enforcement
Roadway safety fairs at schools
Education campaign for aging drivers
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
37 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Continue to work on interdepartmental communication
between City staff and City police department and fire
department
Local law enforcement & fire
department
Incorporate law enforcement/fire department as
stakeholders on transportation improvement projects
Incorporate public health agencies and fire departments as stakeholders in safety projects
Local public health agencies
and fire departments
Adjust safety project development processes to include
public health and fire department feedback
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Continue to use best practices for pedestrian crossings at high pedestrian traffic areas
City Public Works; LACMTA;
Caltrans
Continuously update pedestrian crossing design standards in accordance with latest best practices
Utilize new data sources to monitor traffic conditions
and inform County safety plans
City Public Works; LACMTA;
Caltrans Utilization of data from LACMTA traffic management center DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
38 Evaluation & Implementation
10.1 Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This process will be useful to ensure proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates are needed.
• Regular progress meetings can be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In addition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on an annual basis. • An update to the plan should be considered within five years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding
• Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law enforcement.
• Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns.
10.2 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through several avenues including development of projects, the establishment of new policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.
With regard to projects, the following identifies potential focus areas for the City in the near-tomid-term.
Near- & Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this report provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, the City has the opportunity to concentrate its efforts on the emphasis areas:
1. Aggressive Driving
2. Vulnerable Road Users
3. Signal Improvements
4. Impaired Driving
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying Citywide collision rates), allowing projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
39 10.3 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Maywood. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Maywood. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply. The City should also work with regional agencies such as LACMTA and SCAG to identify and apply for safety improvement funding.
10.3.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Example safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
10.3.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school) • Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
40 10.3.3 State Transportation Improvement Program
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.
10.3.4 California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the Active Transportation Program (ATP). • Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.3.5 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving
• Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
• Motorcycle Safety
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Police Traffic Services
• Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
41 10.3.6 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program (SCP)
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The SCP provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
• Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs
10.3.7 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $1 billion annually for the next four years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (except state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based. Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100,000 to $1 million and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1 million to $20 million. Grant applications are due in September 2022.
Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan and the City’s adoption of a Vision Zero resolution makes the City eligible to apply for SS4A implementation grants.
10.3.8 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over five years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.
10.4 Next Steps
The City of Maywood has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified collision types, related primary collision factors, and locations of many collisions. Based on this process, DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
42 Emphasis Areas were developed. These Emphasis Areas will guide corridor improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City.
Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City has the opportunity to complete the following tasks:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network • Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Maywood • Continually review collision data and update the analysis performed in this report • Monitor collision activity at locations where improvements were made to determine their impacts
Based on current Caltrans guidelines, the LRSP is valid for 5 years from date of completion for eligibility for HSIP grant funding.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Appendix A: Case Study Sheets
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
1) Pine Ave & Slauson Ave
N
2 *
4 3
Note: severe injury collisions are shown in red
Legend
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear-end
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Hit-Object
Head-On
Parked Car
*
37 collisions
- 13 Broadsides
- 5 Rear-ends
- 9 Sideswipes
- 6 Vehicle-Pedestrian
- 1 Bicycle
- 2 Hit-object
2 * 2
P
Note: 1 collision is categorized as ‘Not Stated’ and is not shown on diagram P
Project Name: San Benito LRSP
Agency Name: San Benito County LRSP
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 1
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Pine Ave & Slauson Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Alamo Ave & Slauson Ave Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 37
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
5 Top 3 Collision Types Broadside: 13
Sideswipe: 9
Rear-End: 5
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
26 6 1
N
Additional Notes:
• High relative number of broadsides
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 35,640
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
Median East approach only
1) Pine Ave & Slauson Ave
N
2 *
4 3
Note: severe injury collisions are shown in red
Legend
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear-end
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Hit-Object
Head-On
Parked Car
*
37 collisions
- 13 Broadsides
- 5 Rear-ends
- 9 Sideswipes
- 6 Vehicle-Pedestrian
- 1 Bicycle
- 2 Hit-object
2 * 2
P
Note: 1 collision is categorized as ‘Not Stated’ and is not shown on diagram P
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
Bike/Ped Install haptic push buttons 35%
(R35PB) $1,136,660 $38,000 29.91
Bike/Ped Install countdown heads on
Slauson crosswalks
35%
(R35PB) $1,136,660 $19,000 59.82
All Install flashing yellow arrow or
protected lefts
15%
(S03) $2,113,680 $15,334 137.84
All Add lane striping 25%
(R28) $3,522,800 $20,000 176.14
Bike/Ped Install two-way pedestrian ramps 5%
(R35PB) $162,380 $76,000 2.14
Bike/Ped Install high-visibility crosswalk 35%
(R35PB) $1,136,660 $38,000 29.91
Bike/Ped Install Curb 32%
(128) $1,039,232 $25,000 41.57
Bike/Ped Install leading pedestrian interval
(LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $1,948,560 $12,000 162.38
All Extend median west on Slauson 35%
(S12) $3,522,800 $25,000 140.91
All Install no turn on red signs 15%
(R22) $2,113,680 $3,000 704.56
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 2
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Slauson Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Pine Ave & Slauson Ave Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 72
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
10 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 21
Broadside: 20
Rear-End: 12
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 4
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
60 2 3
N
Additional Notes:
• High relative number of sideswipes and broadsides
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 53,682
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
Median Yes, on all approaches
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
Bike/Ped Install two-way crosswalk ramps 35%
(R35PB) $9,329,880 $76,000 122.76
Bike/Ped Install haptic crosswalk button 5%
(R35PB) $1,332,840 $40,000 33.32
All Refresh limit lines 25%
(R28) $9,134,300 $4,000 2283.58
Bike/Ped Refresh crosswalk
striping
25%
(R28) $6,664,200 $4,000 1666.05
Bike/Ped Implement crosswalk countdowns 35%
(R35PB) $9,329,880 $9,500 982.09
All Review signal timing 15%
(S03) $5,480,580 $7,667 714.83
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 3
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & 57th St
Examples of Similar Intersections: Corona Ave & Slauson Ave Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 20
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 7
Broadside: 5
Rear-End: 5
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
15 1 2
N
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 25,367
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
Median Yes, on all approaches
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Install flexible delineators along
NBL and SBL turn lanes
15%
(R27) $1,546,740 $13,950 110.88
All Upgrades signal lenses to 12 inch 15%
(S02) $1,546,740 $12,000 128.90
All Install retroreflective backplates 15%
(S02) $1,546,740 $12,000 128.90
All Install advanced dilemma zone
detection system
40%
(S04) $4,124,640 $34,000 121.31
All Install upgraded truck signage 15%
(R22) $1,546,740 $6,000 257.79
Bike/Ped Install two-way pedestrian ramps 35%
(R35PB) $3,197,880 $76,000 42.08
Bike/Ped Install crosswalk on western side
of intersection
35%
(R35PB) $3,197,880 $19,000 168.31
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: 59th: Atlantic to King
Examples of Similar Segment: Slauson Ave: Carmelita Ave - Corona Ave Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 3
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 2
Rear-End: 1
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
SEGMENT
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
2 0 0
N
N
Traffic Data
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 778
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 MPH
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Assess signal warrant at Atlantic
and 59th
30%
(NS03) $202,680 $270,000 0.75
All Stripe centerline if traffic volume
warrants it
25%
(R28) $168,900 $2,000 84.45
All Install speed humps 40%
(132) $270,240 $15,000 18.02
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Heliotrope Cir / Heliotrope Ave & 60th St Examples of Similar Intersections: Woodlawn Ave & 59th Pl Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 5
Tra c and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 5
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 7
Rear-End: 5
Hit Object: 5
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
15 1 2
N
Tra c Data
Number of Approaches 5
Total Entering Vehicles 670
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Median striping on all
approaches
Legend
Sideswipe
Rear-end
Hit-Object *
5) Heliotrope Ave & 60th St
5 collisions
- 2 Rear-ends
- 2 Sideswipes
- 1 Hit-object
N
PC
PC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modi
cation
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Bene
t
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Close o
Heliotrope Circle, install
bollards
5%
(R27) $13,300 $60,000 0.22
All Install way
nding signage 15%
(R22) $39,900 $3,000 13.30
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 6
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Heliotrope Cir / Heliotrope Ave & 59th St Examples of Similar Intersections: King Ave & 61st St
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
2 Top 3 Collision Types Vehicle-Pedestrian: 3
Sideswipe: 2
Broadside: 1
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
2 3 0
N
Additional Notes:
• High relative number of pedestrian collisions (near school) Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 4408
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Median striping on all
approaches
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Add curb extensions 32%
(128) $3,053,440 $30,000 101.78
All Install wayfinding signage 5%
(N/A) $477,100 Varies Varies
Bike/Ped Add ADA mats to corners 5%
(N/A) $443,320 $15,000 29.55
Bike/Ped Add beacons 30%
(S10) $2,659,920 $12,000 221.66
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Slauson Ave: Alamo Ave to City Limits
Examples of Similar Segment: Atlantic Blvd: E61st to Randolph St Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 5
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types Hit Object: 2
Rear-End: 2
Other: 1
Total Nighttime Collisions 2
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
SEGMENT
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
5 0 0
N
Traffic Data
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 25,131
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Hash out and formalize parking 5%
(N/A) $536,400 $8,000 67.05
Bike/Ped Add missing crosswalk 35%
(R35PB) - $9,500 -
Bike/Ped Define edgeline on approach 25%
(R28) - $10,200 -
All Constrain roadway striping 25%
(R28) $536,400 $90,000 5.96
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 8
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Heliotrope Ave & 52nd Pl/56th St
Examples of Similar Intersections: Prospect Ave & 61st St Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 3
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End: 1
Vehicle-Pedestrian: 1
Other: 1
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
1 1 0
N
Additional Notes:
• Resent restriping at this intersection
• E 52nd Pl is a private road
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 5
Total Entering Vehicles 2283
Crosswalk Condition Yes, on all approaches
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Median striping on all
approaches
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
Bike/Ped Split ramps to two-way 5%
(R35PB) $16,180 $19,000 0.85
All Close off 56th St (Bollards) 5%
(R27) $21,500 $60,000 0.36
All Heliotrope Ave (NB) to be added
as truck route
5%
(R22) $21,500 $6,000 3.58
All Realign intersection 25%
(R28) $107,500 $80,000 1.34
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 9
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Loma Vista Ave & Fruitland Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Corona Ave & 57th St Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 3
Broadside: 3
Total Nighttime Collisions 1
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
4 0 0
N
Additional Notes:
• Misalignment of crosswalks on northern side
• Intersection shared with City of Vernon
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 7,797
Crosswalk Condition No striping present
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Median No striping present
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Curb extention on SW corner 15%
(128) $1,353,900 $15,000 90.26
All Remove palm tree 5%
(R02) $451,300 $1,000 451.30
All Add beacon to stop sign 30%
(S10) $2,707,800 $12,000 225.65
All Relocate stop sign 15%
(R22) $1,353,900 $1,500 902.60
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 10
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Loma Vista Ave & 56th St
Examples of Similar Intersections: Corona Ave & 57th St Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 11
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 6
Broadside: 4
Head-On: 1
Total Nighttime Collisions 6
Wet Surface Collisions 2
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 2
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
5 0 2
N
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 3,928
Crosswalk Condition No striping present
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Median No striping present
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All Stripe out right turn on 56th 25%
(R28) $4,709,600 $20,000 235.48
All Neighborhood traffic calming
policy/study
5%
(N/A) Varies Varies Varies
Bike/Ped Review school zone enforcement
policy
5%
(N/A) Varies Varies Varies
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Project Name: Maywood LRSP
Agency Name: City of Maywood
Contact Name: Steve Fowler
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor
Date: September 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location # 11
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Everett Ave & Slauson Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Corona Ave & Slauson Ave Traffic and Geometric Data:
Collision Data
Total Collisions 19
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types Sideswipe: 5
Head-On 5
Rear-End: 3
Total Nighttime Collisions 7
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 5
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
11 2 3
N
Additional Notes:
• High number of impaired collisions
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 29,235
Crosswalk Condition striping on three
approaches
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
Median E/W medians
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
Modification
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
Bike/Ped Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $6,327,360 $15,334 412.64
All Install lane striping 25%
(R28) $2,890,200 $1,500 1926.8
All Convert signals to protected left
or flashing yellow arrow
15%
(S02) $1,734,120 $48,000 36.13
All Install flexible bollards along turn
lane
15%
(R27) $1,734,120 $17,550 98.81
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Appendix B: Analysis Table – Segments and
Intersections
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Principal Arterial
E Slauson Ave Alamo Ave
- City
Limits 5 0.32 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Atlantic Blvd E 61st St
- Randolph
St 3
-0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Heliotrope Ave
-
Woodlawn Ave 3
-0.14 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Atlantic Blvd
- King
Ave 3
-0.13 167 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Pine Ave
- Atlantic
Blvd 3
-0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Slauson Ave Carmelita Ave
-
Corona Ave 3
-0.17 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Local
E 59th Pl Atlantic Blvd
- King
Ave 3 8.77 13 0 0 1 0 2 02100000000000
1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only
Crashes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
Atlantic Blvd & E Slauson Ave 72 0.19 687 0 3 7 11 51 20 21 12 8 1 0 2 2 3 15 0 0 0 4 Pine Ave & E Slauson Ave 37 0.00 265 0 1 4 5 27 13 9 5 3 2 0 0 6 1 17 0 0 0 1 Alamo Ave & E Slauson Ave 31 7.03 378 0 2 1 2 26 7 10 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 11 0 1 0 1 Heliotrope Ave & E Slauson Ave 27 -0.07 52 0 0 0 5 22 10 10 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 61st St 26 -0.06 56 0 0 1 4 21 4 7 8 3 3 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 2 King Ave & E Slauson Ave 24 -0.12 69 0 0 2 5 17 7 6 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 60th St 23 -0.12 64 0 0 0 8 15 11 5 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 S Maywood Ave & E Slauson Ave 22 -0.19 52 0 0 1 4 17 4 4 9 0 4 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Carmelita Ave & E Slauson Ave 21 -0.23 36 0 0 1 1 19 5 3 7 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 2 Gifford Ave & E Slauson Ave 21 -0.23 57 0 0 0 7 14 3 6 4 2 0 1 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 1 Corona Ave & E Slauson Ave 20 -0.24 189 0 1 0 1 18 2 7 7 2 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Blvd & E 57th St 20 -0.16 194 0 1 0 2 17 5 7 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 0 1 Everett Ave & E Slauson Ave 19 -0.23 217 0 1 2 3 13 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 Mayflower Ave & E Slauson Ave 18 -0.23 33 0 0 0 3 15 5 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Blvd & E 58th St 18 -0.21 33 0 0 0 3 15 8 5 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 Fishburn Ave & E Slauson Ave 17 -0.30 37 0 0 0 4 13 8 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 Atlantic Blvd & E 55th St 17 -0.27 32 0 0 0 3 14 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 Loma Vista Ave & E Slauson Ave 16 -0.31 36 0 0 1 2 13 4 2 7 0 1 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 Woodlawn Ave & E Slauson Ave
12 -0.34
17 0 0 0 1 11 1 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2
Atlantic Ave & Randolph St
10 -0.39
20 0 0 0 2 8 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Unsignalized Intersections
Malburg Way & E Slauson Ave 22
-0.14 380 0 2 0 6 14 9 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & E 56th St 11 0.68 31 0 0 1 2 8 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 Corona Ave & E 57th St 10 1.31 15 0 0 0 1 9 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Alamo Ave & E 59th Pl
90.20 14 0 0 0 1 8 1 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Atlantic Blvd & E 52nd Pl
9-0.38 19 0 0 1 0 8 3 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 2
Loma Vista Ave & E 54th St
9 0.55 9 0 0 0 0 9 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 61st St
8 0.00 18 0 0 0 2 6 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
King Ave & E 59th Pl
8 0.69 8 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Pine Ave & E 54th St
8 0.55 13 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Flora Ave & E Slauson Ave
7-0.42 7 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
S Maywood Ave & E 54th St
7 0.50 22 0 0 1 1 5 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Mayflower Ave & E 60th St
6 0.41 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Heliotrope Ave & E 59th Pl
6-0.08 179 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 58th St
6 0.06 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Everett Ave & E 56th St
6 0.52 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Carmelita Ave & E 55th St
6 0.66 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Corona Ave & E 52nd St
6 0.02 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & Fruitland Ave
6-0.28 170 1 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1
King Ave & E 61st St
5-0.08 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Heliotrope Ave & E 60th St
5 2.35 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Woodlawn Ave & E 60th St
5 0.14 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Woodlawn Ave & E 59th Pl
5 0.39 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Heliotrope Cir & E 59th Pl
5 0.08 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mayflower Ave & E 59th Pl
5 0.44 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
S Maywood Ave & E 58th St
5-0.17 5 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & E 57th St
5-0.20 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Carmelita Ave & E 56th St
5 0.17 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Corona Ave & E 53rd St
5 0.31 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carmelita Ave & E 53rd St
5 0.26 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Everett Ave & E 52nd St
5 0.16 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pala Ave & E 61st St
4-0.05 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Vinevale Ave & E 61st St
4-0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Heliotrope Ave & E 60th Pl
4-0.32 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
King Ave & E 60th St
4-0.22 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alamo Ave & E 60th St
4-0.37 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
E 52nd Pl & E 52nd Pl
4 0.13 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishburn Ave & E 58th St
4-0.21 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Carmelita Ave & E 58th St
4-0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2
Pine Ave & E 57th St
4-0.26 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 55th St
4-0.18 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 54th St
4 0.00 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loma Vista Ave & E 53rd St
4-0.26 168 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 52nd St
4-0.10 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
S Maywood Ave & E 52nd St
4-0.17 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Woodlawn Ave & Randolph St
3-0.31 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Prospect Ave & E 61st St
3-0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Woodward Ave & E 61st St
3-0.34 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Flora Ave & E 60th St
3-0.27 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 60th St
3-0.47 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walker Ave & E 60th St
3-0.29 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodward Ave & E 60th St
3-0.22 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 58th St
3-0.43 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
King Ave & E 57th St
3-0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Corona Ave & E 58th St
3-0.37 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Everett Ave & E 58th St
3-0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Gifford Ave & E 57th St
3-0.38 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mayflower Ave & E 56th St
3 0.08 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
King Ave & E 56th St
3-0.14 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Carmelita Ave & E 57th St
3-0.33 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
MAYWOOD LRSP 2022
Pine Ave & E 56th St
3-0.41 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishburn Ave & E 56th St
3-0.34 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gifford Ave & E 56th St
3-0.35 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mayflower Ave & E 52nd Dr
3-0.07 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Fishburn Ave & E 53rd St
3-0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Pine Ave & E 52nd St
3-0.28 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Everett Ave & Fruitland Ave
3-0.49 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
1. Local Critical Crash Rate
Differential
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only
Crashes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 08003ECE-7C23-4352-B684-5B517BB2659B
CITY OF MAYWOOD - CIRCULATION ELEMENT
1 Appendix C
City of Maywood
Active Transportation Plan
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 1 City of Maywood
Active Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan
OCTOBER 25, 2023
4319 Slauson Ave
Maywood, CA 90270
(323)562-5700
https://www.cityofmaywood.com/
- October 2023 -
Acknowledgements
The City would like to thank all community members in the City of Maywood who contributed to the development and completion of this Active Transportation Plan.
The City would also like to express gratitude to the community partners listed below as well.
MAYWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MAYWOOD CITY STAFF
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL, FISHBURN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST RIO VISTA YMCA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Roberto Bustillo - Communities for a Better Environment Antonio Garcia - Fishburn Elementary School Principal
Alberto Espiricueta - East Yard Communities
William Downing - Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Andrea Aguilar - Southeast Rio Vista YMCA
Eric Maceda - Rivers for Action
CONSULTANTS
Transtech Engineers
KOA Corporation
Estolano Advisors
People for Mobility Justice
Photo Credit
Unless otherwise noted, the photographs used in this Plan were taken by KOA Corporation.
MaywoodActive Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND 7
Executive Summary 8
Goals & Objectives 12
Project Timeline 13
CHAPTER 2 : MAYWOOD TODAY 18
Methodology 19
Planning Context 20
Land Use 23
Roadway Facilities 24
Socio-Economic Characteristics 27
Community Health Characteristics 32
Collision Analysis 34
Public Transportation 39
CHAPTER 3 : ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 43 Bicycle Improvements 44
Pedestrian Improvements 46
Roadway Improvements 47
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 5 CHAPTER 4 : WHAT DID THE COMMUNITY HAVE TO SAY? 48
Outreach Approach and Themes 49
Community Reactions to Proposed Recommendations 50
Community Outreach Workshop summaries 51
Community Advisory CommitTee (CAC) 56
CHAPTER 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS 58
Bicycle Network Recommendations 59
Bicycle Intersection Recommendations 61
Pedestrian Intersection Recommendations 64
Roadway Recommendations 67
Regional Connectivity Recommendations 71
Non-Infrastructure Recommendations 73
CHAPTER 6 : NEXT STEPS 75
Project Prioritization 76
Project Ranking 78
Cost Estimates 79
APPENDICES 80
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 6
LIST OF TABLES
1. RACE ETHNICITY AND AGE (27)
2. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (28)
3. COMMUTING PATTERNS (30)
4. TOP EMPLOYMENT CENTERS FOR MAYWOOD COMMUTERS (31)
5. ADULT PHYSICAL HEALTH (32)
6. CHILDREN PHYSICAL HEALTH (33)
7. TOTAL COLLISIONS BY MODE AND YEAR (2017-2021) (35)
8. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS (2017-2021) (36)
9. PEDESTRIAN ACTIONS AT TIME OF COLLISION (2017-2021) (36)
10. NUMBER OF COLLISIONS PER DAY OF WEEK AND TIME (2017-2021) (37)
11. AVERAGE METRO BUS LINE FREQUENCY AT BUSIEST STOPS (40)
12. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION MATRIX (77)
13. PROJECT RANKINGS (78)
14. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY BY CORRIDOR (79)
LIST OF FIGURES
1. CITY ZONING, BY PARCEL (23)
2. CITY STREET CLASIFICATIONS (25)
3. CITY DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTES (24)
4. CITY SIGNAIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (26)
5. CITY MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS, BY CENSUS BLOCK (29)
6. COMMUTING TO WORK VIA PUBLIC TRANSIT (30)
7. ALL COLLISOINS HEATMAP (2017-2021) (34)
8. ALL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS (2017-2021) (35)
9. ALL FATAL AND SEVERE (KSI) INJURIES (2017-2021) (38)
10. ALL METRO BUS LINE ROUTE AND STOPS (39)
11. WEEKLY METRO BUS BOARDINGS AND ALIGHTINGS (40)
12. MAYWOOD EXPRESS SHUTTLE ROUTE AND STOPS (41)
13. HUNTINGTON PARK EXPRESS ROUTE AND STOPS (42)
14. FOUR TYPES OF RIDERS (44)
15. PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (59)
16. PROPOSED BICYCLE INTERSECTION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (61)
17. PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (65)
18. PROPOSED ROADWAY FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (68)
19. EXISTING CONDITIONS AT SLAUSON AVENUE & MAYWOOD AVENUE (71)
20. PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS AT SLAUSON AVENUE & MAYWOOD AVENUE (71)
21. EXISTING CONDITIONS AT DISTRICT BOULEVARD & ATLANTIC BOULEVARD (72)
22. PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS AT SLAUSON AVENUE & ATLANTIC BOULEVARD (72)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B - COMMUNITY OUTREACH MATERIALS
APPENDIX C - COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX D - DETAILED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
PROJECT BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
Located within the Gateway Cities sub-region of Los Angeles County and 8 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, the City of Maywood has a population of approximately 25,000 residents living within 1.18 square miles, making it one of the densest cities in California. Maywood is bordered by the cities of Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, and Commerce and is flanked by the Los Angeles River and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710) on its eastern city limit. Maywood contains seven schools, seven parks, and four entry points to the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path. Most of the city is zoned residential, with most commercial activity concentrated in Maywood’s downtown and industrial activity occurring on the eastern, northern, and western city limits.
The purpose of this project is to develop an Active Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (ATP) that provides a clear and comprehensive framework for safer, more conve-nient non-motorized transportation options throughout the City. The plan identifies and creates a methodology to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety by expanding connections to existing regional bicycle network facilities along the Los Angeles River Bicycle Trail; improve pedestrian circu-lation; reduce vehicle trips; create complete streets; and prioritize access to transit all towards building a more healthy and livable community. Development of the ATMP will be in compliance with adopted Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and Local Assistance Program Guidelines (LAPG).
The objective of the ATP is to help:
1. Increase active transportation network connectivity throughout the City of Maywood
2. Facilitate mobility throughout the City
3. Provide safer, more comfortable walking and bicycling facilities to access work, schools, and recreation opportunities
4. Promote physical activity to improve health
5. Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases related to transportation The Maywood ATP kicked off in August 2022. In the Fall of 2022, KOA and its team set up the Existing Conditions analysis, which involved documenting specific aspects of the City, including transit usage, bicycle facilities, street conditions, and socio-economic conditions. This culminated in an Existing Conditions report.
Starting in late Fall/early Winter 2022/2023, KOA and its public engagement sub-consultants, Estolano Advisors (EA) and People for Mobility Justice (PMJ), kicked-off engagement activities at the City’s Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in December 2022 at Maywood City Hall. During this event, the consultant team asked Maywood residents about the biggest issues affecting transportation safety and accessibility throughout the city. Ongoing engagement took place during a workshop/charrette at Fishburn Avenue Elementary with parents being asked about street conditions and infrastructure needs.
The following notes the close to 150 residents who were engaged across all workshop events:
1. Christmas Tree Lighting Event (December 2022)
2. Fishburn Elementary School Charrette #1 (Spring 2023)
3. Back to School Night at YMCA (August 2023)
4. Mobile Food Pantry at YMCA (August 2023)
5. Fishburn Elementary School Charrette #2 (Fall 2023)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 8 Page 253 of 405 KOA and EA also developed a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) which met twice (January 2023 & July 2023) throughout the course of the project. CAC members were recruited based on their involvement as dedicated stakeholders in the community and provided critical feedback that informed KOA on project recommendations. The following individuals participated in the CAC:
1. Roberto Bustillo - Communities for a Better Environment
2. Antonio Garcia - Fishburn Elementary School Principal
3. Alberto Espiricueta - East Yard Communities
4. William Downing - Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
5. Andrea Aguilar - Southeast Rio Vista YMCA
6. Eric Maceda - Rivers for Action
After reviewing initial community feedback, the KOA team prepared a Needs Assessment, noting areas of highest concern based on street safety (collisions) and what was identified by residents. KOA identified the areas and corridors of most need, which served as the foundation for the development of proposed treatments.
Through these efforts, the Maywood ATP identified the following treatment elements. A map of the proposed bike route network, which serves as the backbone of many of the treatments listed below, can be found on the next page.
1. Creating approximately nine (9) miles of new bicycle facilities in the form of Class III bicycle routes throughout the City,
2. Identified eight (8) intersections as candidates for potentially new multi-way stops to facilitate bicycle mobility through Maywood’s neighborhoods (pending meeting stop sign warrants),
3. Identified eight (8) intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard that would include bicycle treatments such as detector loops, push buttons, and other elements that would facilitate traveling across major roadways,
4. Developed a comprehensive active transportation wayfinding network that will serve to brand Maywood Moves as a priority for the City,
5. Identified 16 intersections that would add Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) which would provide people walking with more time to cross major corridors like Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard,
6. Identified 24 intersections that would add crossing improvements to better demarcate locations where people will cross,
7. Identified 14 locations that would have curb extension, thus shortening pedestrian crossing distances and reducing vehicle speeds upon entering neighborhood streets,
8. Expand the City’s speed hump program,
9. Adding edge line treatments to several streets to further reduce vehicle speeds and reduce cut-through traffic,
10. Developed non-infrastructure recommendations that would further the City’s active mobility goals through safety and encouragement programs that promote active mobility
The Maywood ATP also identified corridors and other potential projects so that the City can prioritize their implementation as they pursue funding opportunities.
KOA also provided projected cost estimates for each corridor based on the treatment recommendations identified on each street. Corridor project prioritization was calculated and ranked according to four weighted criteria categories: Need and Equity; Safety, Community Feedback, and Network Connectivity. The following corridors were ranked the highest and would experience the greatest benefits for active transportation users if improved: A table of the projected costs by corridor can be found on page 11.
1. Slauson Avenue (Projected Grand Total: $2,630,598)
2. Pine Avenue (Projected Grand Total: $29,986)
3. Atlantic Boulevard (Projected Grand Total: $2,757,049)
4. 53rd Street (Projected Grand Total: $186,302)
5. Carmelita Avenue (Projected Grand Total: $8,035)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 9 Page 254 of 405
PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Maywood Destinations Bike Facility Recommendations
City Hall
Library
School
Park
Class III Bike Route Network
Local Bike Networks
City of Bell Proposed Network
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Network
Legend
Basemap
Los Angeles
River Bike Path
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 10 Page 255 of 405 Corridor Sub-Total Mobilization (5%) Traffic Control (10%) Design (15%) Contingency (15%) Inflation (30%) Construction
Management and
Inspection (10%)
Grand Total
Atlantic Blvd $ 1,349,180 $ 67,459 $ 134,918 $ 202,377 $ 263,090 $ 605,107 $ 134,918 $ 2,757,049 Slauson Ave $ 1,287,300 $ 64,365 $ 128,730 $ 193,095 $ 251,024 $ 577,354 $ 128,730 $ 2,630,598 52nd St $ 187,539 $ 9,377 $ 18,754 $ 28,131 $ 36,570 $ 84,111 $ 18,754 $ 383,236 58th St $ 96,552 $ 4,828 $ 9,655 $ 14,483 $ 18,828 $ 43,304 $ 9,655 $ 197,304 53rd St $ 91,168 $ 4,558 $ 9,117 $ 13,675 $ 17,778 $ 40,889 $ 9,117 $ 186,302 59th Pl $ 81,782 $ 4,089 $ 8,178 $ 12,267 $ 15,947 $ 36,679 $ 8,178 $ 167,122 Randolph St $ 56,000 $ 2,800 $ 5,600 $ 8,400 $ 10,920 $ 25,116 $ 5,600 $ 114,436 King Ave $ 37,360 $ 1,868 $ 3,736 $ 5,604 $ 7,285 $ 16,756 $ 3,736 $ 76,345 55th St $ 36,714 $ 1,836 $ 3,671 $ 5,507 $ 7,159 $ 16,466 $ 3,671 $ 75,025 60th St $ 34,970 $ 1,749 $ 3,497 $ 5,246 $ 6,819 $ 15,684 $ 3,497 $ 71,461 Wayfinding Program $ 20,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,900 $ 8,970 $ 2,000 $ 40,870 Alamo Ave $ 19,550 $ 978 $ 1,955 $ 2,933 $ 3,812 $ 8,768 $ 1,955 $ 39,950 Walker Ave $ 16,674 $ 834 $ 1,667 $ 2,501 $ 3,251 $ 7,478 $ 1,667 $ 34,073 Pine Ave $ 14,674 $ 734 $ 1,467 $ 2,201 $ 2,861 $ 6,581 $ 1,467 $ 29,986 Heliotrope Ave $ 13,150 $ 658 $ 1,315 $ 1,973 $ 2,564 $ 5,898 $ 1,315 $ 26,872 Prospect Ave $ 13,150 $ 658 $ 1,315 $ 1,973 $ 2,564 $ 5,898 $ 1,315 $ 26,872 Vinevale Ave $ 13,170 $ 659 $ 1,317 $ 1,976 $ 2,568 $ 5,907 $ 1,317 $ 26,913 Heliotrope Circle $ 7,800 $ 390 $ 780 $ 1,170 $ 1,521 $ 3,498 $ 780 $ 15,939 Carmelita Ave $ 3,932 $ 197 $ 393 $ 590 $ 767 $ 1,764 $ 393 $ 8,035 E 61st St $ 3,864 $ 193 $ 386 $ 580 $ 753 $ 1,733 $ 386 $ 7,896 Everett Ave $ 3,656 $ 183 $ 366 $ 548 $ 713 $ 1,640 $ 366 $ 7,471 Gifford Ave $ 3,656 $ 183 $ 366 $ 548 $ 713 $ 1,640 $ 366 $ 7,471 Woodlawn Ave $ 1,380 $ 69 $ 138 $ 207 $ 269 $ 619 $ 138 $ 2,820 57th St $ 414 $ 21 $ 41 $ 62 $ 81 $ 186 $ 41 $ 846
Mayflower Ave $ 276 $ 14 $ 28 $ 41 $ 54 $ 124 $ 28 $ 564 Maywood Ave $ 276 $ 14 $ 28 $ 41 $ 54 $ 124 $ 28 $ 564
TOTAL $ 3,394,187 $ 169,709 $ 339,419 $ 509,128 $ 661,866 $ 1,522,293 $ 339,419 $ 6,936,021 Mobilization 5%
Traffic Control 10%
Design 15%
Contingency 15%
Inflation (3% per year @ 30%
Ctti10%
PROJECTED PROJECT COSTS BY CORRIDOR
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 11 Page 256 of 405 Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 12 Goals
GOAL 1:
Improve overall motorized and non-motorized transportation modes - such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit safety throughout the city GOAL 2:
Provide new network connections and leverage connections to existing and proposed local and regional facilities
GOAL 3:
Improve economic vitality by enhancing mobility and connectivity to the city’s several activity generators and destinations
GOAL 4:
Identify a set of active transportation facilities and improvements that can be accurately priced, prioritized, and submitted for construction funding and implementation
Vision Statement
The City of Maywood will be a safe place for residents to travel by non-motorized means. Residents of all incomes and abilities will have multiple affordable and safe mobility options available to complete short and longer trips.
How will this Plan Fulfill this Mission?
The City plans to take steps toward a safe street network that supports active transportation activity by implementing the goals, objectives, and recommendations in this document. In addition, cost estimates, a project prioritization list, and potential grant sources are provided.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 13
DATA COLLECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AUGUST
2022
NOVEMBER
2022
FINAL PLAN & PLAN
ADOPTION
SEPTEMBER
2022
DRAFT PLAN
MARCH
2023
OCTOBER
2023
Project Timeline
This Plan is the culmination of five distinct phases: 1) Data Collection, 2) Community Engagement, 3) Needs Assessment, 4) Draft Plan, 5) Plan Finalization and Adoption. This section describes each phase in detail.
DATA COLLECTION
The first phase focused on retrieving the existing conditions data needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the community’s needs and issues. Informing the proposed treatments and projects included in this Plan were observations concerning travel and parking behavior as well as existing street characteristics, such as street widths and available non-motorized user and transit facilities. A comprehensive review of collisions along city streets also informed the types of countermeasures proposed in this Plan.
In addition, a review of plans and efforts completed at the local and regional level allowed the City to align all goals, policies, and projects with other efforts seeking to improve active transportation connectivity.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 14
DATA COLLECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AUGUST
2022
NOVEMBER
2022
FINAL PLAN & PLAN
ADOPTION
SEPTEMBER
2022
MARCH
2023
OCTOBER
2023
DRAFT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The City prioritized community engagement and made it a vital component of the project development process. Thus, project staff collected community input via five community events. Large maps, comment cards, and surveys were deployed to identify dangerous locations, frequently traveled corridors, and pressing safety issues. All community feedback was reviewed and used to guide solutions that directly address existing safety concerns with feasible infrastructure solutions.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 15
DATA COLLECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AUGUST
2022
NOVEMBER
2022
FINAL PLAN & PLAN
ADOPTION
SEPTEMBER
2022
DRAFT PLAN
MARCH
2023
OCTOBER
2023
NEEDS ASSESMENT
A survey was designed and distributed to gain insight on travel behavior patterns, community demographics, perception of walking and bicycling safety on the street, and interest in specific street safety features. The survey was available digitally as well as in hard copy in both English and Spanish. The digital survey was advertised through the project webpage, located within the City’s website and social media.
The community engagement section Chapter 5 summarizes the trends observed in survey participants’ responses.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 16
DATA COLLECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AUGUST
2022
NOVEMBER
2022
FINAL PLAN &
PLAN ADOPTION
SEPTEMBER
2022
DRAFT PLAN
MARCH
2023
OCTOBER
2023
DRAFTING THE PLAN
City engineers, planners, and community stakeholders reviewed the initial recommendations and their feasibility, consistency with new active transportation goals and objectives, and potential impact on walking and bicycling safety in the city. Once this review concluded, the project team refined recommendations in the Plan based on the comments provided.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 17
DATA COLLECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AUGUST
2022
NOVEMBER
2022
FINAL PLAN & PLAN
ADOPTION
SEPTEMBER
2022
DRAFT PLAN
MARCH
2023
OCTOBER
2023
PLAN FINALIZATION AND ADOPTION
In this phase, the project team accomplished the following actions to complete the Plan:
• Met with City public works staff to discuss proposed Plan treatments and suggested improvements • Finalized cost estimates for all infrastructure projects • Produced a list of prioritized projects to guide the city towards implementation • Present draft Plan to City Council and move towards adoption
MAYWOOD TODAY
CHAPTER2
Methodology
An existing conditions analysis was conducted, and several maps were produced to visualize commuting patterns, land use, transit ridership, collisions, and sociodemographic data in Maywood. Data regarding land use was acquired from the City of Maywood’s Land Use Element from its General Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2019 Annual Land Use Dataset. Transit lines, stops, and arrival frequency data was derived from the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (Metro) Open Data website, the City of Maywood’s Express Shuttle ridership report for August 2022, and the City of Huntington Park’s website. Weekday transit ridership data was collected for October 2019, as this represents a typical month before the COVID-19 pandemic. Collision data was collected from the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between January 1st, 2017, and December 31st, 2021. Sociodemographic data was gathered from the United States Census Bureau and community health data was gathered from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Neighborhood Edition Tool
Census Data
Census data was largely collected and analyzed at the census block level within the City of Maywood. Several analyzed parameters such as median household income, commuting patterns, and household access to motor vehicles were visualized from “Low” to “High.
Collision Data
Collision data was integrated into GIS, where it was separated based on what users were involved (i.e., motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians) and severity (i.e., fatality, severe injury, or visible injury). These collisions were then visualized based on density using graduated symbols by quantity.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 19 Page 264 of 405 Existing Condtions
Planning Context
The City of Maywood is committed to providing its residents with access to safe, practical, and quality active transportation facilities. The City continues to collaborate and coordinate with local stakeholders, neighboring municipalities, and regional agencies to develop policies and recommendations consistent with the region’s end goal to create a sustainable, multi-modal transportation system. The following are the planning policies, guidelines, and related projects fundamental to the development of the City’s ATP.
City of Maywood General Plan (2007)
The City of Maywood outlined its long-term vision in the General Plan in 2007 and is currently finalizing its updated Housing Element and developing its first Environmental Justice Element in compliance with SB 1000. The Maywood Active Transportation Plan will supplement the following General Plan goals that call out for a safer built environment that encourages all modes of transportation:
City of Maywood General Plan
• Land Use Element Goal 1: “Preserve and enhance the character and quality of Maywood’s residential neighborhoods.” • Land Use Element Goal 2: “Promote new commercial development and maintenance of existing commercial uses to enhance the quality of Maywood’s commercial districts along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard.” • Land Use Element Goal 5: “Improve access to and quality of community services and facilities within the city.” • Land Use Element Goal 6: “Achieve aesthetic enhancements citywide to distinguish Maywood.” • Land Use Element Goal 9: “Protect, maintain, and better utilize existing parks and recreation facilities.” City of Maywood Circulation Element
• Circulation Element Goal 2: “Provide a local street system that accommodates current and future traffic volumes.” • Circulation Element Goal 3: “Facilitate Access to public Transportation that is safe and responsive to changing transit demands.”
• Circulation Element Goal 4: “Provide for an extensive, integrated, and safe bicycle, and pedestrian network throughout the community, and make Maywood a pedestrian friendly community. • Circulation Element Goal 5: “Ensure that all development projects provide well-designed parking facilities that are safe, convincing, and attractive.
Proposed and Ongoing City Plans, Projects, and Grant Applications The City of Maywood has several proposed and ongoing plans, projects, and grant applications that will inform the recommendations of the Active Transportation Plan.
City of Maywood Land Use Element Update (ongoing)
The City of Maywood is currently updating the Land Use Element of its General Plan. The revised element will focus on identifying the future locations and extent of new modal facilities and development. The Land Use Element supports the community’s desire to retain and expand upon Maywood’s diverse residential neighborhoods, the potential of its commercial corridors, and the public facilities and services provided to the community.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 20 Page 265 of 405 City of Maywood Environmental Justice Element Update (ongoing) The City of Maywood is currently in the process of developing its first ever Environmental Justice Element to include in its General Plan in compliance with Senate Bill 1000. Signed in 2016 by Governor Jerry Brown, SB 1000 requires that local governments identify disadvantaged communities within their jurisdictions and address local environmental justice issues in their city general plans.
City of Maywood Climate Action, Adaptation, and Resilience Plan (ongoing) The City of Maywood is working to complete a community-driven Climate Action Adaptation Resilience Plan that will accomplish the following: (1) Policy & Program Alignment, (2) Set Targets: Develop GHG Strategies, (3) Develop and Quantify Detailed GHG Reduction Measures, (4) Climate Action Plan (CAP) Document, (5) Climate change vulnerability/adaptation strategies.
City of Maywood Beautification Project (Funding awarded – not started) The City of Maywood was awarded a grant from the Clean California Local Grant Program to develop a project scope of work targeting multiple high priority areas of need. The project will include beautification through greening and landscaping as well as infrastructure improvements to increase accessibility and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians at multiple segments of parkways/ sidewalks, medians, and 20 signal cabinets/utility boxes throughout the city. These improvements are at Carmelita Avenue, between Fruitland Avenue, Loma Vista and 52nd Street; King Avenue, between Slauson Avenue and 59th Place; and Mayflower, between E Slauson Avenue and 59th Place.
City of Maywood Local Roadway and Safety Plan (Adopted) The City of Maywood recently adopted its Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This plan will provide the City with a framework for systematic infrastructure improvements to mitigate key safety issues impacting Maywood residents.
Surounding Jurisdiction & Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans The following Master Plans are from adjacent cities and the County of Los Angeles that either share a border or have proposed bicycle facilities that would intersect with the City of Maywood.
Los Angeles River Master Plan (2022)
The City of Maywood is bordered to the east by the Los Angeles River and contains two access points, which provide Maywood residents with a dedicated Class I bicycle path through southeast Los Angeles County to Long Beach. According to the latest River Master Plan, the following recommendations were made within or adjacent to Maywood’s city limits:
• Improve the existing river access point at the northern city limit off Atlantic Avenue • Develop multiuse public space projects along the river at Maywood Park and Maywood Riverfront Park Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 21 Page 266 of 405 City of Commerce Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (2020) The City of Maywood does not currently have any established regional bicycle facilities to connect residents to northern jurisdictions in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In its most recent Bicycle Master Plan, the County of Los Angeles recommends:
• Extending the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path (Class I) north as well as installing a handful of Class III bicycle lanes to connect Maywood residents to the nearby jurisdictions of the Bandini Islands, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Vernon.
City of Bell Bicycle Master Plan (2016)
The City of Bell shares Maywood’s southern border along Randolph Street and the northeastern border along the eastern bank of the Los Angeles River. In its most recent Bicycle Master Plan, the City of Bell recommends the following bicycle facilities that would connect to the City of Maywood:
• Installing a Class I shared use path along Randolph Street from Carmelita Avenue to the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path.
City of Huntington Park Bicycle Transportation Masterplan (2014) The City of Huntington Park shares Maywood’s southwestern border along Floral Avenue and Slauson Avenue. In its most recent Bicycle Transportation Master Plan, the City of Huntington Park recommends the following bicycle facilities that would connect to the City of Maywood:
• Installing a Class III bike lane along E 61st Street from Maywood Avenue to the eastern city limit on Pine Avenue. • Installing a Class III bike lane along Carmelita Avenue from Randolph Street to the northern city limit on Slauson Avenue.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)
The City of Maywood does not currently have any established regional bicycle facilities to connect residents to northern jurisdictions in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In its most recent Bicycle Master Plan, the County of Los Angeles recommends:
• Extending the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path (Class I) north as well as installing a handful of Class III bicycle lanes to connect Maywood residents to the nearby jurisdictions of the Bandini Islands, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Vernon.
The Strategic Plan also calls for implementing the Rail to River project, a 3.9-mile regional connectivity loop to connect the Metro A (Blue) Line’s East Slauson Station to the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path (Class I) along Maywood’s southern city limit on Randolph Street.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 22 Page 267 of 405 Land Use
Maywood is made up of predominantly residential neighborhoods with commercial activity concentrated in its center and surrounded by industrial uses on its eastern, western, and northern city limits. Approximately 87 percent of the city’s parcels are zoned for residential use. Of those residential parcels, about 47 percent of residential parcels are zoned for single-family residential and about 40 percent are zoned for multi-family residential. Approximately five percent of the city’s parcels are zoned for commercial use. Most of the city’s commercial parcels are concentrated along Atlantic Boulevard and Slauson Avenue, with the highest concentration of commercial activity being at the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Slauson Avenue.
Approximately three percent of the city’s parcels are zones for industrial use. Most of the industrial parcels are located along Maywood’s eastern city limit along District Boulevard, northern city limit along Fruitland Avenue, and western city limit along Maywood Avenue.
Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
E Florence Ave Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long
Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
orona Ave
Ave
Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Pala Ave
Palm
Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn
Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
FIGURE 1: CITY ZONING, BY PARCEL
Legend
Maywood Landmarks
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Commercial
Schools
Industrial
Mixed Residential
and Commercial
Multi-Family
Residential
Open Space and
Recreation
Single Family
Residential
City Zoning
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 23 Page 268 of 405 Existing Roadway Facilities
The following section and maps focus on the existing roadway facilities and their functional classification, which will be used to inform the development of the Maywood ATP.
Maywood Street Classifications
The City’s Circulation Element in its 2007 General Plan classifies its streets into five categories: Freeways, major highways, secondary highways, collector streets, and local streets.
Freeway
A freeway is a controlled access, high-speed roadway with grade-separated interchanges. A freeway is intended to carry high volumes of traffic from region to region. The planning, design, construction, and maintenance of freeways in California are the responsibility of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Major Highway
The function of a Major Highway is to connect traffic from minor arterials and collectors to other parts of the city, freeway interchanges, and adjacent major land uses. Major highways also provide a linkage between activity centers in the city to other adjacent communities and other parts of the region. Access to adjacent land uses and the presence of parking should be minimal or prohibited completely.
This roadway classification is designed to move large volumes of traffic, typically in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. Per the circulation element, Major Highways typically have a curb-to-curb width of 84 feet within a 100-foot right-of-way.
Collector Street
The primary purpose of a collector street is to serve as an intermediate route to carry traffic between local streets and highways.
Collectors are intended to provide access to all types of land uses and generally have no limitation on access. Parking is typically allowed during all periods of the day or, if necessary, may be prohibited during peak hours on certain segments.
This roadway classification is designed to carry moderate levels of traffic, generally in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day.
Per the circulation element, a collector typically has a curb-to-curb width that ranges from 40 to 54 feet contained within a 64-foot rightof-way.
Local Street
Local streets provide direct vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to adjacent land uses. They are intended to carry low volumes of traffic, are typically narrow, and allow unrestricted parking. Per the circulation element, a local street in Maywood typically has a 36-footcurb-to-curb width within a 50-foot right-of-way.
Designated Truck Route
The Circulation Element also identifies designated truck routes throughout Maywood that connect with those in adjacent cities and jurisdictions. These routes are responsible for ensuring the efficient movement of commercial vehicles carrying goods in and out of the city. Maywood experiences high levels of freight movement given its adjacent industrial land uses as well as its proximity to the Long Beach Freeway (I- 710), the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), and its proximity to the industrial City of Vernon. It is imperative to the city that these routes are maintained and improved to maximize safe and efficient traffic flows for non- truck motorists and pedestrians.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 24 Page 269 of 405 Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
e
E Florence Ave Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Corona Ave
rd Ave
rd Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Legend
Maywood Landmarks
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Truck Route
Designated Truck Route
FIGURE 2: CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
FIGURE 3: CITY DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTES
nion Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
City Street Categories
Major Highway
Collector Street
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Secondary Highway
Legend
Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate
the locations of Maywood’s highest
volume streets and dedicated truck
routes, respectively.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 25 Page 270 of 405 Intersections and Existing Traffic Control Devices
There are a total of 165 intersections in the City of Maywood. Of that total, only 21 (13 percent) of those intersections are signalized. All the city’s signalized intersections are located along its two major arterials, Atlantic Boulevard and E Slauson Avenue.
Of its 165 intersections, 144 (87 percent) are unsignalized, which are mostly four-way stop-controlled. Figure 4 illustrates the locations of the City’s signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California
Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long
Beach
Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
ora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
uis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
on Ave
Pala Ave
Palm
Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn
Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
City Street Categories
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Unsignalized
Intersection: 144
Signalized
Intersection: 21
00 0.25 .5
Miles
FIGURE 4: CITY SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 26 Page 271 of 405 Socio-Economic Characteristics
The following section, including tables, and maps focus on the socio-economic indicators used to inform the development of the Maywood ATP.
Total Population, Race, Ethnicity and Age
Per the 2020 American Community Survey (ACS), approximately 25,138 people currently reside in the City of Maywood. Of those, about 97 percent identify as Hispanic/Latino, almost double the rate of Hispanic/Latino identifying residents in Los Angeles County. Less than two percent of the city’s population is comprised of other racial demographics including White, African American, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Island, and people with two or more races (Table 1).
The median age in Maywood is 32 years old, with nearly 28 percent of its population under the age of 18, which is higher than the County by about seven percent.
TABLE 1: RACE, ETHNICITY AND AGE
City of Maywood Los Angeles County
Category Percentage of Population Percentage of Population Hispanic/Latino 97.1% 48.0%
White 1.4% 25.6%
Black Alone 0.4% 7.6%
Multi-racial 0.4% 3.1%
Asian Alone 0.3% 14.7%
American Indian 0.1% 1.6%
Pacific Islander 0.05% 3.1%
Median Age 32 years old 37 years old
Under 18 years 27.9% 22.2%
Over 18 years 72.1% 80.4%
Over 65 years 10.2% 12.9%
(US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2020) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 27 Page 272 of 405 Educational Attainment and School Enrollment
Maywood has much lower educational attainment levels in comparison to Los Angeles County. Approximately 37 percent of Maywood residents 25 years and older have not received a high school diploma – 15 percent higher than the County (Table 2). Less than 5 percent of Maywood residents 25 years and older have received either an associate’s, bachelor’s, or post-graduate degree.
Approximately 72 percent of Maywood residents three years and older are enrolled in a K-12 program.
Income, Housing and Employment Levels
Maywood residents currently earn lower incomes than other jurisdictions within Los Angeles County. The median household income in Maywood is $50,996 – almost $20,000 less than the County median household income. Approximately 20 percent of Maywood residents live under the poverty line and about ten percent of occupied housing units in Maywood do not have access to an automobile. It is also worth noting that approximately 56 percent of Maywood households are occupied by one or more people under 18 years old – 22 percent higher than the County.
Additionally, about 61 percent of Maywood residents over 16 years old are employed, just slightly below County employment levels (65 percent). Figure 5 illustrates median household income levels at the census block level for the city.
TABLE 2: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
City of Maywood Los Angeles County
Category Percentage of Population
over 25 Years Old
Percentage of Population
over 25 Years Old
No High School
Diploma 36.6% 11.9%
High School
Diploma Only 27.5% 20.4%
Some College,
No Degree 11.1% 18.9%
Associates
Degree 3.3% 37.0%
Bachelor’s
Degree 4.9% 21.8%
Post-Graduate
Degree 2.5% 11.7%
(US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2020) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 28 Page 273 of 405 Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California
Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long
Beach
Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm
Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn
Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
FIGURE 5: CITY MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS, BY CENSUS BLOCK Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Median Household Income
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Low: $21,500.00 -
$31,914.00
Medium: $31,914.01
- $46,250.00
High: $46,250.01 -
$73,750.00
Commuting Patterns
Table 3 provides a breakdown of the City’s commuter patterns, by mode, compared to Los Angeles County. Like the County, most Maywood commuters drive to work alone (70.6 percent). Maywood does have higher levels of commuters who carpool, take public transportation, and walk than the County.
Cycling, working from home, and other modes of travel are the least used by Maywood commuters and are at lower levels than the County. The average travel time for Maywood commuters is approximately 31 minutes, just under the average commute time for LA County (Table 3).
Figure 6 illustrates the commuting levels of Maywood workers who travel to work using public transportation and the existing Metro bus lines running through the city. (US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2020) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 29 Page 274 of 405 on Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California
Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long
Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic
Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
FIGURE 6: COMMUTING TO WORK VIA PUBLIC TRANSIT
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Public Transit Commute Levels
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Metro Transit Stop
Line 611
Line 260
Line 108
Low: 1.9% - 2.5%
Medium: 2.6% -
7.0%
High: 7.1% - 9.4%
Metro
(US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2020) TABLE 3: COMMUTING PATTERNS
City of Maywood Los Angeles County
Category Percentage of Population
over 16 Years Old
Percentage of Population
over 16 Years Old
Drove Alone 72.1% 72.1%
Carpool 13.0% 9.5%
Public Transit 6.0% 5.4%
Walk 4,1% 2.6%
Bike 0.7% 1.7%
Work from Home 3.6% 8.0%
(US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2020) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 30 Page 275 of 405 Top Employment Centers
Based on the latest Census data on the top locations for Maywood commuters (2019), the majority of the City’s workforce commutes to the City of Los Angeles. The City of Maywood, City of Downey, and City of South Gate are the next largest employment centers for Maywood workers (Table 4).
TABLE 4: TOP EMPLOYMENT CENTERS FOR MAYWOOD COMMUTERS
City of Maywood
Local Jurisdiction Percentage of Commuters
City of Los Angeles 22.9%
City of Maywood 6.9%
City of Downey 3.3%
City of South Gate 2.9%
City of Bell 2.6%
City of Huntington Park 3.6%
East Los Angeles 2.5%
City of Long Beach 2.4%
City of Lynwood 1.7%
(US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year
Estimates, 2020)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 31 Page 276 of 405 Community Health Characteristics
The following section and tables focus on community health indicators for Maywood adults and children used to inform the development of the Maywood ATP.
Adults
Estimates for asthma, diabetes, obesity, and physical activity for Maywood adults over eighteen years old were calculated using the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Neighborhood Edition Tool and serves as the foundation of this health status summary.
Asthma
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood adults (18+) diagnosed with asthma increased between 2016 and 2020. Los Angeles County adult asthma levels remained higher than Maywood throughout the same period, following a similar upward trend of more adults being diagnosed with asthma in 2020 (Table 5).
Diabetes
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood adults (18+) diagnosed with diabetes increased between 2016 and 2020. Adult diabetes levels in Maywood were higher than Los Angeles County throughout the same period and experienced a sharper rate of increase (Table 5).
Obesity
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood adults (18+) identified as obese/overweight (having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher) increased between 2016 and 2020. Adult obesity levels in Maywood were much higher than Los Angeles County throughout the same period (Table 5).
Physical Activity
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood adults walking at least 150 minutes or more for transportation or leisure in the past week increased between 2012 and 2016. Although Maywood adult physical activity levels were lower than Los Angeles County in 2012, the city experienced higher levels than the County in 2016 as seen in Table 5.
TABLE 5: ADULT PHYSICAL HEALTH
City of Maywood Los Angeles County Maywood Los Angeles County Year 2016 2020
Ever Diagnsosed
With Astma (18+) 9.3% 12.8% 11.2% 15.2%
Ever Diagnsosed
With Diabetes (18+) 11.8% 9.5% 15.7% 11.8%
Obese (18+) 41.6% 28.9% 43.7% 29.6%
(California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Neighborhood Edition Tool) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 32 Page 277 of 405 Children
Estimates for asthma, obesity, and physical activity for Maywood children under the age of eighteen were calculated through the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Neighborhood Edition tool. The breakdown of those results is described below.
Asthma
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood children (1-17) diagnosed with asthma decreased between 2016 and 2020. Los Angeles County child asthma levels were static during the same period, but remained slightly higher than Maywood child diagnosis levels in 2020. (Table 6).
Overweight for Age Group and Obesity
According to the latest available CHIS data, the percentage of Maywood children between the ages of two and eleven years old identified as being overweight for their age (having a weight equal or greater than the 95th percentile) sharply increased between 2016 and 2020. Los Angeles County levels also increased throughout the same period; however, at a much lower rate than Maywood (Table 6).
TABLE 6: CHILDREN PHYSICAL HEALTH
City of Maywood Los Angeles County Maywood Los Angeles County Year 2016 2020
Ever Diagnsosed
With Astma (<18) 16.6% 12.8% 11.3% 12.9%
Overweight for Age
(2-11) 17.4% 12.1% 20.4% 13.5%
Obese (12-17) 37.0% 35.5% 52.5% 34.2%
(California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Neighborhood Edition Tool) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 33 Page 278 of 405 Collision Analysis
The following section and tables focus on the collision data collected from January 1st, 2017 – December 31st, 2021, that was used to inform the development of the Maywood ATP.
Total Collisions
The City of Maywood experienced 182 collisions between 2017 and 2021. Approximately 75 percent of collisions involved only motor vehicles, 15 percent involved motor vehicles and pedestrians, 10 percent involved motor vehicles and bicyclists, and one percent involved motor vehicles and both pedestrians and bicyclists.
Although the City has experienced a net decrease in collisions, numbers began to climb in 2021 following a four-year consecutive drop from 2017-2020. Motor vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists also experienced a net decrease during the same period.
Pedestrian collisions peaked in 2017 and 2019 before dropping again from 2020- 2021. Bicycle collisions dropped from their highest levels from 2017- 2018 to zero in 2019 and remained well under their peak in 2021. The largest contributor to the rise in 2021 collisions were motor vehicle collisions involving other motor vehicle. These collisions consecutively decreased from their peak in 2017 to their lowest in 2020 before sharply increasing to near 2017 levels in 2021.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the density of all collisions and all bicycle and pedestrian collisions in Maywood from 2017-2021, respectively. Table 7 provides the total number of crashes by mode per year from 2017-2021.
FIGURE 7: ALL COLLISIONS HEATMAP (2017-2021)
Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
ia Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
ve
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Collision Density
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Sparse
Dense
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 34 Page 279 of 405 FIGURE 8: ALL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS (2017-2021) nion Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Collisions
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Pedestrian Collision (28)
Bicycle Collision (19)
TABLE 7: TOTAL COLLISIONS BY MODE AND YEAR (2017-2021)
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Motor Vehicle Involving
Year Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Bike and Ped
2017 32 9 7 0
2018 30 5 6 0
2019 27 5 0 1
2020 20 5 3 0
2021 27 3 2 0
Total 136 27 18 1
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 35 Page 280 of 405 Primary Collision Factors
As shown in Table 8, the leading primary collision factors in the City of Maywood from 2017-2021 were:
• Failure to Yield to Other Vehicles: 21 percent
• Improper Turning: 20 percent
• Failure to Obey Traffic Siganals and Signs: 17 percent Table 9 illustrates the most common pedestrian actions at the time of collision in the City of Maywood from 2017-2021. Most of these collisions (about 17 percent) occurred as a pedestrian was crossing the street at an intersection using a crosswalk.
TABLE 8: PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS (2017-2021)
TABLE 9: PEDESTRIAN ACTIONS AT TIME OF COLLISION (2017-2021) Motor Vehicle Involving
Year Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Percentage of Total Collisions Automobile Right of Way 28 1 2 20.7%
Improper Turning 15 3 3 19.5%
Traffic Signals and Signs 23 4 2 17.2%
Unsafe Speeds 14 0 1 6.9%
Pedestrian Right of Way 0 12 0 13.8%
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Number of Collisions Percentage of Total Collisions
Pedestrian Action - -
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 20 17.4%
Crossing outside Crosswalk 4 14.3%
In Road, Including Shoulder 2 7.1%
Not in Road 2 7.1%
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 36 Page 281 of 405 Collisions by Day of Week and Time of Day
Table 10 provides a breakdown of when and how frequently crashes occurred from 2017-2021 in the City of Maywood, by time of day. Based on the collision data, crashes peaked during the weekends on Fridays and Saturdays between the hours of the early afternoon and evening. The following days and time periods experienced the highest volume of collisions:
• Friday 3:00PM - 5:59PM (11 crashes)
• Friday 12:00PM - 2:59PM (9 crashes)
• Saturday 6:00PM - 8:59PM (8 crashes)
Collisions by Severity
There were 2 fatalities and 16 severe injury collisions from 2017-2019. One of the fatalities was a pedestrian-related collision that took place at 2:00pm on a Friday in March 2017. An intoxicated driver was speeding and lost control, hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk – fatally injuring one. The crash took place on Heliotrope Avenue near the intersection with E 59th Street.
The other fatality involved a motorist colliding with another motorist that occurred at 12:10pm on a Monday in January 2019. A vehicle failed to stop at a stop light and side-swiped another vehicle, fatally injuring one of the drivers. The crash took place on Loma Vista Avenue, near the intersection with Fruitland Avenue.
Figure 9 maps all fatal and severe injury collisions between 2017 and 2021.
TABLE 10: NUMBER OF COLLISIONS PER DAY OF WEEK AND TIME (2017-2021) Time Period Hours Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday AM
00:00 - 2:59 3 0 0 0 0 6 2
03:00 - 5:59 1 3 3 0 3 1 0
06:00 - 8:59 2 3 4 4 4 4 1
09:00 - 11:59 5 1 8 4 5 5 1
PM
12:00 - 14:59 2 5 3 3 9 2 4
15:00 - 17:59 7 5 5 4 11 5 2
18:00 - 20:59 4 2 2 7 4 8 6
21:00 - 23:59 0 2 1 0 3 2 1
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 37 Page 282 of 405 FIGURE 9 : ALL FATAL AND SEVERE (KSI) INJURIES (2017-2021) Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California
Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long
Beach
Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm
Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn
Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Collisions
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Severe Injury (16)
Fatal (2)
(SWITRS, 2017 - 2021 Collision Data Base)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 38 Page 283 of 405 Public Transportation
Maywood is serviced by a total of five bus lines provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), City of Maywood, and City of Huntington Park.
Metro
Existing Service Lines and Stops
There are three Metro Bus Local Lines that run through Maywood and a total of 41 bus stops (Figure 10):
• Line 108 runs East/West, from Pico Rivera to Marina Del Rey, and travels directly through Maywood via Slauson Avenue. Line 108 connects Maywood residents to other jurisdictions including Commerce, Huntington Park, Ladera Heights, and Culver City. • Line 260 runs North/South, from Compton to Pasadena, and travels through the center of Maywood via Atlantic Boulevard. Line 260 connects Maywood residents to other jurisdictions including Paramount, South Gate, Monterey Park, and Alhambra.
Line 611 runs on a clockwise/counterclockwise route that connects the northeastern Gateway Cities and travels through the center Maywood via E Slauson Avenue heading eastbound before turning northbound on Atlantic Boulevard and finally heading westbound on District Boulevard. Line 611 connects Maywood residents to other neighboring jurisdictions including Vernon, Huntington Park, South Gate, and Bell.
FIGURE 10 : ALL METRO BUS LINE ROUTES AND STOPS
(LACMTA ArcGIS Online Gallery, April 2019; LACMTA Maps & Schedules, 2023) Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
orona Ave
Ave
d Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Metro Transit Stop
Line 611
Line 260
Line 108
Metro
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 39 Page 284 of 405 Line Frequency & Ridership Activity
Table 11 provides arrival frequency levels at each bus line’s busiest stop during the weekday morning rush (6:00AM-8:00AM).
According to Metro’s scheduling data, Line 108 provides the most frequent weekday morning rush service, averaging about eight to nine buses per hour and an average wait time of seven minutes between each arrival.
Figure 11 illustrates total ridership activity by stop during the month of April in 2019. April 2019 was selected for this analysis as it represents a typical month in transit usage pre-pandemic. Based on Metro’s data, the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and E Slauson Avenue experienced the highest level of ridership activity in Maywood. This intersection also serves as a transfer point for lines 108, 260, and 611.
FIGURE 11: WEEKLY METRO BUS BOARDINGS AND ALIGHTINGS
(LACMTA ArcGIS Online Gallery, April 2019; LACMTA Maps & Schedules, 2023) TABLE 11: AVERAGE METRO BUS LINE FREQUENCY AT BUSIEST STOPS Busiest Stop Arrivals per Hour Average Wait Time
Bus Line - - -
108 SLAUSON / ATLANTIC 8 - 9 Approximately 7 minutes
260 ATLANTIC / SLAUSON 4 - 5 Approximately 15 minutes
611 ATLANTIC / SLAUSON 1 - 2 Approximately 60 minutes
(LACMTA ArcGIS Online Gallery, April 2019; LACMTA Maps & Schedules, 2023) Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
ve
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Corona Ave
hard Ave
fford Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St
Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 025 05
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Metro Transit Stop
Line 611
Line 260
Line 108
Metro Stops and Lines
Boardings + Alightings
ONs + OFFs
5 - 62
63 - 237
238 - 827
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 40 Page 285 of 405 Maywood Express Shuttle
The City of Maywood provides a dial-a-ride transit service for senior and disabled residents. Eligible riders may be picked up and transported within Maywood city limits. The Maywood Express Shuttle runs on a closed loop, connecting residents to popular destinations and landmarks such as Riverfront Park, Southeast Rio Vista YMCA, Maywood Village Square Shopping Center, and City Hall.
According to the City’s August 2022 ridership report, the Maywood Shuttle Express provided a total of 354 trips in that month alone to qualified residents. The average distance traveled per trip was 1.35 miles and each passenger spent an average of about 10 minutes per trip.
FIGURE 12: MAYWOOD EXPRESS SHUTTLE ROUTE AND STOPS
Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Route and Stops
Stops
Route
(City of Maywood, Aug 2022)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 41 Page 286 of 405 Huntington Park Express
The City of Huntington Park provides a municipal bus line that briefly runs through Maywood via Slauson Avenue and Gifford Avenue.
The bus line provides access to popular destinations across Huntington Park as well as the southwestern city limits of Vernon and the northwestern city limits of South Gate. The average wait time between bus arrivals during the weekday is approximately every 25 minutes.
Within Maywood, residents can board the Huntington Park Express at the following four stops:
• Stop 36: Slauson Avenue between S Maywood Avenue and Everett Avenue • Stop 37: Slauson Avenue and Carmelita Avenue
• Stop 38: Slauson Avenue and Corona Avenue
• Stop 39: Slauson Avenue and Gifford Avenue
FIGURE 13: HUNTINGTON PARK EXPRESS ROUTE AND STOPS
Union Pacific RR
AT And SF Rlwy
AT And SF Rlwy
District Blvd
Maywood Ave
California Ave
Gage Ave
District Blvd
Bandini Blvd
Gage Ave
Wilcox Ave
Heliotrope Ave
Long Beach Fwy
Long Beach Fwy
Maywood
Bell
Salt Lake Park
E 60th St
E 61st St
Loma Vista Ave Fruitland Ave
Randolph St
Gifford Ave
Corona Ave
Bear Ave
E 54th St
E 52nd St
Flora Ave
Bell Ave
Corona Ave
Orchard Ave
Gifford Ave
San Luis Ave
Ayers Ave
Randolph St
E 58th St Pine Ave
Woodlawn Ave
Walker Ave
Mayflower Ave
Clarkson Ave
District Blv
V
d
inevale Ave
E 59th Pl
Prospect Ave
E 55th St
E 52nd Dr
King Ave
Flora Ave
Alamo Ave
Crafton Ave
Pala Ave
Palm Ave
Everett Ave
E 53rd St
E 56th St
E 57th St Carmelita Ave
Fishburn Ave
E 52nd Pl
E 60th Pl
Woodward Ave
Atlantic Blvd
Slauson Ave
710
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Maywood Elementary
School
Fishburn Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Center for
Enriched Students
Heliotrope Ave
Elementary School
Maywood Academy
High School
St Rose of Lima
School
Benito Juarez
Park Pixely Park
Riverfront Park
Maywood Park
Pine Park
Loma Vista Ave
Elementary School
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Maywood Destinations
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River
Bike Path Entrance
Legend
Route and Stops
Stops
Route
(City of Huntington Park, Aug 2016)
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 42 Page 287 of 405
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX
CHAPTER 3
The Active Transportation Infrastructure Toolbox
contains safety elements with transformative
potential when applied appropriately to streets.
Each safety element listed in this section can
increase street user comfort for those walking
and bicycling, help achieve local and intercity
connectivity, and raise street safety within the city.
Several elements in this toolbox were applied
to the proposed network exhibited in Chapter 5
(Recommendations). The toolbox categorizes
safety elements into three categories: Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Roadway.
Bicycle Improvements
This set of safety treatments enhances bicyclist
presence at intersections and reduces stress on
corridors for all types of riders. The end goal is
to address the needs of each of the four types of
riders highlighted in Figure 14.
?
NO WAY, NO HOW
PEOPLE UNWILLING TO BICYCLE
EVEN IF HIGH-QUALITY BICYCLE
INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE
INTERESTED BUT
CONCERNED
PEOPLE WILLING TO BICYCLE
IF HIGH-QUALITY BICYCLE
INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE
ENTHUSED & CONFIDENT
PEOPLE WILLING TO BICYCLE
IF SOME BICYCLE-SPECIFIC
INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE
STRONG & FEARLESS
PEOPLE WILLING TO BICYCLE WITH
LIMITED OR NO BICYCLE-SPECIFIC
INRASTRUCTURE
FIGURE 14: FOUR TYPES OF RIDERS
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 44 Page 289 of 405 A Bike Boulevard is a street designed
to prioritize and promote safe bicycle
travel. These streets have low posted
vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and
feature complimentary traffic calming
measures, such as speed cushions,
signage, and pavement markings. Bike
Boulevards prompt drivers to be more
aware of cyclists and help encourage
more people to use bicycles as a more
regular mode of transportation.
Class III - Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle Improvements
Bike Network Wayfinding consists of
signs and directional cues specifically
designed to guide cyclists along
designated bike routes. Clear and
consistent wayfinding signage reduces
the likelihood of cyclists straying into
areas with higher traffic and potential
hazards.
Bike Network Wayfinding
A Bike Loop Detection Sign is a
safety measure used at signalized
intersections that provides instructions
for bicyclists on how to request a
green light by either placing their bike
on a specific location on the pavement
or by using a specialized push button.
Bike Detection Signage
Bike Push Buttons are safety measures
used at signalized intersections to
alert signal controllers that a bicyclist
is requesting a green light.They help
avoid crowding on the sidewalk, reduce
delays for bicycle travel, and improve
safety for cyclists crossing busy streets.
Bike Push Button
Bike Detection Loops are safety
measures used at signalized
intersections to alert the signal controller
that a bicyclist is requesting a green
light. They work by recalibrating the
same sensor used to identify cars to
also detect bikes waiting at a red light.
Bike Loop Detector
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 45 Page 290 of 405 A High Visibility Crosswalk is a
crosswalk painted with bold and highly
visible markings, often with contrasting
colors to the road. These markings
help draw attention to the presence
of pedestrians and encourage drivers
to yield. By making crosswalks more
noticeable, especially in areas where
there may be poor lighting or heavy
traffic, pedestrians become more
visible to drivers, reducing the chance
of vehicle collisions.
High Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Improvements
A Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI) is a safety measure used at
intersections with traffic signals that
give pedestrians between a three to
seven second head start to begin
crossing the street before vehicles
can move. During this interval,
pedestrians are more visible to drivers,
lowering the likelihood of conflicts with
turning vehicles. LPIs are particularly
beneficial in areas with high foot traffic
and turning vehicle movements.
Leading Pedestrian Interval
This pair of walking-related improvements prioritizes enhancing the walking experience on existing walking spaces, such as sidewalks, by reducing exposure to vehicular movements on the roadway while crossing the street.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 46 Page 291 of 405 Roadway Improvements
Roadway treatments address reported dangerous driving behaviors, improve street operations, and help encourage more residents to use active transportation. Specific behaviors that this set primarily prevents is speeding on residential streets and near sensitive uses, and improper turns at intersections.
A Multi-Way Stop is a traffic control
measure that requires vehicles on all
approaches to stop at an unsignalized
intersection. They can help
improve safety for all road users at
intersections with a history of crashes
or with limited visibility. By forcing
vehicles to come to a complete
stop, a Multi-Way Stop provides
pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles the
convenience to safely cross the street
without having to anticipate fastmoving traffic.
Multi-Way Stop
A Curb Extension involves extending
the sidewalk or pedestrian crossing
area into the street. This design
reduces the distances pedestrians
need to cross a street, makes them
more visible to drivers, and slows
down vehicles as they transition from
wider corridors to narrower residential
streets. Curb extensions create safer
and more comfortable spaces for
pedestrians and encourage drivers to
yield to crossing pedestrians.
Curb Extension
Edge Line markings are traffic
calming measures that use solid
painted lines used to indicate the
edge of a roadway where travel is
not permitted. As a neighborhood
safety measure, Edge Line markings
can visually narrow travel lanes on
wider streets to prompt drivers to slow
down in areas where speeding is a
problem.
Edge Line Treatment
Speed Cushions are traffic calming
measures that use raised platforms
placed across the road at regular
intervals to slow down vehicle traffic.
Speed cushions are most effective in
areas where speeding is a problem,
as they encourage drivers to slow
down and pay more attention to
their surroundings, reducing the
risk of vehicle accidents involving
pedestrians and cyclists.
Speed Cushion
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 47 Page 292 of 405 WHAT DID THE COMMUNITY HAVE TO SAY?
CHAPTER 4
Outreach Approach and Themes
Estolano Advisors (EA) partnered with People for Mobility Justice (PMJ) to engage with stakeholders in Maywood about potential street treatments in the Maywood ATP.
The proposed treatments in the ATP were presented to community members at five separate outreach events:
• The tree lighting ceremony at City Hall (December 2022) • Community Charrette #1 at Fishburn Avenue Elementary School (January 2023) • The backpack and school supply distribution at the YMCA (August 2023) • The mobile food pantry at the YMCA (August 2023)
• Community Charrette #2 at Fishburn Avenue Elementary School (October 2023) About 150 people were engaged across these four events, with responses from community members falling into themes: excessive vehicle speeds, narrow streets, unsafe streets, and street treatments. All outreach collateral and general community responses are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.
Excessive Vehicle Speeds
Most community members were concerned about excessive vehicle speeds on major thoroughfares like Slauson Avenue or Atlantic Boulevard, and neighborhood streets like King Avenue, or 53rd Street. Older residents voiced safety concerns with fast moving cars, especially around schools and neighborhood streets. While interested in street treatments that slow down cars such as speed humps and stop signs, some community members reported that treatments alone would not slow down speeding cars. Community members reported speeding cars neglecting to stop at stop signs.
Narrow Streets
Many community members commented that neighborhood streets are narrow; given the width of these roadways, respondents raised concerns about adding bike routes, curb extensions, or edge lines. Some community members offered alternative solutions like converting some streets such as 53rd St into one-way traffic, and then adding a Class II or III bike lane. Only a few community members shared that they would prefer no bike lanes at all because of how narrow the streets are.
EA Staff engage with community members at the backpack and school supply distribution event at the local YMCA
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 49 Page 294 of 405 Unsafe Streets
Certain streets routinely came up in conversation as feeling unsafe and in need of treatments. Community members mentioned the following streets and their issues:
• King Avenue needs more speed humps and crosswalks, particularly near schools • Everett Avenue needs more speed humps, and drivers are not stopping at the existing stop signs • E 52nd and E 53 Street both needs more speed humps, are not stopping at the existing stop signs • Multiple community members are concerned about fast moving cars, vans, and trucks around the Amazon Fufillment facility at District Boulevard and S Atlantic Boulevard
• Other streets that were specifically reported and generally unsafe included Fishburn Avenue, Maywood Avenue, Slauson Avenue, and Gifford Avenue Community Reactions to Proposed Recommendations
Certain treatments garnered lots of support while others were more divisive. Specifically, community members identified speed humps, repairing bus shelters, stop signs, and crossing guards near schools as necessary improvements. Community members also provided insightful feedback on the proposed treatments:
• Treatments that generally concern pedestrian safety, specifically high-visibility crosswalks and leading pedestrian intervals, received high levels of support • Curb extensions, however, were less popular, as the street-narrowing safety feature would exacerbate already narrow streets • Bike intersection improvements like detection loops, detection loop signs, and push buttons received almost all “yes” votes • Stop signs received overwhelming support, but some community members were skeptical noting that they would require more enforcement to be effective, citing that many cars run stop signs in Maywood
• Edge line treatments were noted as important for parked cars, but existing narrow streets were often mentioned • Speed humps received unanimous support from community members who walk, but a minority of drivers disapproved, citing the potential damage to their vehicles
Public Outreach Workshop Summaries
Most people walked to these outreach events, followed by drivers, and then bicycle and transit riders. This breakdown is reflected in higher interest in pedestrian improvements (such as crosswalks or leading pedestrian intervals), contrasted with the relatively lower interest in bicycle infrastructure.
Car speed is the main traffic safety issue for Maywood pedestrians, and some of the treatments that deal with speed can help. However, there was a small contingency of drivers that felt hesitation towards speed humps. Community members felt that signs can be useful, but they have witnessed many cars running stop signs. Several community members called for more enforcement of stop signs and traffic signals, specifically via law enforcement officers and traffic cameras.
The community members engaged at outreach events were highly aware of the safety issues on their streets. Overall, people were interested in making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists and felt that some of the treatments would provide that safety. Community members that walk, bike, and roll on the streets in the City of Maywood shared their local knowledge of streets that feel unsafe. Their expertise provides granular data that calls out specific streets and places in need of treatment.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 50 Page 295 of 405 Tree Lighting Ceremony at City Hall (December 2022)
Attendees of the tree lighting event were asked: (1) How did you get here (to the event); and (2) where are your areas of concern and (3) what are your recommendations for safety improvements?
1. How did you get here (to the event)?
• Most respondents walked to the event; drivers were the next most represented group; with cyclists and transit riders making up the minority of arrivals.
• There was a mix of residents and non-residents participating. Since City Hall is close to the municipal border, many folks walked over from outside of the jurisdiction.
• Many folks (residents and non-residents alike) noted that they worked or attended school in the City of Maywood.
2. Where are your areas of safety concerns and recommendations for improvements?
• Participants commented on speeding vehicles as a major concern. Both on major thoroughfares like Slauson Avenue and neighborhood streets (esp. those near schools).
• One student noted a location where a car collided with him while he was bicycling.
• Folks identified the following desired improvements: (1) speed humps, (2) repairing bus shelters, (3) stop signs, (4) crossing guards near schools.
• Residents identified the following streets for safety improvements:
Fishburn Avenue., Maywood Avenue., Slauson Avenue., Pine Avenue., Gifford Avenue.
Poster polling attendees on which
mode of transportation they used to
get to event
Attendees providing input on locations
where they feel unsafe walking, biking, or
getting to transit
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 51 Page 296 of 405 Community Charrette #1 at Fishburn Avenue Elementary
School (February 2023)
PMJ Staff coordinated an after school community workshop to better understand how residents current get around and identify additional locations where parents and students feel unsafe walking, biking or getting to public transit. Approximately 25 parents and students participated in this workshop and most participants indicated either walking or biking to get to and from school.
Participants were asked to identify specific street segments, intersections, and blocks on a map of the city where they feel unsafe walking, biking, or getting to/from public transportation. Additionally, students and parents were asked to share their observations of what makes active transportation difficult in Maywood.
Speeding on residential streets, especially near schools, was raised as one the most common concerns and the following streets were identified as areas of concern:
• 53rd Street
• 54th Street
• 57th Street
• 58th Street
• Gifford Avenue
• Atlantic Boulevard
• Slauson Avenue
PMJ Staff engage with Fishburn Avenue Elementary School parents and students to determine areas of concern for pedesrians and cyclists throughout Maywood
PMJ Staff distribute flyers to parents to attend Community Charrette #1 Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 52 Page 297 of 405 Backpack and School Supply Distribution at the YMCA (August 2023) Attendees participated in an engagement exercise by voting “Yes”, “No”, or sharing other opinions about the proposed treatments. Facilitators from PMJ and EA introduced treatments on poster boards to participants, and then asked participants’ opinions about those treatments. Results were recorded visually, and additional comments were compiled on the poster boards.
There was a good turnout of all ages, but especially parents and their children. We heard from young people, elders, parents and students, some monolingual Spanish-speaking people, with others bilingual or English speaking only. Participants were supportive of most interventions and support for bike intersection treatments was very positive. Participants were more split around speed humps and the bicycle route.
Proposed Roadway Improvements feedback poster indicates strong community support for Edge Line, Curb Extenion, and Speed Hump treatments
PMJ and EA Staff engaging event attendees
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 53 Page 298 of 405 Mobile Food Pantry at the YMCA (August 2023)
Attendees participated in an engagement exercise by voting “Yes”, “No”, or sharing other opinions about the proposed treatments. Facilitators from EA introduced treatments on poster boards and survey packets to participants, and then asked participants’ opinions about those treatments.
Turnout was lower than the Backpack and School Supply Distribution event, and most participants were older monolingual Spanish speakers. Community members were overwhelmingly supportive of more speed humps and high visibility crosswalks. They expressed concern around speeding vehicles, and we received many suggestions related to intersections and streets that could benefit from improvements. Because participants were engaged as they moved up in line, more participants took surveys (versus voting on poster boards).
Feedback from Mobile Food Pantry attendees on bicycle routes Feedback from Mobile Food Pantry attendees on curb extensions and speed humps
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 54 Page 299 of 405 Community Charrette #2 at Fishburn Avenue Elementary
School (October 2023)
EA Staff coordinated with Fishburn Avenue Elementary School Principal, Antonio Garcia, to collect feedback from parents, students, and members of the public during student afternoon pick-up. They explained the various proposed treatments on multiple poster boards and participants were asked to indicate whether or not they felt the recommendations would be beneficial to the community. Participants also had the option to provide general comments and feedback, which were recorded on the poster boards.
Participants provided strong support for all proposed treatments, especially for roadway treatments designed to slow down cars on residential streets where speeding is a chronic issues. A handful of parents shared that they would also appreciate crossing guards at Slauson Avenue and Fishburn Avenue to help parents and students safety cross Slauson Avenue during drop-off and pick-up times.
EA Staff listens to feedback from Fishburn Ave Elementrary School parents during student pick-up
EA Staff guides a parent through the various proposed pedestrian and bike safety treatments around the city
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 55 Page 300 of 405 Maywood ATP Community Advisory Committee
A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was established to satisfy Task 2.1 as outlined in the Project Scope to help guide the project team better understand the people of Maywood, their transportation needs, and how to prioritize potential treatments. KOA and EA coordinated a committee of six community ambassadors and scheduled two meetings throughout the course of the project to consult their feedback. • Roberto Bustillo - Communities for a Better Environment • Antonio Garcia - Fishburn Elementary School Principal • Alberto Espiricueta - East Yard Communities
• William Downing - Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) • Andrea Aguilar - Southeast Rio Vista YMCA
• Eric Maceda - Rivers for Action
First Maywood ATP CAC Meeting
The first Maywood ATP CAC meeting took place on January 30, 2022, from 4pm to 5pm over Zoom. EA facilitated this meeting with assistance from KOA to present its initial technical findings. The meeting agenda was as follows:
• Welcome & Introductions
• Overview of the Project and Role of the Advisory Commitee • Existing Conditions Overview
• Discussion: Areas of Concern in the City
• Next Steps & Open Comment
• Adjourn
Committee members participated in two different exercises: (1) giving feedback and reactions to the existing conditions memo and (2) discussing areas of concern around the city via Jamboard. Reactions and feedback from committee members were related to general perceptions of safety, safety around schools, bicycle safety, and pedestrian safety & accessibility.
General Perceptions of Safety
The number of traffic incidents around Maywood is alarming to some, and generally has contributed to the perception that Maywood’s streets can be unsafe.
Around Slauson and Fishburn, families have raised concerns around personal safety. The lack of lighting around Fishburn’s school site makes community members who walk feel especially unsafe. On the other hand, some people enjoy walking around the school and consider the area to be safer than other areas (including local parks) where gang activities are common.
Safety Around Schools
Traffic around schools can get chaotic during the afternoon pickup window, but many schools do not have volunteers/crossing guards to direct traffic during those times. Crossing guards have helped with traffic management around schools, particularly by managing the flow of car, bike, and pedestrian traffic around elementary and middle schools during pick-up & drop-off times.
Bicycle Safety
Protected bike lanes could help increase commuter safety, particularly when crossing high traffic and conflict zone areas like the train tracks on Atlantic Boulevard.
The lack of bike lanes could alleviate the issue of folks riding bikes in the opposite direction of traffic or on the sidewalk, which brings cyclists into conflict with cars or pedestrians.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 56 Page 301 of 405 Pedestrian Safety & Accessibility
Crossing guards and infrastructure that prioritizes pedestrian safety would make people feel more comfortable walking around Maywood. Among vulnerable road users, those that are older and have accessibility needs feel particularly unsafe. Elderly folks are not being given a long enough walk signal at large intersections like Slauson and Atlantic, and other intersections struggle with accommodating differently abled pedestrians.
Second Maywood ATP CAC Meeting
The second Maywood ATP CAC meeting took place on July 31, 2023, from 4pm to 5pm over Zoom. EA facilitated the presentation with assistance from KOA to present its initial list of potential active transportation treatments. Staff from the City of Maywood were also in attendance to observe CAC feedback. The meeting agenda was as follows:
• Welcome & Meeting Goals
• Recap of Project Timeline
• Presentation of Recommendations
• Open Comment
• Next Steps & Wrap-Up
• Adjourn
Community members provided feedback on the presentation of recommendations in the form of a Jamboard session. The proposed interventions seemed to resonate with members, with a few folks asking additional questions.
Members felt that concerns around accessibility and elder-friendly design were addressed with leading pedestrian intervals and other parts of the plan. One member appreciated the speed humps for Fishburn Avenue Elementary and Loma Vista Avenue Elementary. Another shared that wayfinding signs in English and Spanish would be helpful.
Some questions that were raised after hearing the presentation that were addressed in part by the KOA team, which included:
• Will there be safety improvements on Slauson?
• The Maywood ATP project staff did look at Slauson and Atlantic. The proposal is to provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements along parallel corridors.
In the report, they will include that the city should improve their exploration of alternative corridors. • Any opportunity to include a driver education campaign to make drivers aware of cyclist and pedestrian rights? • There are plans to increase signage through wayfinding and funs are available for City-run public campaigns Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 57 Page 302 of 405
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 5
This chapter identifies recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian-network treatments. Treatment recommendations were informed after conducting an indepth level of traffic stress analysis which observed a combination of variables including street traffic volume, crash history, and street width to identify candidate segments and intersections in most need of safety improvements (Appendix A).
The projects outlined here will provide the City with a comprehensive list of treatments that will play a major role in closing gaps, addressing existing deficiencies, and provide entirely new non-motorized treatments. The facility implementation for each has no specific time frame as available funding is generally limited.
However, in later chapters, the report will guide implementation by ranking all projects, by corridor or general proximity. This will provide the City with a framework where several elements of the ATP can be earmarked for implementation or used in funding applications.
Bike Network Facility Recommendations
The City and project team proposed a series of bicycle facilities with the goal of better connecting destinations within and outside the city. The goal was to create facilities where they do not exist and expand connections to existing high-quality facilities, such as the regional bicycle paths along the Los Angeles River. 00 0.25 .5
Miles
Multi-Directional Sign
Maywood Destinations Bike Facility Recommendations
City Hall
Library
School
Park
Single Direction Sign
Bike Route Network
Local Bike Networks
City of Bell Proposed Network
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Network
Legend
Basemap
Los Angeles
River Bike Path
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance
N/S or E/W Directional Sign
Gateway Sign
FIGURE 15: PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK AND WAYFINDING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 59 Page 304 of 405 Bicycle Route & Wayfinding Signage, Source: NACTO
Class III: Bicycle Routes
Bicycle routes are in-road bicycle facilities that share the travel lane with vehicles. They are typically installed along low-speed, locally-serving streets that do not experience high vehicle speeds or extensive traffic. The main role of such facilities is to provide additional gap closures and connections to bicycle facilities or destinations along roadways where bicyclists can safely and comfortably share the road with vehicles. Typical best practices recommend that such facilities be accompanied by traffic-calming measures, such as speed humps and signage, to maintain low vehicle speeds.
Shared Lane pavement Markings (also referred to as Sharrows) are usually installed along these routes to signify the bicycle route. The pavement markings provide motorists with a visual cue that bicyclists can take the lane.
For the Maywood ATP, bicycle routes were the main option considered for the City’s proposed bike network. Maywood’s narrow residential streets and restrictions on Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard did not provide the necessary width clearance to safely install protected bike lane and dedicated bike paths in Maywood. The proposed bike routes are recommended on streets with lower traffic volumes and vehicle speeds – mostly focused along residential streets parallel to high volume corridors and that connect to schools, parks, and other regional and local bike networks. 58th Street
Bicycle Network
Miles
Riverfront
Park
City Hall
Library
0.5 0.5
0.5 One direction
Option A
Maywood
Moves
Network
58th Street
Bicycle Network
Miles
City Hall
Library
0.75 0.75
Bike Network
Maywood
Moves
Bicycle Network
IdentifIcAtion Directional
Multi-directional
Gateway N/S or E/W Directional
Network Wayfinding
Another major goal of the Maywood ATP is to connect bicycle users to destinations within the City and to those in neighboring jurisdictions. One way to provide further local and regional access to bicyclists is by installing wayfinding signage along the proposed bicycle network at both mid-block and at key intersections. Wayfinding signage helps augment bike networks by providing both cyclists and pedestrians directions to key destinations, directing foot and bike traffic away from busy corridors to calmer residential streets, and deterring speeding by using visual cues for drivers to slow down and share the road.
Rendering of potential Maywood Moves wayfinding signage Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 60 Page 305 of 405 Bicycle Intersection Facility Recommendations
The projects included in this chapter are newly recommended bicycle facilities, as the City currently does not have any exisitng bicycle facilities installed at signalized intersections. Recommended projects are presented in the following pages and are organized by facility type. The accompanying map (Figure 16) identifies all facility types, their location, and extent.
FIGURE 16: PROPOSED BICYCLE INTERSECTION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 00 0.25 .5
Miles
Multi-Way Stop
Maywood Destinations Bike Facility Recommendations
City Hall
Library
School
Park
Bike Intersection Treatments
Bike Route Network
Local Bike Networks
City of Bell Proposed Network
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Network
Legend
Basemap
Los Angeles
River Bike Path
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 61 Page 306 of 405 Bike Intersection Signage, Source: NACTO
Bike Crossing Treatments
Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard are high-speed, high-volume corridors that also serve as critical truck routes that run through the heart of Maywood.
Eight intersections along these two corridors were identified to install a combination of bike intersection treatments to enhance the safety, comfortability, and convenience of cyclists along the proposed Bike Route Network. The current configuration of these intersection provides little to no guidance or assistance for cyclists sharing the road with vehicles, which can dissuade some residents from using a bike to complete short, local trips.
Bicycle Push Buttons, clearly marked Bike Loop Detectors, and Bike Intersection Signage were recommended as bike intersection safety treatments to enhance the proposed Bike Route Network. These elements help improve cyclist safety by establishing specific locations for bikes to wait and request green lights without cluttering walkways.
Bicycle Push Button, Source: NACTO Bike Loop Detector, Source: NACTO Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 62 Page 307 of 405 Rendering of potential Multi-Way Stop at intersection of 55th St & Everett St, Source: KOA Multi-Way Stops
Although Maywood has an extensive network of narrow residential streets, there are a handful of conflict zones at key intersections along the proposed Bike Route network. Eight intersections were identified in which traffic moving east/west is required to stop and yield before crossing, while traffic moving north/south is allowed to travel straight through without having to stop. This current configuration places an additional layer of stress on all users traveling in the east/west direction by having to anticipate oncoming traffic from the north/south and increases the chances of potential collisions.
Multi-Way Stops can be used an an effective traffic calming element to enhance the proposed Bike Route Network. When all traffic stops at an intersection, cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike are able to safely navigate unsignalized intersections. Additionally, Multi-Way Stops help mitigate speeding - a key concern raised by Maywood residents during community outreach. These treatments help reinforce selected streets as dedicated Bike Routes that make riding a bike a more convenient and enjoyable experience.
Traffic counts and collision history studies were collected at each identified intersection to determine if Multi-Way Stops were warranted according to MUTCD criteria. All eight locations did not meet the minimum required collision and and traffic volumes. However, MUTCD guidelines for Multi-Way Stops also provide additional optional criteria. Section 2B.07 Option D states that “An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection” can also be considered in an engineering study to determined if a Multi-Way Stop is warranted at an intersection. The Maywood ATP recommends that a future engineering study be conducted to determine that these treatments are warranted, meet local and state guidelines, and do not significantly impact neighborhood traffic flow.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 63 Page 308 of 405 Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
As part of the Plan development process, the City and project team outlined pedestrian-oriented treatments that will improve existing pedestrian facilities to make Maywood a more comfortable and safer place to walk. Currently, the City has an extensive supply of sidewalks along its major arterials and residential streets.
Community outreach identified that speeding and unsafe crossings are a major issue.
As such, the Plan focused on the following enhancements:
• Enhance the pedestrian experience by installing Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) treatments at key signalized intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard to give residents more time to comfortably and safely cross high volume corridors
• Improve pedestrian safety by re striping existing crosswalks with High Visibility Crosswalks at key signalized intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard to make pedestrians more visible to motorists from farther away compared to traditional crosswalks
Recommended projects are presented in the following pages and are organized by facility type. The accompanying map (Figure 17) identifies all facility types, their location, and extent.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 64 Page 309 of 405 FIGURE 17: PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT 00 0.25 .5
Miles
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Maywood Destinations Pedestrian Facility Recommendations City Hall
Library
School
Park
High-Visibility Crosswalk
City of Maywood Proposed
Network
Local Bike Route Networks
City of Bell Proposed Network
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Network
Legend
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 65 Page 310 of 405 Leading Pedestrian Intervals
According to community feedback, many residents indicated that they feel they do not have enough time to cross Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard, especially older residents. On average, pedestrians are required to walk 70 to 80 ft between four to five lanes of traffic to get from one side of the street to the other. These long crossing distances place pedestrians and cyclists at risk when trying to cross these major corridors. Additionally, the majority of pedestrian collisions in Maywood occur while a pedestrian is crossing the street at an intersection.
LPI treatments help provide pedestrians with additional time to safely cross the street before traffic begins to move at an intersection. These devices typically provide between 3-7 seconds of extra time dedicated to walkers before the signal turns green. The Maywood ATP recommends installing LPI devices all signalized intersections along Slauson Avenue for north/south approaches only and all signalized intersections along Atlantic Boulevard for east/west approaches only. That way, pedestrians are granted the benefit of additional crossing time for the longest crossing distances and vehicle wait time for traffic traveling along the two corridors remains largely unaffected.
High Visibility Crosswalks
According to Maywood collision data, the most frequent pedestrian action at the time of a vehicle collision is when someone is crossing the street at an intersection.
High Visibility Crosswalks provide motorists with more defined visual cues that they are approaching a dedicated crossing facility, providing pedestrians with an extra layer of safety and peace of mind while crossing the street. These treatments pair well with LPI devices because they can been seen by drivers from further distances away to provide ample time to slowdown as they approach an intersection. The Maywood ATP recommends installing High Visibility Crosswalks at all signalized intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard, as well as other key unsignalized intersections with more than four approaches or near popular community activity hubs such as the local YMCA and Riverfront Park.
Example of LPI indicating pedestrians to cross before traffic is allowed to move Rendering of potential High Visibility Crosswalk at intersection of Slauson Ave & Pine Ave Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 66 Page 311 of 405 Roadway Facility Recommendations
As part of the Maywood ATP development process, the City and project team outlined street-oriented treatments that will help reduce speeding to make Maywood a more comfortable and safer place to walk and bike alongside traffic. Currently, the City has an extensive network of narrow residential streets with low posted speed limits.
However, community outreach identified speeding as one of the most prominent hazards pedestrians and cyclists experience. As such, the Plan focused on the following enhancements:
• Reduce speeding on neighborhood streets by installing speed humps on streets located on the proposed bicycle route network, especially near sensitive uses such as schools
• Reduce speeding on neighborhood streets by installing edge line treatments on wide residential roads to minimize the total width of the road to discourage fast driving
• Reduce speeding on neighborhood streets by bumping out the curb on key intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard to slow cars down as they enter narrower residential streets on the proposed bicycle route network
Recommended projects are presented in the following pages and are organized by facility type. The accompanying map (Figure 18) identifies all facility types, their location, and extent.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 67 Page 312 of 405 FIGURE 18: PROPOSED ROADWAY FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Speed Humps
Maywood Destinations Roadway Facility Recommendations
City Hall
Library
School
Park
Edge Line Treatment
City of Maywood ProposedNetwork
Local Bike Route Networks
City of Bell Proposed Network
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Network
Legend
Basemap
Los Angeles River
Bike Path
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance
Curb Exension
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 68 Page 313 of 405 Speed Humps
According to community feedback, residents indicated that they feel speeding on neighborhood streets is a major issue especially around schools like Fishburn Avenue Elementary School.
Speed Humps provide a solution to slow cars down while also providing minimal impacts to cyclists also using the same roadway. The Maywood ATP recommends that a future engineering study be conducted to determine if installing Speed Humps at the proposed locations is warranted according to the city’s Speed Hump Policy and will not significantly impact residential traffic flow. These streets were identified as having chronic speeding issues and are located near local schools where many children walk. The proposed locations are located along the Proposed Maywood Bike Route Network, would provide additional safety benefits to cyclists, and are not on existing dedicated truck or transit routes.
Additional Bicycle Facility Considerations:
Edge Line Treatment
Edge Line Treatments also help address the issue of speeding by creating minimally invasive visual cues to narrow the width of the street for drivers and reducing the street space dedicated for vehicle traffic. The Maywood ATP recommends that a future engineering study be conducted to determine if Edge Line Treatments are warranted at the proposed street segments and not significantly impact residential traffic flow. Many of these segments were identified along streets were speeding is common, near sensitive uses like schools, and along on Maywood’s widest residential streets.
Example of potential Speed Cushion treatment Rendering of potential Edge Line Treatment along 55th St Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 69 Page 314 of 405 Curb Extensions
To further reduce speeding on residential streets, the Maywood ATP recommends a future engineering study be conducted to determine if Curb Extensions along key intersections along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard are warranted and will not significantly impact traffic along Slauson Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard.
Curb Extensions help slow down cars as they enter a specific approach at an intersection and are typically used to slow down cars as they travel from highvolume, high-speed streets to slower, narrower residential streets. The proposed treatment locations illustrated in Figure 18 are located along key intersections along the proposed Maywood Bike Route Network and on streets known for speeding. The goal of this treatment would be to Example of potential Speed Cushion treatment
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 70 Page 315 of 405 Regional Connectivity Recommendations
As part of the Maywood ATMP development process, the City and project team outlined street-oriented treatments that will help improve walk an bike connectivity to neighboring jurisdictions and the Los Angeles River Bicycle Trail. Currently, the City has few comfortable options for pedestrians and cyclists traveling from Maywood to Huntington Park, Vernon, and the Los Angeles River. As such, the Plan focused on the following enhacements to improve connections to those areas.
FIGURE 19: EXISTING CONDITIONS AT SLAUSON AVENUE &
MAYWOOD AVENUE
FIGURE 20: PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS
AT SLAUSON AVENUE & MAYWOOD AVENUE
The proposed changes at the intersection of Slauson Avenue & Maywood Avenue are designed to provide pedestrians with safer connections between Maywood, the City of Huntington Park. This regional connectivity project would remove the dedicated right turn lane on the southern approach of Slauson Avenue & Maywood Avenue and replace it with additional waiting space for pedestrians to create a more welcoming entrance from Maywood’s southwest border. The Maywood ATP recommends that a detailed engineering study be conducted in partnership with the City of Huntington Park to determine if this project is warranted, complies with existing state and local guidelines, and does not significantly impact traffic along Slauson Avenue.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 71 Page 316 of 405 FIGURE 21: EXISTING CONDITIONS AT DISTRICT BOULEVARD &
ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
FIGURE 22: PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS
AT DISTRICT BOULEVARD & ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
The proposed changes at the intersection of District Boulevard & Atlantic Boulevard are designed to provide cyclists and pedestrians with safer connections between Maywood, the City of Vernon and the Los Angeles River Bicycle Trail. This regional connectivity project would:
• Re stripe the existing crosswalks on the southern and eastern approaches of District Boulevard & Atlantic Boulevard to improve pedestrian visibility • Install a new high visibility crosswalk on the eastern approach of 52nd St & Atlantic Boulevard to improve pedestrian visibility • Remove the exclusive right turn lane on the eastern approach of District Boulevard & Atlantic Boulevard to provide more space for cyclists and pedestrians • Extend curb space on the southwest corner of District Boulevard & Atlantic Boulevard to reduce the total crossing distance for cyclists and pedestrians • Install a dedicated bike lane from 52nd Street to the southeast corner of District Boulevard & Atlantic Boulevard to provide cyclists with safer connections to and from the proposed Maywood Bike Network
The Maywood ATP recommends that a detailed engineering study be conducted in partnership with the City of Vernon to determine if this project is warranted, complies with existing state and local guidelines, and does not significantly impact traffic along Atlantic Boulevard.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 72 Page 317 of 405 Non-Infrastructure Recommendations
The City and project team also outlined a series of programs to accompany the list of physical infrastructure treatments. The goal of these programs is to help shift away from the existing vehicle-centric transportation behavior in Maywood by:
• Familiarizing residents to the new active transportation infrastructure changes to their community
• Encouraging residents to explore using active transportation modes in their regular routines
• Educating residents on how to safely walk, bike, and drive throughout Maywood’s street network
Encouragement and Safety Programs
Encouragement programs are a form of transportation demand management (TDM) as it relates to active transportation. Increased familiarity with active transportation might have positive impacts on active transportation uses within the City and region.
The following programs can be organized and deployed to spur new demand for active transit modes in Maywood.
Citywide Bike Map
Maps with bicycle routes serve as an encouragement and educational tool. As recreational and utilitarian riders alike seek optimal routes throughout the City a bike map can encourage and facilitate this process in a positive way. These maps can be distributed at public facilities throughout the City, at local bike shops, as well as on key intersections along the proposed bike network. These maps can also be made available for download on the City website.
Network Wayfinding
Another tool to encourage more active transportation trips is to install wayfinding signage along the proposed bicycle network at both mid-block and at key intersections. Wayfinding signage help augment physical bike networks by providing cyclists and pedestrians directions to key destinations, and provide motorists with additional visual cues to slow down and share the road. Directional signage at the neighborhood level helps residents, employees, and students better understand how to connect with nearby destinations by foot or bike and help support first last mile connectivity.
Suggested Routes to School Maps
In addition to Citywide Bike Maps, the City of Maywood can explore developing informational maps that show the boundaries of each school and identify suggested routes for parents and students to safely walk or bike to school.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 73
Walking School Bus/Bicycle Trains
Walking school buses and bicycle trains are organized walking and bicycling groups, respectively, where adults “pick up” walkers and bicyclists along specific routes to school at specific locations. This way, children are supervised during their travel to school and are taught how to safely travel via alternative travel modes from a young age.
Senior Walking Clubs
Senior walking clubs can be organized to encourage seniors to walk in groups and exercise at a pace and location comfortable to the participants. Walking clubs help seniors connect with others who share similar schedules and hobbies.
Bike to Work Day
Bike to Work Day, held in May, is a nation-wide event that encourages biking to work. The City of Maywood can encourage residents, employers, and students to participate in Bike to Work Day. Rallies can be held to promote bicycling and highlight new or improved bikeways within the City. Local bike shops can organize booths to teach people about bike equipment, safety, and maintenance. City staff can consider supplementary “Bike to Work Day” events throughout the year.
Conduct Surveys
The success of various bicycling and walking programs as well as bicycle facilities can be measured by public surveys. Surveys can be distributed every few years to determine if public perceptions or behaviors have changed over a certain period – or if efforts need to be redirected. Questions can build off those used during the second community outreach survey or structured around project-specific feedback goals.
Education Programs
Educational programs for all roadway users can help prevent potential collisions. Possible program partnerships between the city, the school district, parent teacher organizations, community leaders, and organizations are outlined below:
Community and Parent Workshops
Community and parent workshops are provided by the City’s Public Safety and Planning Division to engage the community on the importance and the benefits of bicycle and pedestrian safety. Workshops address concerns of traffic speed and traffic volume around schools, identify the benefits of bicycling, and encourage parents to allow their children to bike and walk to school.
Community Bicycle Helmet Program
The City’s Public Safety officers and staff educate the community on the proper use and fit of bicycle helmets. Public Safety staff provides inspections at community events to ensure that helmets fit properly. Studies of children and adolescents aged four to eighteen years found that 96% of helmets were incorrectly fitted. This program would support the distribution of helmets to students and community members participating in bicycle rodeos.
Student Workshops, Assemblies and Rodeos
Maywood’s Public Safety Department in conjunction with Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E), provide elementary and middle schools with student workshops and assemblies. Officers emphasize smart routes to bicycle safety, the do’s and don’ts, measures to protect against theft, and participate in riding them to school as a chaperone. D.A.R.E officers explain bicycle safety and helmet law to 5th-grade curriculum. Middle school programs build upon the elementary program, include more involved and interactive experiences. Students are given bicycle license applications and D.A.R.E. officers make themselves available on a specified school day to register bicycles and talk to students. The program establishes positive relationships between students and law enforcement, teachers, parents, and other community leaders.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 74 Page 319 of 405
NEXT STEPS
CHAPTER 6
Project Prioritization
The prioritization analysis provides guidance to the City of Maywood and other agencies as to which projects will provide the greatest potential benefit to citywide mobility.
While higher ranking projects should generally be implemented before lower ranking ones, the City may choose to advance specific projects for other interests or as funds become available.
Additional analyses should be conducted periodically to account for any significant changes in the local population, the environment, and the transportation network.
In order to ease prioritization and implementation, the Maywood ATP has structured all proposed improvements by the street. This allows the City to package streets and the bicycle and pedestrian improvements located along them as separate “mini-projects” that can then be used to submit for funding.
The project prioritization model was developed with considerations to four key categories:
The project prioritization model was developed with considerations to four key categories:
• Need and Equity – Measures each project’s impact on the most vulnerable members of the community
• Safety – Evaluates a project’s potential impact on walking and bicycling safety in the City • Community Support – Considers the level of community support for each project • Network Connectivity – Quantifies each project’s potential impact on walking and bicycling behaviors in the City and connections to local and regional attractors The specific measures for each category are shown in Table 12. Weighting factors were adjusted to provide higher prioritization on some criteria than others based on safety, community input, and general consistency with the ATP goals. The assigned weights determine an overall cumulative score that balances benefits to potential users and overall implementation feasibility.
The prioritization scores and ranking table (Table 13) provides a list of the prioritized projects and a breakdown of each cumulative score by ranking criteria.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 76 Page 321 of 405 TABLE 12: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA MATRIX
Group Category Description Weight Category Weight
Commute by Walk Percentage of households within a 200 ft area of the corridor that primarily commute by foot.
Source: 2020 ACS estimates. 5
Low Vehicle Access Percentage of households that have no vehicles available within a 200 ft area of each corridor.
Source: 2020 ACS estimates 5
Commute by Bike Percentage of households within 200 ft area of each corridor that primarily commute by bike.
Source: 2020 ACS estimates. 5
Commute by Transit Percentage of households within 200 ft area of each corridor according that primarily commute by taking public transit. Source: 2020 ACS estimates. 5 Median Household Income The average median household income for the 200 ft surrounding each corridor. Source: 2020 ACS estimates. 5
Safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions The total count of bicycle and pedestrian- involved collisions within a 200 ft area of each corridor. Source: TIMS, years 2017 - 2021. 35 35
Community Feedback Areas of Concern
Street segments identified by residents as unsafe for walking, biking and accessing public transit from Community Feedback and collected feedback from first two community touch points.
25 25
Potential Pedestrian Use The total number of residents living within a 200 ft of each corridor. Source: 2020 ACS estimates. 5
Transit Accessibility The count of local and regional stops located within a 200 ft area of each corridor. 5 Nearby Attractors The count of local and regional stops located within a 200 ft area of each corridor. 5 Total Score 100 100
Network Connectivity 15
Need and Equity 25
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 77 Page 322 of 405 TABLE 13: PROJECT RANKINGS BY CORRIDOR
Corridor Name
Median
Household
Income
Pecentage of
Workers Over
16 Commute
by Bike
Pecentage of
Workers Over
16 Commute
by Walking
Pecentage of
Workers Over 16
Commute by
Public Transit
Percentage of
Households
with Zero
Vehicle Access
Census
Block
Population
Total Bike
and Ped
Collisions
Per Corridor
Total Nearby
Attractors
Total Transit
Stops
Community
Input Total Score
Slauson Ave 2.76 2.83 0.85 2.53 3.07 2.41 35.00 5.00 5.00 25.00 84.44 Pine Ave 3.66 2.47 2.06 0.72 5.00 0.97 12.89 3.00 0.31 25.00 56.09 Atlantic Blvd 2.76 1.37 0.72 1.55 4.14 2.20 20.26 2.50 1.09 14.29 50.89 53rd St 4.66 2.71 4.21 3.82 3.83 3.13 3.68 1.00 0.31 21.43 48.78 Carmelita Ave 4.56 5.00 2.56 4.95 3.66 3.79 1.84 0.50 0.47 21.43 48.76 58th St 2.94 3.10 0.64 3.06 3.41 2.66 3.68 3.50 0.16 25.00 48.14 Gifford Ave 3.40 4.98 3.09 5.00 3.70 3.70 0.00 0.50 0.00 21.43 45.80 52nd St 3.25 3.18 5.00 3.69 3.48 3.10 0.00 0.50 0.31 21.43 43.94 55th St 5.00 3.08 2.86 3.69 3.79 2.97 0.00 0.00 0.47 21.43 43.29 Everett Ave 4.31 2.29 3.02 3.74 3.06 3.57 0.00 0.50 0.16 14.29 34.94 King Ave 2.33 0.58 0.08 2.80 2.59 2.77 0.00 0.50 0.47 17.86 29.98 59th Pl 3.23 3.02 1.51 1.59 1.31 3.64 3.68 4.00 0.16 0.00 22.13 61st St 3.19 3.04 1.46 1.09 1.54 3.18 0.00 1.00 0.16 7.14 21.80 Woodlawn Ave 4.50 4.96 2.66 0.39 0.02 3.73 0.00 1.00 0.31 3.57 21.14 Alamo Ave 2.96 4.73 2.52 0.32 0.00 4.68 0.00 1.00 1.25 3.57 21.04 Heliotrope Circle 2.19 0.88 0.25 2.89 2.57 1.60 3.68 1.00 0.31 3.57 18.94 Maywood Ave 0.95 0.00 2.50 2.09 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 10.71 18.65 57th St 1.04 0.00 0.00 3.48 3.81 2.38 0.00 0.50 0.16 7.14 18.50 60th St 3.89 4.94 2.64 0.52 0.08 4.64 0.00 1.50 0.16 0.00 18.37 Walker Ave 2.80 4.78 2.54 0.33 0.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 0.16 0.00 16.61 Mayflower Ave 1.04 0.00 0.00 3.48 3.81 2.38 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.57 14.77 Randolph St 0.00 1.79 0.65 0.00 0.49 0.28 5.53 1.50 0.31 3.57 14.12 Prospect Ave 2.73 1.35 0.22 2.21 1.26 4.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.90 Heliotrope Ave 3.63 2.91 1.27 1.36 0.69 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.29 Vinevale Ave 2.74 1.36 0.22 2.21 1.26 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.99 Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 78 Page 323 of 405 Cost Estimates
Unit costs for planning cost estimates are derived from KOA’s extensive experience in providing engineering services to communities across Southern California.
Cost assumptions include considerations for design, environmental, construction management, mobilization, and traffic control in order to provide as accurate of a cost for implementation as possible. While other project-specific factors such as grading, acquisition costs, or landscaping may increase the actual cost of construction, an additional 25 percent contingency has been added to each project to account for these factors that may arise during the design phase.
Table 13 provides projected total cost for each street to install all proposed treatments along that street. For example, the Grand Total for 58th Street includes all projected costs to implement the Speed Humps, Multi-Way Stops, High Visibility Crosswalks, Bike Route segments, and Edgeline Treatments outlined in Chapter 5 that would be located along the street. Project costs are estimated to reflect the actual cost of construction as accurately as possible, based on 2023 dollars. As the City pursues funding for these projects, it should be noted that construction costs may fluctuate based on when funding actually becomes available.
TABLE 14: PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY BY CORRIDOR
Corridor Grand Total
Atlantic Blvd $ 2,757,049
Slauson Ave $ 2,630,598
52nd St $ 383,236
58th St $ 197,304
53rd St $ 186,302
59th Pl $ 167,122
Randolph St $ 114,436
King Ave $ 76,345
55th St $ 75,025
60th St $ 71,461
Wayfinding Program $ 40,870
Alamo Ave $ 39,950
Walker Ave $ 34,073
Pine Ave $ 29,986
Heliotrope Ave $ 26,872
Prospect Ave $ 26,872
Vinevale Ave $ 26,913
Heliotrope Circle $ 15,939
Carmelita Ave $ 8,035
61st St $ 7,896
Everett Ave $ 7,471
Gifford Ave $ 7,471
Woodlawn Ave $ 2,820
57th St $ 846
Mayflower Ave $ 564
Maywood Ave $ 564
TOTAL $ 6,936,021
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 79 Page 324 of 405 APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS AND LEVEL OF COMFORT ANALYSIS
Background:
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) and pedestrian Level of Comfort (LOC) analyses are the transportation industry’s best practices for measuring the comfort and convenience of pedestrian and bicycle networks at all scales. The Maywood Active Transportation Plan calls for analyses of the current walkway, street segment, and intersection conditions throughout the city to identify potential locations to introduce low-stress connectivity treatments. These results will be compared with community input, census data, collision data, land use data, and transportation networks to justify recommendations to expand active transportation facilities throughout the city.
Developing the scoring criteria for a traffic stress analysis depends on the thoroughness and availability of local data. This means while there are common data inputs, methodologies are usually tailored for each project. Data inputs for a bike LTS analysis typically include roadway speed, average daily traffic volumes (ADT), number of vehicle lanes, and presence of existing bicycle facilities. Similarly, a pedestrian LOC analysis will typically include the same data inputs with the addition of sidewalk conditions, assessment of planting buffers, and crossing distances at intersections. By weighing each data input in a unique matrix, a roadway segment, walkway, or intersection can be assigned a rank ranging from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest level of stress and the least comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS):
Methodology
The stress that people experience while biking varies from person to person and depends on local street network conditions. Some riders are comfortable riding alongside dense fast-moving traffic, while others prefer not to ride their bike at all. Individuals will generally identify with one of the four main preference groups, often called the “Four Types of Cyclists”, originally developed by Roger Geller at the City of Portland, Oregon in 2005:
• Strong & Fearless: On average, 2 – 7 percent of people are willing to ride their bicycle no matter what the roadway and traffic conditions are. For the individuals in this group, riding a bike is a strong part of their identity. • Enthused & Confident: On average, 5 – 15 percent of people are somewhat comfortable riding their bicycles alongside vehicular traffic. For the individuals in this group, they would prefer riding their bicycles within dedicated bike facilities. • Interested but Concerned: On average, 36 – 60 percent of people enjoy riding their bike but do not use them as much as they would like due to unsafe riding conditions. For the individuals in this group, they would feel inclined to ride more if they felt safer riding on their local roadways. • No Way No How: On average, 25 – 48 percent of people do not prefer riding a bike in any capacity. For the individuals in this group, they are either uncomfortable, uninterested, or physically unable to ride a bicycle.
The “Interested but Concerned” category represents the largest group of individuals who are able and most likely to ride a bike. Incentivizing these users to increase their share of bike trips typically requires streets with low traffic speeds and volumes, dedicated facilities, or a combination of both. The City of Maywood does not currently have any existing bicycle facilities; therefore, an LTS analysis was conducted on the city’s street network to determine the quality of current biking conditions and prioritize segments for future infrastructure improvements to increase bike ridership.
The “Interested but Concerned” category represents the largest group of individuals who are able and most likely to ride a bike. Incentivizing these users to increase their share of bike trips typically requires streets with low traffic speeds and volumes, dedicated facilities, or a combination of both. The City of Maywood does not currently have any existing bicycle facilities; therefore, an LTS analysis was conducted on the city’s street network to determine the quality of current biking conditions and prioritize segments for future infrastructure improvements to increase bike ridership.
The approach for this analysis was originally developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San Jose University in 2012. The MTI’s most recent 2022 scoring criteria was specifically chosen because it accounts for riding conditions in mixed-use traffic, meaning bicyclists share the road alongside vehicles Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 81 Page 326 of 405 without dedicated lanes, which is the case in Maywood. The data inputs collected for this analysis include:
• Roadway speed
• ADT volumes
• Street width (number of lanes)
Bike LTS rank definitions are defined in Table 1. Each data input was independently weighted and added to the MTI LTS scoring matrix (Table 2).
Table 1 – Bicycle LTS Ranking Scheme
Level of Traffic Stress Description
LTS 1 Suitable for almost all ages and bicycling abilities LTS 2 Suitable for most adults
LTS 3 Suitable for more skilled and confident bicyclists LTS 4 Not suitable for most bicyclists
Table 2 – Bicycle LTS Scoring Matrix
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 82 Page 327 of 405 Pedestrian Level of Comfort (LOC):
Methodology
To supplement the bicycle LTS analysis and help identify ideal corridors for pedestrian improvements, a pedestrian LOC analysis was also conducted. The data inputs for this analysis include:
• Roadway speed
• ADT volumes
• Street width (number of lanes)
• Sidewalk conditions
• Presence of planted buffer between sidewalk and roadway This approach was originally developed by the Montgomery County Planning Department and has since been modified by KOA to meet the needs and context of the City of Maywood. Pedestrian LOC ranking definitions are defined in Table 3. The scoring matrices are divided into subsets based on the presence of sidewalks and roadway separations (Tables 4 to 12). Sidewalk separation is defined as the presence of a grass lawn or planted landscape area that horizontally separates a sidewalk from the road. ADT volume classes are defined based on the estimated traffic volumes by street class from the city’s Transportation Element:
• Low ADT: Volume less than 10,000 vehicles per day
• Medium ADT: Volume between 10,001 and 24,999 vehicles per day • High ADT: Volume greater than or equal to 25,000 vehicles per day Each data input was independently weighted and added to the pedestrian LOC scoring matrices.
Table 3 – Pedestrian LOC Ranking Scheme
Level of Traffic Stress Description
LTS 1 Suitable for almost all ages and bicycling abilities LTS 2 Suitable for most adults
LTS 3 Suitable for more skilled and confident bicyclists LTS 4 Not suitable for most bicyclists
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 83 Page 328 of 405 TABLE 7: TABLE 8: TABLE 9:
TABLE 10: TABLE 11: TABLE 12:
TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6:
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 84 Page 329 of 405 Intersection Level of Comfort (LOC) Assessment
Methodology
An intersection LOC analysis is a point-based model that measures stress levels that people experience while using crosswalks and/or other designated crossing facilities. Intersection LOC scores were assigned to each of Maywood’s 163 intersections within its city limits to identify areas most difficult to navigate on foot and prioritize specific intersections for upgrades to improve connectivity and safety conditions for active transportation users.
Two variables are utilized for calculating intersection LOC:
• Crossing distance (curb to curb)
• Roadway speed
Intersection LOC score descriptions are outlined in Table 13. The intersection LOC matrix weights an intersection’s crossing distance more heavily than the posted roadway speed because a pedestrian’s comfort level is affected more when having to cross longer distances between curb to curb rather than the speed of traffic going through the intersection. The comfort scoring matrix is provided in Table 14.
Table 13 – Intersection LOC Ranking Scheme
Level of Comfort Description
LOC 1 Suitable for almost all pedestrians, including children that are trained to safely cross intersections
LOC 2 Suitable for most adult pedestrians and older children with enhanced facility coverage and comfort
LOC 3 Suitable for most adult pedestrians and older children with little or no supervision within an intersection
LOC 4 Suitable for a limited population of pedestrians with limited facility support within an intersection
Table 14 – Intersection LOC Scoring Matrix
Posted Vehicle
Speed Limit (mph) Crossing Distance (Ft.)
< 30 35 - 70 > 80
<=25 1 2 3
30 2 3 4
>=35 3 3 4
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 85 Page 330 of 405 APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY OUTREACH COLLATERAL
Needs Assessment
Draft Plan
Final Plan
Plan Adoption
Tasks Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 2022 2023
Maywood
Active Transportation Plan
(Maywood moves)
Project Description
The Maywood Active Transportation Plan is a collaboration between the City of Maywood and its residents to promote safe, convenient options for walking, biking, and taking public transportation.
To achieve this vision, the City is preparing a roadmap of potential street treatments and policies to minimize the biggest barriers to getting around Maywood without a car. Input from residents and stakeholders will inform how the City identifies key issue areas and prioritizes funding for local projects to address the community’s needs.
Project Goals
The Maywood Active Transportation Plan aims to achieve the following goals for the City of Maywood to reduce personal vehicle trips:
• Provide safe and convenient connections to important local destinations including schools, commercial centers, and parks
• Enhance regional connectivity by improving connections to local public transit services and the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path
• Improve public health by promoting projects that incentivize recreational activity • Promote economic activity throughout Maywood
Project Timeline
Scan this QR code to visit our project website at: bit.ly/3XT44nN Questions? Email the project team at [email protected] Project Factsheet
HOW DID YOU GET HERE ToDAY?
¿Cómo Llegó hoy?
Instructions:
PLease place a sticker on which mode of transportation you used to get here today Instrucciones:
por favor Ponga una pegatina para indicar qué medio de transporte utilizó usted para llegar aquí hoy ?
WALK
Caminando
BIKE
Andando en bicicleta
BUS
Autobús
CAR
Vehículo
CARPOOL
Vehículo
Compartído
OTHER
Otro
Maywood RESIDENT
Residente de Maywood
Maywood VISITOR
Visitante de Maywood
How Did You Get Here Poster
The project factsheet provides a brief description of the project’s scope, goals, and projected timeline. This document was distributed at all outreach events and was provided in both English and Spanish.
This posterboard was developed to serve as both an ice-breaker and collect data on local travel behavior. Participants were asked to place a sticker on the corresponding mode they used to arrive to an outreach event.
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 87 Page 332 of 405 Areas of Concern Poster
This poster was developed to collect specific geograhical data on specific corridors and intersections that residents felt were unsafe to walk or bike.
Participants were asked to identify dangerous locations on the map and were also able to provide written and verbal comments that were recorded by project staff in the “Safety Concerns” box on the right hand side of the poster.
Lugares de preocupación
AREAS OF CONCERN
Maywood academy high school
Maywood Avenue Park
Maywood Center for
enriched students fishburn elementary
Clemente charter
Heliotrope Avenue
Elementary
Maywood Elementary
St. Rose of Lima catholic School
Benito Juarez Park Loma Vista elementary
Pine Avenue Park
Maywood park
Riverfront Park E Slauson AVEnue
Loma vista Avenue
S maywood avenue
gifford avenue
atlantic boulevard
heliotrope avenue
Randolph Street
fruitland AVEnue
e 52nd drive
alamo AVEnue
E 56th Street
District Boulevard
Safety Concerns
Preocupaciónes de seguridad:
Instructions:
Please place a sticker on the map where you feel unsafe walking, biking, or taking public transportation
instrucciones:
por favor ponga una pegatina sobre el mapa donde usted se siente inseguro caminando, andando en bicicleta o tomando transporte público City Hall
Municipalidad
Park
Parque
Library
Biblioteca
School
Escuela
Place of Worship
Lugar de Adoración
Metro Bus Stop
Parada de autobús
Los Angeles River Bicycle Path Entrance
Entrada del Carril Bici del Río Los Ángeles
Los Angeles River Bicycle Path
Carril Bici del Río Los Ángeles
PIxely Park
Bike Network Recommendation Poster
This poster was developed to collect specific community feedback on the proposed city bicycle network and wayfinding signage. Participants were asked if they felt these treatments would be beneficial to the community and to place a sticker in the corresponding box indicating “yes” or “no.” Project staff also wrote down verbal comments for individuals that wanted to provide additional suggestions, comments, or improvements to the proposed treatments.
Proposed Treatments / Tratamientos Propuestos
Please let us know if you like the following treatments / Por favor, díganos si le gustan las siguientes mejoras
Yes / Sí No / No
Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
Bicycle Route / Ruta de Bicicletas
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Wayfinding / Letros de Red Ciclista Yes / Sí No / No
Bike Network
Improvements /
Mejoras en la Red Ciclista
City of Bell
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Bell
Local Bike Networks /
Redes de Bicicletas
Locales
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Huntington Park
Existing Context /
Contexto Actual
Los Angeles River Bike
Path /
Carril Bici del Río Los
Ángeles
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance /
Entrada del Carril Bici
del Río Los Ángeles
City Hall / Alcaldía
Library / Biblioteca
School / Escuela
Park / Parque
City of Maywood
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Maywood
Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
Proposed Bicycle Network / red ciclista Propuesta
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 88 Page 333 of 405 Bike Intersection Recommendations Poster
This poster was developed to illustrate the specific locations of proposed treatments and to collect community feedback on if the public felt these improvements would improve cyclist safety at intersections. Participants were asked if they felt these treatments would be beneficial to the community and to place a sticker in the corresponding box indicating “yes” or “no.” Project staff also recorded verbal comments for individuals that wanted to provide additional suggestions, comments, or improvements to the proposed treatments.
Proposed Treatments / Tratamientos Propuestos
Please let us know if you like the following treatments / Por favor, díganos si le gustan las siguientes mejoras
Yes / Sí No / No
Other Comments? / ¿Otros Comentarios?
Multi-Way Stop / Parada Multidireccional
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Multi-Way Stop /
Parada Multidireccional
Bike Intersection
Treatments /
Intersecciones para
Bicicletas
Bike Push Button /
Pulsador Bici
Yes / Sí Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
No / No
Bike Detection Loop /
Circuito de Detección
Yes / Sí Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
No / No
Bike Detection Sign /
Señal de Detección
Yes / Sí Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
No / No
Intersection
Improvements /
Mejoras de la
Intersección
City of Bell
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Bell
City of Maywood
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Maywood
Local Bike Networks /
Redes de Bicicletas
Locales
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Huntington Park
Existing Context /
Contexto Actual
Los Angeles River Bike
Path /
Carril Bici del Río Los
Ángeles
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance /
Entrada del Carril Bici del
Río Los Ángeles
City Hall / Alcaldía
Library / Biblioteca
School / Escuela
Park / Parque
Proposed Bike Intersection Improvements /
Mejoras propuestas en las intersecciones para bicicletas Pedestrian Intersection Recommendations Poster
This poster was developed to illustrate the specific locations of proposed treatments and to collect community feedback on if the public felt these improvements would improve pedestrian safety at intersections. Participants were asked if they felt these treatments would be beneficial to the community and to place a sticker in the corresponding box indicating “yes” or “no.” Project staff also recorded verbal comments for individuals that wanted to provide additional suggestions, comments, or improvements to the proposed treatments.
Proposed Treatments / Tratamientos Propuestos
Please let us know if you like the following treatments / Por favor, díganos si le gustan las siguientes mejoras
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Leading Pedestrian Interval / Señal Peatonal Yes / Sí No / No Other Comments? / ¿Otros Comentarios?
Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
High Visibility Crosswalk / Cruce Peatonal de Alta Visibilidad Yes / Sí No / No
Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements /
Mejoras propuestas en las intersecciones para peatones
High Visibility
Crosswalk /
Cruce Peatonal de
Alta Visibilidad
Intersection
Improvements /
Mejoras de la
Intersección
Pedestrian LPI /
Señal Peatonal Anterior
City of Bell
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Bell
City of Maywood
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Maywood
Local Bike Networks /
Redes de Bicicletas
Locales
City of Huntington Park
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Huntington Park
Existing Context /
Contexto Actual
Los Angeles River Bike
Path /
Carril Bici del Río Los
Ángeles
Los Angeles River Bike
Path Entrance /
Entrada del Carril Bici del
Río Los Ángeles
City Hall / Alcaldía
Library / Biblioteca
School / Escuela
Park / Parque
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 89 Page 334 of 405 Roadway Recommendations Poster
This poster was developed to illustrate the specific locations of proposed treatments and to collect community feedback on if the public felt these improvements would improve cyclist safety at intersections. Participants were asked if they felt these treatments would be beneficial to the community and to place a sticker in the corresponding box indicating “yes” or “no.” Project staff also recorded verbal comments for individuals that wanted to provide additional suggestions, comments, or improvements to the proposed treatments.
Proposed Treatments / Tratamientos Propuestos
Please let us know if you like the following treatments / Por favor, díganos si le gustan las siguientes mejoras
Other Comments? / ¿Otros Comentarios?
Edge Line Treatment / Línea de Borde
00 0.25 .5
Miles
Curb Extension /
Extención de Acera
Yes / Sí No / No Yes / Sí No / No Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
Speed Hump /
Tope de Velocidad
Yes / Sí No / No Other Comments? /
¿Otros Comentarios?
Proposed Roadway Improvements /
Mejoras propuestas para las Calles
Edge Line Treatment /
Línea de Borde
Curb Extension /
Extención de Acera
Roadway
Improvements /
Mejoras para las Calles
Speed Hump /
Tope de Velocidad
City of Bell
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Bell
City of Maywood
Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Maywood
Local Bike Networks /
Redes de Bicicletas
Locales
City of Huntington Park Proposed Bike Network /
Red Ciclista Propuesta de la
Ciudad de Huntington Park
Existing Context /
Contexto Actual
Los Angeles River Bike
Path /
Carril Bici del Río Los
Ángeles
Los Angeles River Bike Path
Entrance /
Entrada del Carril Bici del
Río Los Ángeles
City Hall / Alcaldía
Library / Biblioteca
School / Escuela
Park / Parque
APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY OUTEACH RESULTS
Community Survey #1 Results
The first survey was implemented during the first community charrette at Fishburn Avenue Elementary School and was digitally available for two months following on the City webpage. Participants were asked indicate what modes of transportation they typically rely on to get to certain destinations as well as indicate areas of Maywood were they felt particularly unsafe walking or riding their bike.
Responses to identifying areas of concern were recorded and provided below:
• 54th street and everett and on 54th street and Loma vista we need stop signs on all corners its hard to cross in car or walking people dont bother stoping and weve had many accidents on both locations . we really need stop signs. • Atlantic and Slauson has many accidents, especially when trying to make left turns, there are many cars that speed up to beat the red light instead of slowing down and stopping to allow the left turns.
• The curve on 55th and Atlantic should be worked on to reduce speed and mark the area with a sign or lighting to reduce car accidents • The free local shuttle is important for seniors and others who need to get around the city. It should run throughout local streets not just the main big streets. • The streets should have trees that provide shade NOT palm trees. There are several drought tolerant trees that provide shade and reduce the heat index of the city. Trees should be not just on the main big streets but local streets that are overly paved without trees or very little trees. This will influence more walking and make it safer to walk to a shuttle stop or to a local store or to school.
Destination Personal Vehicle Carpool Walk Bike Public/Para Transit How do you usually travel to and from hospital/medical facilities? 5 1 0 2 How do you usually travel to and from places of worship? 2 1 1 How do you usually travel to and from getting grocceries? 4 2 1 1 How do you usually travel to and from parks and other recretional facilities? 4 2 1 0 How do you usually travel to and from local school? 2 2 2 0 2 How do you usually travel to and from work? 4 2 1 0
Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 92 Page 337 of 405 Recommended Treatment Supportive Unsupportive Recorded Community Feedback High Visibility Crosswalk 40 3 Pairs well with LPI treatment Edge Line Treatment 37 6
Fix sidewalks, add speeding cameras, add dedicated bus pickup lane on 58th St in front of Fishburn Ave Elementary
Speed Humps 37 10
Include on 53rd, Include near YMCA, Include on Everett, include on Fishburn Ave, include on 52nd, include on Corona
Curb Extension 36 7 Damage to car, reduced parking, include on King Multi-Way Stop 36 4 More police enforcement, people run stops along 52nd, 53rd, Loma Vista, Everett, LPI 36 0 Can this also include vision/hearing impaired features? Bike Push Button 32 0
Bike Detection Sign 31 4 Could have issues detecting bikes made of different materials, Bike Detection Loop 29 0
Bike Network 29 11
59th & King needs crossing guards and is very dangerous during school pick-up and dropoff, consider making some streets one-way
Wayfinding 32 18 Can this be translated in Spanish too? Community Survey #2 Results
The table above provides the responses by community members indicating their support and disapproval for the various treatments recommended in the Maywood ATP. Participants were presented images of the proposed treatments along with a map indicating where they would be installed, and asked to vote “Yes” if they felt the treatments would improve walking and biking conditions in Maywood, or “No” if they felt they would do the opposite. Explanations of each treatment were provided in both English and Spanish by project staff. T The second survey was implemented during the final three community outreach events:
• The backpack and school supply distribution at the YMCA (August 2023) • The mobile food pantry at the YMCA (August 2023)
• Community Charrette #2 at Fishburn Avenue Elementary School (October 2023) Maywood Active Transportation (Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan - 93 Page 338 of 405 APPENDIX D: DETAILED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYWOOD CITY COUNCIL AND THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE MAYWOOD COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2023 AT 5:30 PM
Maywood City Council Chambers
4319 E. Slauson Avenue, Maywood, CA 90270
www.cityofmaywood.com
I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Garcia called the meeting to order at approximately 5:31 p.m.
II. CITY OFFICIALS
MAYOR
Frank Garcia (present)
MAYOR PRO TEM
Mayra Aguiluz (present)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jessica Torres (present)
Eduardo De La Riva (present)
Heber Marquez (present)
CITY CLERK
Brian E. Juarez (present)
CITY TREASURER
Mary Mariscal (absent)
CITY MANAGER
Jennifer E. Vasquez (present)
CITY ATTORNEY
Roxanne Diaz (absent)
Stephanie Cao (present)
Steve Fowler, Director of Building and Planning (present) Daisy Guerrero, Deputy City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager (present)