City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority
March 17, 2025

Merced
Multijurisdictional
Local Roadway
Safety Plan
September 19, 2024
Acknowledgements
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) would not be possible without the involvement and support of:

Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Governing Board Member Jurisidictions
City of Atwater
City of Dos Palos
City of Gustine
City of Livingston
City of Los Banos
City of Merced
Local Roadway Safety Plan Stakeholder Group
Table of Contents
Volume I
Chapter 1 Introduction, Vision, and Goals 6
Chapter 2 Existing Policy Landscape 14
Chapter 3 Engaging the Community 26
Chapter 4 Proven Safety Countermeasures 32
Chapter 5 Taking Action for Roadway Safety 104
Volume II
Atwater 132
Dos Palos 166
Gustine 190
Livingston 214
Los Banos 240
Merced 274
Appendices 316
Volume I
Volume I
• Introduction, Vision, and Goals
• Existing Policy Landscape
• Engaging the Community
• Proven Safety Countermeasures
• Taking Action for Roadway Safety
1 Merced County Association of Governments
(MCAG) and its six incorporated city members:

Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston,
Los Banos, and Merced, are committed
to prioritizing transportation safety and
eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious
injuries on their roadways.

The development of this Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP) is being led and funded by MCAG.

As the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) for Merced County, MCAG will take a
regional leadership role in roadway safety, and
spearhead the implementation of this LRSP.

This LRSP covers each of the six incorporated
cities in Merced County: Atwater, Dos Palos,
Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced.

The unincorporated areas of Merced County
are undergoing a separate planning process
being led by the County.

As a regional plan covering six different
communities, this LRSP is divided into two
volumes. Volume One covers the regional and
policy aspects of the plan, including project
vision and goals, funding strategies, potential
countermeasures, and a Safety Action Plan
that will act as a roadmap for MCAG and its
member agencies to implement this LRSP.

Volume Two includes a collision analysis,
collision profiles of emphasis, conceptual
projects, and project lists for each of the six
cities
Introduction,
Vision, and Goals
Merced County is part of the Central Valley
region of California, with a long heritage of
agricultural production that continues today. Of
the more than 1.2 million acres it encompasses,
81 percent of available land in Merced County
is dedicated to agricultural uses. The population
is concentrated in its six incorporated cities
and a number of unincorporated communities.

Merced County’s population, which currently
numbers 280,000, is expected to grow
significantly in the coming years. The MCAG
2022 Regional Transportation Plan estimates
the County will grow by approximately 82,000
in population by 2046, and add 27,000 jobs.

The current population for each of the six cities
covered by this LRSP are listed in Figure 0.1.

Figure 0.1
Population
of Cities in
Merced County
Community Population
Atwater 31,401
Dos Palos 5,651
Gustine 5,990
Livingston 14,078
Los Banos 44,421
Merced 85,993
Source: US Census
Bureau American
Community Survey
(ACS) 2017-2021
5-Year data
8 Roadway safety is a pressing issue facing the
region today. According to 2017-2021 data from
the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
maintained by the federal government, Merced
County as a whole had a fatality rate of 20.48
fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants, the seventhhighest among the 58 counties of California and among the highest across the entire country.

A number of factors contribute to the problem.

The region’s roadway infrastructure is often
outdated in terms of design, with older
roadways lacking many newer safety features.

The design of older, rural roadways are also
becoming mismatched with new residential
and commercial land uses, and are becoming
strained amidst continued rapid growth and
development in the region.

Moreover, roadways old and new in the region
are often designed with wide cross-sections
and large turn radii that are designed to
accommodate larger vehicles, such as freight
vehicles associated with the region’s industrial
and agricultural uses, which can enable
higher speeds and riskier driving behaviors
at the expense of overall safety, especially
for vulnerable users such as bicyclists and
pedestrians. This tension between minimizing
vehicle delay and slower speeds to improve
safety is particularly acute on many of the
region’s state highways. These state highways
often serve a dual purpose as a community
main street with multimodal local traffic and
high volumes of through vehicular traffic.

The poor safety outcomes in the region also
reflect its legacy of historic underinvestment
and marginalization. Most of the region and
most areas within the six cities covered by this
LRSP are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and federal
governments.

This LRSP commits MCAG and its city partners
to the goal of eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries on the roadway network.

To accomplish this goal, the LRSP builds
on existing and ongoing efforts by MCAG
and these six cities to proactively identify
and evaluate systemic risk factors for
roadway safety. It also identifies proven
countermeasures that can be implemented
through roadway design changes, as well as
non-infrastructure programmatic measures
through key partnerships with safety
stakeholders. Also included is an Action Plan,
led by MCAG, and built to monitor the efforts
made towards eliminating deaths and serious
injuries on a yearly basis to track progress
made. The Action Plan applies the Safe System
Approach, an international, national, and state
best practice framework, as the foundation for
improving roadway safety.

The Safe System Approach
Crashes can irreversibly change the course of
human lives, touching victims, their families
and loved ones, and society as a whole.

Through collective action on the part of all
roadway system stakeholders— from system
operators and vehicle manufacturers to law
enforcement and everyday users—MCAG,
and agencies across the US, are moving to a
Safe System Approach that anticipates human
mistakes, with the goal of eliminating fatal and
serious injuries for all road users.

A Safe System acknowledges the vulnerability
of the human body—in terms of the amount
of kinetic energy transfer a body can
withstand—when designing and operating a
transportation network to minimize serious
consequences of crashes. According to the
World Health Organization, the goal of a Safe
System is to ensure that if crashes occur, they
9 “do not result in serious human injury.”1 The
Safe System Approach to road safety started
internationally as part of the Vision Zero
proclamation that death and serious injury on
the roadway system is unacceptable.2 3
As shown in Figure 0.2, the Safe System
Approach is founded on several principles, two
of which acknowledge humans make mistakes
and humans are vulnerable. As a result, a
proactive, redundant system is needed to
prevent death and serious injuries.4
Countries that have adopted the Safe System
Approach have had success reducing highway
fatalities, with reductions in fatalities between
50% and 70%.5 The Safe System Approach is
the foundation for the National Safety Strategy
Figure 0.2
The Safe
System
Wheel
1 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9
2 Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47, 826-831 3 Tingvall, C., & Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility. Paper presented at the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7 September 1999, Melbourne, Australia 4 Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.
5 World Resources Institute (2018). Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/publication/ sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths. 10 DEATH RISK
90%
40 MPH

PEDESTRIAN STRUCK

BY VEHICLE GOING

DEATH RISK
50%
30 MPH

PEDESTRIAN STRUCK

BY VEHICLE GOING

DEATH RISK
10%
20 MPH

PEDESTRIAN STRUCK

BY VEHICLE GOING
Figure 0.3
Pedestrian Crash Survival as a Factor of Vehicle Speed
11 released by the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) in 2022. Caltrans has
also adopted both a Safe System Approach
and a Vision Zero goal as part of their
Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Road to
Zero Coalition’s Safe Systems Explanation and
Framework articulate that to anticipate human
mistakes, a Safe System seeks to:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities)
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated signal turn phases)
• Alert users to potential hazards
• Accommodate human injury tolerance
through interventions that reduce speed
and/or impact force
Creating a Safe System means shifting a major
share of the responsibility for preventing
collisions from road users to those who
design the road transport system. “Individual
road users have the responsibility to abide
by laws and regulations”6 and do so by
exhibiting due care and proper behavior on
the transportation system. While road users
are responsible for their own behavior, this is
a shared responsibility with those who design,
operate, and maintain the transportation
network: including the automotive industry,
law enforcement, elected officials, and
government bodies.7 In a Safe System,
roadway system designers and operators take
on the highest level of ethical responsibility.
6 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action
for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://
www.who.int/ roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/
plan_en.pdf.
7 Federal Highway Administration (2020). Integrating
the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety
Improvement Program. Report No. FHWA-SA-20-018.

Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/
fhwasa2018.pdf.

ITE Safe System Framework:

Focus on Safe Speeds
The ITE Safe System Framework provides
important context for the focus on safe
speeds within a Safe System Approach.

For all road users, especially those who
walk or bike, speed is a determining
factor in survivability.

As shown in Figure 0.3, increased speeds
narrow sightline visibility of the roadway,
and a human’s chance of surviving after
being struck by a vehicle increases from
10% at 40 miles per hour to 50% at 30
miles per hour to 90% at 20 miles per
hour.

Reducing speed in the presence of
vulnerable users is a key Safe System
strategy. Approaches include:
• Physical roadway designs (reduced
width, horizontal alignment) to limit
speeds
• Traffic calming treatments that
induce slower speeds
• Traffic signal timing that minimizes
high speed flow
• Traditional or automated
enforcement (currently not legal in
California) that discourages speeding
12 13
The Merced Multijurisdictional Local Roadway Safety Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles commits MCAG and the six cities covered to the goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the roadway network, and provide an overaching framework to progressing towards achieving this goal.

Vision
Using the Safe System Approach to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on roadways in Merced County by 2050.

Guiding Principles
Safety is the highest priority.

Deaths and serious injuries on our region’s
public roadways are preventable.

Safety is a shared responsibility.

Everyone is a key partner in roadway safety,
and we want to create a system where users,
roadway designers, and others work together
to create redundancy and reinforce safety.

People make mistakes.

We must anticipate human mistakes
by designing and managing our road
infrastructure in a way that lowers the risk
of mistakes and, by reducing kinetic energy
involved in collisions, lowers the risk of
mistakes that do occur resulting in a fatality or
serious injury.

Our transportation network
must be equitable.

The effort to improve roadway safety
outcomes in the region must be cognizant
of and address the legacy of disinvestment
in our communities and their transportation
infrastructure.

A data-driven approach.

MCAG will use ongoing evaluation to prioritize
projects and programs that aim to eliminate
fatal and severe injury collisions. MCAG will
work with local jurisdictions to proactively
and reactively make data-driven engineering
decisions to manage roadways and reduce the
severity of collisions.

Roadway safety will be
accountable and transparent.

MCAG strives to be transparent in its
communication of progress with stakeholders
and the public. MCAG also aims to be
accountable to prioritizing safety and
eliminating fatal and severe injury collisions
when considering policy, programming, and
project related decisions.
2 In recent years, leaders at the federal and
state levels have taken bold and consistent
steps to acknowledge the persistent and
unacceptable level of severe injuries and
fatalities on our roadways, commit to
eliminating these occurrences, and follow
international best practices and public health
fundamentals to form a new safety paradigm
in the US. This has specifically involved
embracing the Vision Zero goal of safe mobility
for all and adopting the Safe System Approach
as the way to get there.

The Safe System Approach is a significant
evolution in how roadway safety is
conceptualized. The Safe System Approach
acknowledges that mistakes are inevitable
while also asserting that severe injuries and
fatalities are avoidable on our roadways. This is
a shift in thinking on how to improve roadway
safety; instead of a primary focus on shifting
behavior through education campaigns or
enforcement, it encourages roads, vehicles,
and policies that are intentionally designed
to prioritize safety. It involves building layers
of redundancy that function as safety nets
for users – even if someone makes a mistake
on the roadway, the system as a whole
minimizes the risk of serious injury through
such measures as decreased speeds, advanced
vehicle safety technologies, separation among
roadway users in time and space, and better
post-crash care in the case of injuries. Some
Existing Policy
Landscape
crashes will still happen, but under the Safe
System Approach, they won’t be nearly as
devastating.

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

Acknowledging this fundamental pivot leads
to some basic shifts in perspective in this
LRSP. First, conventionally, a safety plan has
been organized by the Es of safety: education,
enforcement, engineering, and emergency
services. This Plan shifts away from the
silos of those Es, and focuses instead on
cross-cutting “new Es”: energy, exposure,
and equity. This Plan focuses on addressing
kinetic energy risk through an assessment of
speed, mass, and exposure that is inherently
proactive and systemic.

Second, the most impactful way to address
kinetic energy risk is by acknowledging and
systematically addressing socioeconomic and
land use factors that create the systemic risk,
followed by understanding and enhancing
built environment factors, and then
considering passive and active safety tools.

This Plan presents a holistic assessment of the
needs and opportunities for enhancing safety
consistent with this framing and priority order.
16 Finally, this Plan aspires to make safety the
default choice: the easy choice for people
as they move about and the easy choice for
roadway design decisions. This Plan identifies
the opportunities to streamline decision
making to prioritize safety and improve internal
alignment in programs, practices, and policies
consistent with the Safe System Approach.

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

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

The SS4A grant program provides funding
for local agencies to create Comprehensive
Safety Action Plans (CSAPs). It also provides
funding to implement safety projects, but
only to those agencies that have an adopted
CSAP or an equivalent. In order to qualify as
a CSAP (and allow an agency to be eligible
for implementation planning grant funding),
a plan must meet a nine-point criteria as set
forth by the USDOT. They include an official
commitment and goal to eliminate roadway
fatalities and serious injuries; the creation of
a standing task force or working group that
will lead and monitor the implementation
of the plan; data-driven safety analysis;
public engagement and inter-governmental
collaboration; consideration of equity in the
planning process; assessment of current
policies and guidelines to identify changes that
will better prioritize safety; identification of a
comprehensive set of projects and strategies
that address safety issues; posting of the plan
online along with description of how future
progress will be measured; and that the plan
will be updated every five years.

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

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

The Hierarchy classifies countermeasures into
four tiers, from most to least aligned with Safe
System principles. These tiers are:

1. Removing severe conflicts, which can act to
eliminate high-risk conditions that involve
users with different speeds or moving in
different directions sharing space. This
tier can include countermeasures that
remove potential points of conflicts (for
example, removing conflicting turning
movements), and those that separate
vulnerable users from vehicles in space (for
example, protecting people biking through
a separated bike lane).
17 2. Reducing vehicle speeds, which reduces
the kinetic energy present within systems
and thereby reduces the severity of crashes
that do occur. As driver behavior, especially
when it comes to speed, is highly influenced
by roadway features, countermeasures that
reduce prevailing speeds can include lane
narrowing and features that channelize
vehicle traffic such as median islands.

3. Managing conflicts in time, which covers
instances (such as intersections) where
space needs to be shared between
different types of users, but where they
can be separated in time. An example is
the Leading Pedestrian Interval, which
allows people walking to have a ”head
start” interval at a signalized intersection
before conflicting vehicle traffic enters the
crosswalk.

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

Crucially, the Hierarchy prioritizes
improvements and countermeasures that
make physical changes to the system for the
whole population as more effective than
measures that rely on roadway users and
individual decisions. This is consistent with the
Safe System Approach’s central premise that
humans make mistakes, and that the roadway
system should be designed to accommodate
them through redundant and proactive
interventions.

In addition to presenting this tiered
hierarchy as a framework for understanding
countermeasures as they relate to the
principles of the Safe System Approach, the
guidance also presents examples of both
common and novel countermeasures that fall
under each tier.

Safe System Approach
for Speed Management
Vehicular speeding continues to be one of the
leading causes of collisions across the country,
especially those causing fatalities and severe
injuries, and the relationship between higher
speeds and increased collision severity is welldocumented. The FHWA’s 2023 report on the Safe System Approach for Speed Management
provides targeted recommendations around
speed management. The report notes the
need for agencies to place safety and the
prevention of injury collisions (as opposed
to throughput or travel times) as the highest
priority when it comes to speed setting on
roadways, and highlights the need to change
the physical design and context of the roadway
beyond merely changing regulatory speed
limits in order to achieve target speeds.

The report outlines a five-stage framework
to speed management that is consistent
with the Safe System Approach. The process
begins with establishing a vision and building
consensus within the community to manage
speeds; the creation of a strategic safety
plan, such as a Vision Zero plan or LRSP,
can serve this purpose. Second, speed data
should be collected and analyzed, which
can help guide the rest of the process and
provide the backing to build public support.

Third, locations for speed management
should be prioritized proactively, taking
into account both collision and speeding
history as well as contextual factors (such as
the presence of vulnerable users or traffic
generators such as schools and commercial
areas). Countermeasures can then be
selected for prioritized locations. Finally,
ongoing monitoring and evaluation should
be conducted to ensure efficacy and allow
for flexibility and adjustment. The report also
provides real-world case studies of how these
principles were applied in practice.
18 Primer on Safe System Approach for
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
The Primer, released by the FHWA in 2021,
emphasizes the importance of protecting
pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable
users, under the Safe System Approach. The
Primer details the considerations surrounding
pedestrians and bicyclists under each of the
five elements of the Safe System Approach
– Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Vehicles,
Safe Road Users, and Post-Crash Care. It also
provides strategies and actions that can be
taken at the federal, state, and local levels
towards implementing the Safe System
Approach. Also included is an appendix
on benchmarking policies, programs, and
practices for Safe System consistency.

Safe System-Based Framework and
Analytical Methodology for Assessing
Intersections
This report, released by the FHWA in
2021, outlines a Safe System method for
Intersections (SSI) that practitioners can
apply in the course of the typical project
development process with commonlyavailable data to produce quantifiable measures of effectiveness (MOEs) that then
allow for comparisons across alternative
designs for an intersection. The focus of
the report is to align with the Safe System
principle of limiting and managing kinetic
energy in the transportation system, and
the metrics produced by the SSI method can
be used to quantify kinetic energy transfer,
number of conflict points, and complexity of
movements to identify designs that align best
with that principle.

Improving Pedestrian Safety on Urban
Arterials: Learning from Australasia
The Improving Pedestrian Safety on Urban
Arterials: Learning from Australasia report,
part of FHWA’s Global Benchmarking Program,
was released in 2023 to document lessons
learned from FHWA researchers’ review
of literature and practices and tour of its
case studies in Australia, New Zealand, and
adjacent islands (collectively referred to as
“Australasia” in the report). These jurisdictions
have operated under a Safe System framework
since the early 2000’s, and the report provides
key takeaways that can be learned in the
American context.

A primary shift in mindset is that
treating walking as the elemental form
of transportation foundational to the
transportation system also centers human
well-being, and improves outcomes for
all modes. Another key takeway is the
interconnectedness between movement and
place, that planning for land uses that are
accommodating for active transportation
modes and transit can create places that are
less autocentric and safer. Finally, there is an
emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of
planning for pedestrian safety – as there is
in the Safe System Approach – that in order
to generate effective, cross-cutting solutions,
transportation issues must not be siloed.
19 Other National Guidance
In addition to policy and guidance from federal
agencies, other national-level documents
provide additional guidance towards applying
and implementing the Safe System Approach
for local agencies.

The Safe Systems Pyramid
The Safe Systems Pyramid is a new framework
for traffic safety proposed in a 2023 paper
by David Ederer of the Center for Disease
Control (CDC), along with his co-authors
Rachael Thompson Panik, Nisha Botchwey,
and Kari Watkins, which adapts the Health
Impact Pyramid framework into the Safe
Systems Pyramid for roadway safety
practitioners. Building on established public
health practice, the Safe Systems Pyramid
illustrates how interventions that have the
largest reach and require the least personal
effort will be the most impactful. In addition
to identifying the kinetic energy transfer as
the cause of injury, the Safe Systems Pyramid
also relates energy to exposure. It explains
how the many possible safety interventions
differ in their effectiveness at reducing risk
in the transportation system by prioritizing
interventions that reduce exposure to kinetic
energy transfer at the system level. Those that
require more individual effort, such as driver
education programs, have the least impact
on improving system-wide safety. Meanwhile,
those that change the quality of people’s lives
and the built environment in which they travel
more broadly, such as affordable housing near
transit, zoning reform, traffic calming, and
limiting crossing distances at intersections,
have the largest impacts on safety.

At the top of the Safe System Pyramid is
education, which generally corresponds
to Tier 4 of the Safe System Hierarchy, and
encompasses driver education programs and
campaigns – for example, asking drivers to
slow down and obey the speed limit. As the
authors of the paper note, “the need to urge
behavioral change is symptomatic of failure
to establish contexts in which healthy choices
are default actions,” and education programs
are thus considered to be most reliant on
individual behavior and therefore least
effective in producing improvements.

Figure 0.4
The Safe Systems Pyramid Source: Vision Zero Network

GREATER

INDIVIDUAL
EFFORT

GREATER

POPULATION

HEALTH IMPACT
20 Below education on the Pyramid are active
and latent safety measures, which generally
correspond to Tier 3 of the Hierarchy.

Active safety measures encompass such
countermeasures as warning signals and
signs, as well as in-vehicle devices such as
seatbelts and collision warnings. These safety
measures are effective when used, but rely on
individual opt-in (for example, for a driver to
react to signage or to a collision warning) to
function. Latent safety measures encompass
countermeasures such as signal timing
modifications such as leading pedestrian
intervals (LPIs) that create redundancy, as well
as vehicle features such as lane departure
prevention and automated emergency
braking. Latent measures are considered
more effective than active measures, as they
require less individual opt-in, but their efficacy
is still limited by the fact that they are applied
individually. For example, while automated
braking is superior to a warning signal that
warns the driver to manually brake, only those
who choose and have the means to drive a
vehicle with the feature will have access to this
technology.

Further down the pyramid is the built
environment level, which corresponds to
Tiers 1 and 2 of the Hierarchy, and refers
to physical alterations to the roadway that
promote slower speeds, physically separate
vulnerable users, and reduce the number
of high-risk conflicts. Such interventions can
also improve the experience for walking and
biking, and reduce the number of vehicle
trips by encouraging mode shift. Unlike the
higher levels of the pyramid, changes to the
environment creates contexts that encourage
safer user behaviors (for example, narrower
lanes that induce lower speeds), and are thus
less dependent on active user participation
and thereby more effective.

Finally, the socioeconomic factors level
lies at the base of the pyramid. Typically,
roadway safety interventions do not go
beyond the roadway infrastructure, but
today’s safety outcomes are inexorably
linked by socioeconomic factors of the
places that our roadways serve. Across the
country, communities of color and lowincome communities are disproportionately exposed to the most dangerous roadways
that feature high speeds, high traffic volumes,
and outdated design and safety features.

Moreover, many communities across the
country are also trapped by a lack of viable
alternative transportation options as a result
of car dependency, a crisis that is likely going
to persist as the national phenomenon of the
suburbanization of poverty continues. These
are overarching socioeconomic factors that
dictate urban form and the built environment,
which in turn dictate safety outcomes.

This category of interventions is often
considered outside the traditional purview
of transportation professionals, as they must
come in the form of policy around land use,
zoning, and economics that go beyond (but
work in tandem with) transportation policy.

However, they also must be considered when
attempting to address roadway safety, as these
socioeconomic factors form the root causes of
roadway safety issues.

The pyramid should be seen as a structure for
prioritizing the roadway design and operations
tools that will have the most impact for
safety while also collaborating outside the
safety silo with other agency and community
stakeholders to engage in upstream and more
wide-ranging root cause topics.
21 NCHRP 1036: Roadway Cross-Section
Reallocation Guide
The National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP)’s Report 1036, the Roadway
Cross-Section Reallocation Guide, was
developed in 2023 as a tool for practitioners
to use in the development of roadway crosssections that better assesses the tradeoffs involved in the allocation of the limited
width of a roadway. The guide begins with
the premise that roadway space is scarce
and trade-offs are inevitable, and provides
guidance for planning roadway cross-sections
that center community priorities for that
limited space. The guidelines also infuse
Safe System considerations by establishing
minimum floors for safety standards, such
as the provision of pedestrian and bike
facilities and minimum widths for sidewalks
and bike lanes. Finally, the guide discusses
approaches for community engagement and
operational analysis to facilitate the decisionmaking process consistent with the goals and minimum standards outlined in the guide.

The guide also includes a companion Excel
spreadsheet that can be used for new roadway
and retrofit planning.

A Safe System Guide for
Transportation: Sharing this Approach
to Lead your Community to Action
This technical report, commissioned by the
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, serves as
a resource for advocates, practitioners, and
stakeholders at the local community level
implementing the Safe System Approach.

Specifically, it offers guidance on how to
communicate the contents, importance,
and benefits of the new approach to both
key stakeholders and the public at large, and
is a primary resource for creating culture
shifts in agencies and communities towards
Safe System practices and building capacity
within agency staff and elected officials to
institutionalize these practices in day-to-day
operations.

Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Resources
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
has developed a number of technical briefs
that provide guidance on how the Safe System
Approach fits into specific disciplines within
transportation planning and engineering.

Two ITE briefs from 2022 and 2023 explore the
ways in which big data sources, such as nearmiss, hard-braking, and speeding data, can be used to bolster safety analyses. They augment
traditional data sources such as collision data,
which tend to be reactive in nature and can
suffer from small sample sizes. The briefs offer
case studies on how big data sources can be
leveraged in roadway safety planning, and
provide guidance around how to use these
sources responsibly and informedly.

The 2022 brief, entitled “Essential Components
of Incorporating Safety in Transportation
Impact Analysis”, provides guidance around
institutionalizing the Safe System Approach
in transportation impact analyses (TIAs) by
moving beyond the traditional model of using
vehicle throughput and delay times as the
primary quantifiers of transportation impacts,
and instead prioritize vulnerable users such as
bicyclists and pedestrians. This produces TIA
processes that integrate safety considerations
and helps promote land uses that are conducive
to safety for all modes of travel.

The 2023 brief on “Institutionalizing the Safe
System Approach in Local Road Safety Plans”
provides guidance for aligning the older, preSafe System Approach adoption Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) program with Safe System
standards. The brief matches the components
to the LRSP with the their counterparts in
the CSAP requirements outlined in the SS4A
program, and identifies locations where the
Safe System Approach can be incorporated in
the roadmap to creating an LRSP.
22 California Policy Considerations
The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), like federal authorities, has
also adopted the Safe System Approach
and committed to Vision Zero. Similarly,
recent California legislation has supported
prioritization and cross-department
collaboration consistent with the Safe Systems
Pyramid strategies and hierarchy. As outlined
in this section, several Caltrans Deputy
Directives (DD) and Directors’ Policies (DPs)
as well as State Senate and Assembly Bills
have been essential policy building blocks
to support the ongoing Safe System Pivot in
California.

DP 36
In Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP) 36, effective
February 2022, the agency committed to
eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes by
2050, and committed to achieving this goal
through the application of the Safe System
Approach.

DP 37
DP 37, issued December 2021, establishes
creating complete streets that support people
walking, biking, taking transit, and accessing
passenger rail. It recognizes these priorities
as a means of advancing state goals in climate
and the environment, in public health, and
in equity and repairing harm to underserved
communities. It also recognizes complete
streets as valuable community spaces that can
boost economic vitality and resiliency. To these
ends, it directs that “all transportation projects
funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide
comfortable, convenient, and connected
complete streets facilities for people walking,
biking, and taking transit or passenger rail
unless an exception is documented and
approved.”
DIB 94
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94,
entitled “Complete Streets: Contextual Design
Guidance”, is a set of design implementation
guidance for complete streets projects on the
State Highway System that integrates the Safe
System Approach and reflects the Safe System
Hierarchy. DIB 94 was published in January
2024, and applies DP 37 with an eye towards
specific implementation.

DIB 94 is applicable to state highways located
in an urban area, suburban area, or that act
as a rural main street, where posted speeds
do not exceed 45 MPH, and where at least
one bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facility is
present. As such, DIB 94 is applicable to many
of the state highway facilities in the region that
feature sizable collision histories or collision
risk factors as identified by this Plan.

For each of the contexts that it covers – city
centers, other urban areas, suburban areas,
and rural main streets, DIB 94 sets minimum
expectations for the provision of complete
streets facilities such as crosswalks, sidewalks,
bike facilities, and others. These expectations
are set with the surrounding context in
mind, and include instructions, guidance,
and recommendations on implementing
specific complete streets features and
countermeasures, ranging from pedestrian
beacons to lane narrowing. Caltrans intends
for DIB 94 guidance to create “contextsensitive facilities that serve travelers of all ages and abilities.”
23 AB 43
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was passed
in 2021 to provide additional flexibility to
local jurisdictions to set speed limits on their
roadways. Specifically, it offers them a means
to lower speed limits on additional corridors.

Cities will have increasing flexibility starting
in 2024 to enforce context-sensitive speed
limits. AB 43 features the following five
major components, focused on giving local
jurisdictions more flexibility in setting speed
limits, especially regarding vulnerable road
users:
• Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS)
An option to extend enforceable time
period
• Post E&TS
An agency can elect to retain current or
immediately prior speed limit
• Speed Limit Reduction
Reduction of additional 5 mph based on
several factors, including designation of
local “Safety Corridors”
• Prima Facie Speed Limits
Options for 15 and 25 mph in certain areas
depending on context
• Business Activity Districts
Option for 20 or 25 mph
In particular, the designation of “Safety
Corridors” could be applied to roadways
where the highest number of serious injury
and fatality crashes occur, identifying specific
locations or corridor-level segments with high
crash occurrences and stratified by mode.

These designations must be approved by a
professional engineer.

SB 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed by the California
legislature in 2013, represented a sweeping
policy change in the state’s environmental
review process for transportation. Under SB
743, transportation impacts are no longer
quantified in terms of congestion caused
as measured by Level of Service (LOS)
during CEQA review, but rather in terms
of the amount of driving as measured by
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). This shift is
intended to better align the quantification of
transportation impacts with the state’s climate
goals, as the shift towards using VMT as a
metric under SB 743 is intended to induce
more infill and mixed-use developments as
opposed to auto-centric sprawl, which is in
turn intended to promote non-auto modes
of transportation and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

This shift is important to roadway safety on
two fronts. First, the impact of SB 743 will
likely lead to shifts in land-use patterns in the
state that are more compact and conducive
to walking, biking, and transit use, which
aligns with the broad socioeconomic and
built environment changes most effective in
improving safety outcomes in the Safe Systems
Pyramid. Second, the replacement by VMT of
LOS will shift focus away from vehicle speed,
capacity, and throughput in the design of
the transportation network, which allows for
roadway safety considerations to be better
prioritized.
24 Speed Safety Camera Pilot Program
Automated enforcement through the use
of cameras is an effective tool to improving
roadway safety outcomes. Deployment of
automated red light and speed enforcement
cameras in jurisdictions around the country
have had positive results in terms of their ability
to reduce violations, crashes, injuries, and
fatalities. These results exceed the efficacy of
traditional enforcement as cameras can operate
at all times, and do not require the presence
of on-duty personnel, which can be especially
helpful during times when law enforcement
agencies are short-staffed. Automated
enforcement also eliminates instances of bias in
enforcement based on arbitrary characteristics.

Thus, on the Safe Systems Pyramid, automated
enforcement is categorized into a higher
level of efficacy – as a latent measure – than
traditional enforcement, which is categorized as
an active measure.

Historically, automated red light cameras
are permitted in California, while automated
speed enforcement cameras are not. However,
Assembly Bill (AB) 645, which came into effect
in 2023, legalized speed enforcement cameras
on a pilot basis for six cities across the state –
Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Oakland,
San Francisco, and San Jose – for use in school
zones, designated safety corridors, highinjury intersections, and known street racing corridors.

Regional Policy
In addition to a review of federal and state
policy, the development of this LRSP included
a review of current and recent studies
completed by MCAG and its jurisdictions to
benchmark the region against Safe System
best practices.

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

The matrix that documents the results of
this benchmarking assessment is included as
Appendix A.
25 3
MCAG has engaged with stakeholders around
the region as well as the public throughout the
development of this LRSP. The engagement
process has sought insights from stakeholder
groups and the community at large to ensure
that the resulting LRSP creates a vision for
improving the region’s roadways that aligns
with the community’s values.

Stakeholder Group
A group of stakeholders was convened for
the preparation of this LRSP, which comprised
of representatives of staff from each of the
six local jurisdictions, as well as officials
from Merced County and Caltrans. Also
invited were school officials, officials from
Merced College and UC Merced, and active
transportation advocates. Over the course of
the development of the LRSP, the stakeholder
group met three times. During the first
meeting, groups discussed the initial collision
data analysis. Working group members shared
information about ongoing safety related
projects or policies taking place within their
jurisdiction or by their organization. During
the second meeting, the groups reviewed the
collision profiles and the countermeasures
identified for them, and discussed the
effectiveness of the profiles in capturing the
most significant challenges in the region.

During the final meeting, groups reviewed and
provided feedback on the conceptual projects
and the draft LRSP.

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

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

The webmap saw a total of 127 locations
tagged. A map and log of all tags are included in
Appendix B.

The community survey saw a total of 198
responses. The key takeaways from these
responses are summarized in the following
section. A full log of all responses is included in
Appendix B.
28 17%
27%
34%
16% 20%
39%
30%
13%
Comfort
with
Biking
34%
16% 20%
39%
30%
13%
Comfort
with
Walking
Figure 0.5
Community Survey
Results: People Are
Not Comfortable
Walking and Biking
Community Survey Results
The results of the community survey show
that there is plenty of room for improvement
when it comes to roadway safety in the region.

As shown in Figure 0.5, there continues to
be a lack of perception of comfort and safety
when it comes to walking and biking around
the region. Less than 20% of respondents
thought walking in their community is
comfortable, compared to just under 40%
of respondents having a neutral perception,
and over 40% of respondents being either
uncomfortable or very uncomfortable. Biking
fared even worse, with well over half of
respondents believing that biking around in
their community is uncomfortable or very
uncomfortable. Figure 0.6 shows the primary
roadway safety concerns for respondents that
contribute to such perceptions. As shown,
poor roadway conditions and maintenance
is top of mind, followed by drivers ignoring
traffic laws, distracted and aggressive driving,
and high vehicular speeds.

Very Comfortable
Comfortable Neutral
Very Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
Not enough time to cross the street
Lack of access for people with disabilities
Not enough crosswalks
Drivers not passing bicyclists safely
Missing or inadequate bike facilities
Poorly maintained bike facilities
Drivers not stopping for pedestrians
Narrow, broken, or missing sidewalks
Not enough street lighting
High vehicle speeds
Aggressive driving
Drivers ignoring traffic laws
Distracted driving
Poorly maintained roads
Figure 0.6
Community Survey Results: Roadway Safety Concerns
29 However, the survey results also reflected
strong community consensus around the
vision towards safer roadways in the region. As
shown in Figure 0.7, significant majorities of
respondents agreed with each of the roadway
safety strategies and priorities presented
to them. Respondents overwhelmingly
agreed that people’s safety is the top priority
consideration in roadway design, that
roadway safety should be prioritized over
roadway throughput, that creating space for
pedestrians and bicyclists should be prioritized
over parking, and that speed limits should be
lowered to 20 MPH where children or seniors
are present.

Strongly Agree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Agree
Intersection changes reducing the
possibility of crashes should be
prioritized over those reducing delay
In downtowns or commercial corridors,
space to walk, bike, and cross the street
safely should be prioritized over parking
In areas where children or elderly may be
present, the roadway should be designed
for cars to drive 20 mph or slower
When making decisions about
road or street design, safety
should be the top priority.
33%
35%
21%
5% 6%
53%
28%
9%
8%
81%
Support
33%
35%
21%
5% 6%
53%
28%
9%
8%
68%
Support
26%
34%
25%
9%
6%
31%
37%
24%
5%
68%
Support
26%
34%
25%
9%
6%
31%
37%
24%
5%
60%
Support
Figure 0.7
Community Survey Results:

People Agree That Roadway Safety is a Top Priority
Neutral
30 In-Person Outreach
Supplementing stakeholder engagement and
online engagement, MCAG’s project team also
conducted in-person outreach around the
region. To meet people where they are, rather
than requiring them to come to a meeting
specifically for the LRSP, project staff hosted
booths at local events whenever available.

These events provided the opportunity for the
engagement of a broader cross-section of the
public than that which would attend a typical
project-specific public meeting.

The team tabled at two major community
events, the Merced County Spring Fair in Los
Banos from May 1-5 of 2024, and the Merced
County Fair from June 5-9 of 2024. These fairs
saw thousands in attendance coming from
across the region. The team also tabled at
local events, including the Merced Mercado
Night Market in the City of Merced on May
2, 2024, and the Livingston Music In The Park
event on May 20, 2024. At each outreach
session, staff was available to inform the
public about this LRSP, its purpose and vision,
and direct interested members of the public
to provide their input via the website or paper
copies of the community survey.
31 4
This chapter presents a toolbox of safety
countermeasures that can be deployed to
address collision trends and systemic factors.

Systemic improvements, both engineering
and non-engineering related, were
identified for implementation. Engineering
countermeasures are physical, infrastructurebased improvements that can be made to roadways to reduce likelihood of collisions. In
addition to engineering and design strategies,
there are non-engineering strategies that
can be implemented to improve safety on
the region’s roads. These countermeasures
introduce education, enforcement, and other
policy instruments as means of encouraging
safer roadways through user behavior, and
they can be used to tackle traffic safety
problems such as alcohol and drug impaired
driving, distracted driving, speeding and speed
management, and pedestrian and bicycle
safety.

The Ninth Edition of Countermeasures That
Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure
Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
published by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2017,
served as a resource for the non-engineering
countermeasures presented in this section.

Non-engineering countermeasures are
given effectiveness ratings based on these
guidelines, if data is available. Figure 0.4
shows the scale for these ratings.

Proven Safety
Countermeasures
Limited or no high-quality evaluation evidence
Demonstrated to be effective by several highquality evaluations with consistent results Demonstrated to be
effective in certain situations
Likely to be effective based on
balance of evidence from highquality evaluations or other sources Effectiveness still undetermined as
different methods of implementation
produce different results
Figure 0.8
Effectiveness Ratings for NonEngineering Countermeasures Source: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
34 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Median Barrier
Barrier in the center of the roadway that
physically separates opposing vehicular
traffic. Median barriers can also help
control access to and from side streets and
driveways, reducing the number of conflict
points.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R03

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
What You'll See in This Toolbox
Countermeasure Title
Countermeasure Icon
Countermeasure Description
Countermeasure cost (excluding
ROW costs) and the availability of
low cost/quick build alternatives*
$ = less than $10k
$$ = from $10k to $100k
$$$ = greater than $100k
Countermeasure code in LRSM (if applicable)
Additional reference information (if applicable)
Countermeasure Category
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Median Barrier
Barrier in the center of the roadway that
physically separates opposing vehicular
traffic. Median barriers can also help
control access to and from side streets and
driveways, reducing the number of conflict
points.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R03

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Engineering Countermeasures
The following presents a set of candidate tools
for improving road safety performance in the
region. Many of these countermeasures are
recommended for the ten collision profiles of
emphasis included in this report. Most of the
countermeasures are included in the 2020
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)
and can be advantageous for use in Caltrans
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
grant funding applications. There are many
effective safety countermeasures beyond
those listed in the LRSM, and several are
included in this toolbox.

Safe System Hierarchy tier(s)
35 Shared-Use Path
Shared-use paths or trails are off -street
facilities that provide exclusive use for
nonmotorized travel, including bicyclists and
pedestrians. They could be located alongside
a roadway, or exist in a separate right-ofway. Bike paths have minimal cross flow with motorists and can be utilized for both
recreational and commute trips.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Bike Lane
Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for
bicyclists using pavement markings and
signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to
motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the
same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike
lanes are typically on the right side of the
street, between the adjacent travel lane and
curb, road edge, or travel lane.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R32PB

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
36 Buffered Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lanes are standard bike
lanes paired with a designated horizontal
buffer space, separating the bicycle lane
from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane
and/or parking lane. This type of bikeway
provides greater distance between vehicles
and bicycles; provides space for bicyclists
to pass each other; provides greater space
for bicycling without making the bike lane
appear so wide that it might be mistaken for
a travel lane; and encourages bicycling by
contributing to the perception of safety.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R32PB

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway, also called a cycletrack,
provides dedicated street space, typically
adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes, with
physical separation from vehicle traffic,
designated lane markings, pavement legends,
and signage. Physical separation may consist
of plastic posts, parked vehicles, raised
median, or a curb (if the separated bike
lane is raised to sidewalk level). Separated
bikeways reduce conflicts between people
biking and motorists. They also provide more
physical protection that further reduces the
risk of severe conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles on the road. Separated bike lanes
can also help manage or reduce vehicle
speeds as some of the design features can
have a traffic calming effect.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R33PB

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
37 Bicycle Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
Solid green paint across an intersection
signifies the path of the bicycle crossing.

Increases visibility of bicyclists’ anticipated
path of travel through an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Bicycle Ramp
A ramp that connects bicyclists from the
road to the sidewalk or a shared use path.

Cost $

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
38 Bicycle Signal/Exclusive
Bike Phase
A traffic signal directing bicycle traffic
across an intersection. Separates in time
bicycle movements from conflicting
motor vehicle, streetcar, light rail, or
pedestrian movements. May be applicable
for Class IV facilities when the bikeway is
brought up to the intersection.

Cost $$$

BIKEWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
A sign placed on roads with lanes that are
too narrow to allow safe side-by-side in-lane
passing of a bicyclist by a motorist - signs
indicate that bicyclists may occupy the
full lane. Intended to encourage motorists
to provide ample space between side of
the vehicle and an adjacent bicyclist when
passing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
39 Bike Box
A designated area between crosswalk and
vehicle stop bar at a signalized intersection
that is often painted green where bicyclists
can wait during a red signal phase. Use of the
bike box, places bicyclists in a location where
they are more visible to motorists.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB

BIKEWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Bike Detection
Technology used at signalized intersections,
either through use of push-buttons, inpavement loops, or by video or infrared cameras, to call a green light for bicyclists
and reduce delay for bicycle travel.

Discourages red light running by bicyclists
and increases convenience of bicycling.

Cost $$

BIKEWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
40 Bike-Friendly Drain
Drains that avoid placing grating in the rightof-way that may pose a hazard to bicyclists by increasing their risk of falling.

Cost $$

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Door Zone Markings
Pavement markings denoting door zone
of parked vehicles to raise awareness of
bicyclists and motorists of that conflict area
where an open car door could obstruct the
path of a passing bicyclist.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
41 Extend Bike Lane to
Intersection
In locations where a bike lane is dropped due
to the addition of a right turn pocket, the
intersection approach may be restriped to
allow for bicyclists to move to the left side of
right turning vehicles ahead of reaching the
intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Prolongs the green phase when bicyclists
are present to provide additional time for
bicyclists to clear the intersection. Can
occur automatically in the signal phasing
or when prompted with bicycle detection.

Topography should be considered in
clearance time.

Cost $
LRSM ID S03

BIKEWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
42 Floating Transit Island or
Bus Boarding Island
Transit boarding island that is designed to
allow bicycles to pass between the sidewalk
and island thereby avoiding a bus-bike
conflict when the bus stops at the boarding
island. Can be used in combination with a
bike lane, bufferred bike lane, or separated
bike lane. Teh treatment can also reduce
vehicle speeds as the island itself visually
narrows the roadway and can have a traffic
calming effect.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Green Conflict Striping
Green conflict striping is green pavement
markings in a dashed pattern that extend
across bike lanes approaching an intersection
and/or going through an intersection.

Green conflict striping improves increases
the visibility bicyclists and potential conflict
points so motorists and bicyclists can use
caution when traveling toward and through
an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
43 Mixing Zone
When a suggested bike lane is within the
inside portion of a dedicated motor vehicle
turn lane. Lane markings delineate space for
bicyclists and motorists within the same lane
and indicate the intended path for bicyclists
to reduce conflict with turning motor
vehicles.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Two-Stage Turn
Queue Bike Box
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists
with a means of making a left turn at a multilane signalized intersection from a bike lane or cycle track on the far right side of the
roadway. In this way, bicyclists are removed
from the flow of traffic while waiting to turn.

Use of this treatment could be mirrored for
right-turns from a one-way street with a leftside bikeway.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

BIKEWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
44 All-Way Stop Control
An all-way stop-controlled intersection
requires all vehicles to stop before crossing
the intersection. An all-way stop controlled
intersection reduces the risk of severe
conflicts as long as all road users see and
obey the stop signs. MUTCD includes
information on when and how to implement
“All Way” Or “Multi-Way” stop control
intersections.

Cost $
LRSM ID NS02

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Centerline Hardening
Centerline hardening involves placing
durable plastic bollards, flex posts, and/or
rubber curbs along the centerline. When
used at intersections, they can be effective
at requiring motorists to make left-turn
movements at a 90-degree angle thereby
slowing vehicle speeds and improving
motorists’ visibility of the crosswalks across
which they travel when turning. When used
along a roadway segment, they can be
effective at generally slowing vehicle speeds
and preventing undesirable left-turning and/
or U-turns between intersections.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
45 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24
Close Slip Lane
Modifies the corner of an intersection to
remove the sweeping right turn lane for
vehicles. Results in shorter crossings for
pedestrians, reduced speed for turning
vehicles, better sight lines, and space for
landscaping and other amenities.

Cost $$$

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Directional Median Openings
to Restrict Left Turns
A directional median opening restricts
specific turning movements, such as allowing
a left-turn from a major street but not from
a minor street. A directional median opening
to restrict left turn improves safety by
reducing the number of conflict points.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S14

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
46 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Guardrail
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from
embankment slopes or fixed objects and
dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.

Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of
lane departure crashes. However, guardrail
can reduce crash severity only for those
conditions where striking the guardrail is less
severe than going down an embankment or
striking a fixed object.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R04

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Improved Pavement Friction
High friction surface treatments improve
a vehicles’ ability to stay on the roadway
as well as come to a stop over a shorter
distance. The treatment can be used to
help address roadway departure crashes
and/or intersection crashes on approach to
unsignalized intersections.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R21

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
47 Intersection Reconstruction
and Tightening
Intersections that intersect at a skewed angle
or angle notably different than 90-degrees
have a greater likelihood of collisions.

Squaring up the intersection helps reduce
the likelihood of collisions. “Squaring up”
an intersection as close to 90 degrees as
possible involves intersection reconstruction
and approach realignment to provide better
visibility for all road users, also reducing
high speed turns, reducing length exposure
for vehicles and/or bikes passing through
the intersection, and reducing pedestrian
crossing length.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Lane Narrowing
Lane narrowing reduces the width of the
marked vehicle lanes to encourage motorists
to travel at slower speeds. Lane narrowing
can also help reallocate existing roadway
space to other road users.

Cost $

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
48 Left Turn Enhanced
Daylighting/Slow Turn Wedge
Uses paint and bollards to extend the
curb and slow left turns at intersections of
one-way to one-way or two-way streets.

Widening the turning radii of left-turning
vehicles expands the field of vision for drivers
and increases the visibility of pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Median Barrier
Barrier in the center of the roadway that
physically separates opposing vehicular
traffic. Median barriers can also help
control access to and from side streets and
driveways, reducing the number of conflict
points.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R03

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
49 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=34
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Neighborhood traffic circles are circular
intersections similar to roundabouts, but
are stop controlled on the approach and
intended for smaller intersections. Typically,
they supplement existing stop-controlled
intersections with a circular island in the
center that is designed to slow traffic and
eliminates severe conflict points (such as
conflicting left-turn movements).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Partial Closure/Diverter
A roadway treatment that restricts through
vehicle movements using physical diversion
while allowing bicyclists and pedestrians
to proceed through an intersection in all
directions.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
50 Other Reference Information
Evolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta
Planning and Design, December 2015. https://
altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolutionof-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf Protected Intersection
Protected intersections use corner islands,
curb extensions, and colored paint to
delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements
across an intersection. Slower driving speeds
and shorter crossing distance increase safety
for pedestrians. Separates bicycles from
pedestrians as well as moving vehicles.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Raised Crosswalk
A Raised Crosswalk is a pedestrian crosswalk
that is typically elevated 3-6 inches above the
road or at sidewalk level. A Raised Crosswalk
improves increases crosswalk and pedestrian
visibility and slows down motorists.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R36PB

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
51 Other Reference Information
Note: some studies in CMF Clearinghouse show an
increase in crashes. See additional source below
showing decrease. (1) Perkins+Will Consultant
Team. “Pedestrians at Multi-Modal Intersections.”
Better Market Street Existing Conditions & Best
Practices, Part Two: Best Practices 36-58, City &
County of San Francisco, San Francisco. http://
www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/about-reportsexisting-conditions.html (2) Bhatt, Shailen, Natalie Barnhart, Mark Luszcz, Tom Meyer, & Michael
Sommers. “Delaware Traffic Calming Design Manual.”
Delaware Department of Transportation, State of
Delaware, Dover, DE. https://nacto.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/DE-Trafc-Calming-Manual_2012.
pdf (3) King, Michael R, Jon A Carnegie, and Reid
Ewing. “Pedestrian Safety through a Raised Median
and Redesigned Intersections.” Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1828 (1), 56-66,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
https://trid.trb.org/view/663867 (4) Fitzpatrick,
Kay, Mark D Wooldridge, and Joseph D Blaschke.
“Urban Intersection Design Guide: Volume 1–
Guidelines.” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University System, Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, TX. https://static.tti.tamu.
edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4365-P2.pdf
Raised Intersection
Elevates the intersection to bring vehicles to
the sidewalk level. Serves as a traffic calming
measure by extending the sidewalk context
across the road.

Cost $$$

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Raised Median
Curbed sections in the center of the roadway
that are physically separated from vehicular
traffic. Raised medians can also help
control access to and from side streets and
driveways, reducing conflict points.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S12/NS14/R08

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
52 Reduced Left-Turn
Conflict Intersection
Geometric designs that alter how left-turn
movements occur can simplify decisions and
minimize the potential for left-turn related
crashes. Two designs that rely on U-turns
to complete certain left-turn movements
are known as the restricted crossing U-turn
(RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). Both
designs require some out of direction travel
for vehicles.

Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS16

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Refuge Island
A Raised Median, or Refuge Island, is a raised
barrier in the center of the roadway that
can restrict certain turning movements and
provide a place for pedestrians to wait if they
are unable to finish crossing the intersection.

A Raised Median reduces the number of
potential conflict points with designated
zones for vehicles to turn, and a pedestrian
refuge island reduces the exposure for
pedestrians crossing the intersection.

Pedestrian refuge areas constructed from
paint and plastic may be implemented as
part of a low-cost/quick build project.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS19PB

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
53 Road Diet
A Road Diet reduces roadway space
dedicated to vehicle travel lanes to create
room for bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks,
or center turn lanes. A Road Diet ireduces
vehicle speeds and creates designated space
for all road users.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R14

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Roundabout
A roundabout is a type of circular
intersection in which road traffic is permitted
to flow in one direction around a central
island, and priority is typically given to traffic
already in the junction. The types of conflicts
that occur at roundabouts are different
from those occurring at conventional
intersections; namely, severe conflicts from
crossing and left-turn movements are not
present in a roundabout. The geometry of a
roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds
as they proceed through the intersection;
the range of vehicle speeds is also narrowed,
reducing the severity of crashes when they
do occur. Pedestrians also only have to
cross one direction of traffic at a time at
roundabouts, thus reducing exposure to
vehicle traffic.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S16/NS04

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
54 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Rumble Strips
Rumble strips create noise and vibration
inside the vehicle that alert a driver as they
cross the centerline or edge line. Treatment
can help with lane keeping instances where a
driver is distracted or drowsy. Rumble strips
also alert drivers to the lane limits when
conditions such as rain, fog, snow, or dust
reduce driver visibility.

Cost $
LRSM ID R30/R31

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Safety Edge
When a vehicle leaves the traveled way and
encounters a pavement-shoulder drop-off,
it can be difficult for the driver to return
safely to the roadway. A safety edge is a
treatment intended to minimize the severity
of roadway or lane departure crashes. With
this treatment, the shoulder pavement edge
is sloped at an angle (30-35 degrees) to
make it easier for a driver to safely reenter
the roadway after inadvertently driving
onto the shoulder. This treatment could
be incorporated as a standard practice in
overlay or roadway resurfacing projects.

Cost $

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
55 Other Reference Information
Currently the CMF Clearinghouse has only one
reference for ped/vehicle collisions which indicates
an increase in crash likelihood. However, a majority
of references for all crash types show a decrease in
collisions. See additional reference: FHWA Manual for
Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signal
Traffic signals at intersections control the
flow of traffic by assigning right-of-way to
different movements at different times.

Some traffic signal phasing is more effective
at reducing the likelihood of severe injury
collisions. For example, protected left-turn
signal phasing reduces the likelihood of
severe left-turn collisions more effectively
than permitted left-turn signal phasing.

Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS03

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Speed Hump or Speed Table
These traffic calming devices use vertical
defection to raise the entire wheelbase of a
vehicle and encourage motorists to travel at
slower speeds .

Cost $

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
56 Splitter Island
A raised area that separates the two
directions of travel on the minor street
approach at an unsignalized intersection
or roundabout. Helps channelize traffic in
opposing directions of travel. Also helps
improve the visibility of an intersection
when approaching it. Provides a refuge for
pedestrians.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS13

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Straighten Crosswalk
Straightening crosswalks improves sight
lines, making pedestrians more visible to
oncoming drivers, and may shorten the
crossing distance, reducing the length of
time required for pedestrians to cross an
intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
57 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Superelevation at Horizontal
Curve Locations
Superelevation is the rotation of the
pavement on the approach to and through
a horizontal curve and is intended to
assist the driver in negotiating the curve
by counteracting the lateral acceleration
produced by tracking. In other words, the
road is designed so that the pavement
rises as it curves, offsetting the horizontal
sideways momentum of the approaching
vehicle. Superelevation can help vehicles
stay on the roadway. Superelevation can
also inadvertently make it easier for drivers
to drive at higher than desirable speeds.

Consider the target or desired speed for a
roadway and relevant design guidance when
selecting appropriate superelevation.

Cost $$

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Widen/Pave Shoulder
Widened and paved shoulders, which may
also include flattening the slopes along the
sides of the roadway, create a separated
space for bicyclists, create space for a driver
to safely recover if they inadvertently depart
the travel lane, and also provides space for
inoperable vehicles to pull out of the travel
lane. The addition of a paved shoulder to an
existing road can help to reduce run-off-road
crashes. Benefits can be realized for high
risk rural roads without paved shoulders,
regardless of existing lane pavement width.

Adding paved shoulders within horizontal
curve sections may help agencies maximize
benefits of the treatment while minimizing
costs as opposed to adding paved shoulders
to an entire corridor.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R15

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
58 Other Reference Information
Data in the CMF Clearinghouse is currently limited to
bicycle/vehicle collisions. See additional reference:

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=1
Add Sidewalk
Adding sidewalks provides a separated and
continuous facility for people to walk along
the roadway.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R34PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Push buttons must comply with the
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
standards for accessibility. Pushbuttons
should be visible and conveniently located for
pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk. Accessible
pedestrian signals, including audible push
buttons, improve access for pedestrians
who are blind or have low vision. DIB 82-06
includes accessibility design guidance.

Cost $

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
59 Co-Locate Bus Stops and
Pedestrian Crossings
Place bus stops and pedestrian crossings
in close proximity to allow transit riders to
cross the street at well-designed crossing
locations.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
(1) Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for
Streets and Highways, NCHRP, 2016. https://www.nap.
edu/catalog/24634/application-of-pedestrian-crossingtreatments-for-streets-and-highways (2) Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, NCHRP, 2017. https://
www.nap.edu/catalog/24627/development-of-crashmodifcation-factors-for-uncontrolled-pedestriancrossing-treatments (3) Evaluation of PedestrianRelated Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
cms/downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
Curb Extensions
A curb extension is a traffic calming measure
which widens the sidewalk for a short
distance to enhance the pedestrian crossing.

This reduces the crossing distance and allows
pedestrians and drivers to see each other
when parked vehicles would otherwise block
visibility. Paint and plastic curb extensions are
a low-cot/quick build option.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS21PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
60 Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Extend Time Push Button
A push button that can be pressed to request
extra time for using the crosswalk, beyond
the standard crossing time. Ideal near seniorserving land uses.

Cost $

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
High-Visibility Crosswalk
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped
pattern with ladder markings made of highvisibility material, such as thermoplastic tape, instead of paint. A high-visibility crosswalk
improves the visibility of marked crosswalks
and provides motorists a cue to slow down
and yield to pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S18/NS20

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
61 Install/Upgrade Pedestrian
Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (Signs and
Markings Only)
A pedestrian crossing at an intersection or on
a segment provides a formalized location for
people to cross the street, reducing the risk
of people crossing outside crosswalks where
drivers are not expecting them. Crosswalk
striping, signs, and other enhanced features
alert drivers that there may be a pedestrian
crossing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R35PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Landscape Buffer
Separating drivers from bicyclists and
pedestrians using landscaping provides more
space between the modes and can produce
a traffic calming effect by encouraging
drivers to drive at slower speeds, lowering
the risk of crashing.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
62 Other Reference Information
Pedestrian Phase Recall: Evaluation of PedestrianRelated Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
cms/downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
Leading Pedestrian
Interval and Pedestrian Recall
At intersection locations that have a high
volume of turning vehicle and have high
pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, a leading
pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the
opportunity to enter an intersection 3 - 7
seconds before vehicles are given a green
indication. With this head start, pedestrians
can better establish their presence in the
crosswalk before vehicles have priority to
turn left or right.

Cost $
LRSM ID S21PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Displays “countdown” of seconds remaining
on the pedestrian signal. Countdown
indications improve safety for all road users,
and are required for all newly installed traffic
signals where pedestrian signals are installed.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S17PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
63 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=11
Pedestrian Detection
An intersection treatment that relies on
sensors to detect when a pedestrian is
waiting at a crosswalk and automatically
triggers the pedestrian “WALK” phase.

Reduces crossings at inappropriate
times while providing sufficient time for
pedestrians to cross the roadway.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
A pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB) is used
at unsignalized intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists to
stop with a series of red and yellow lights.

Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in dark
until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton
or other form of detection.

Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS23PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
64 Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB)
is a pedestrian-activated flashing light with
additional signage to alert motorists of a
pedestrian crossing. An RRFB increases the
visibility of marked crosswalks and provides
motorists a cue to slow down and yield to
pedestrians.

Cost $$
LRSM ID NS22PB

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Removes existing crossing prohibitions
and provides marked crosswalk and other
crossing enhancements for pedestrians to
cross the street.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
65 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=4
Restripe Crosswalk
Periodic restriping of crosswalks is necessary
to maintaing visibility of the traffic markings.

Crosswalk may be restriped with high
visibility markings.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=3
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Tactile warning devices must be detectable
to visually impaired pedestrians. Curb ramps
must follow the DIB 82-06 design guidelines.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
66 Widen Sidewalk
Widening sidewalks provides a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high volumes
of pedestrians, and provides space to
accommodate people in wheelchairs.

Widening sidewalks reduces the likelihood
of collisions with pedestrians walking in the
road.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system adjusts the start time of the yellowsignal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on observed vehicle locations and speeds. The
Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system
minimizes the number of drivers that are
faced with the dilemma of determining if
they should stop at the intersection or drive
through the intersection based on their
speed and distance from the intersection.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S04

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
67 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=4
Restripe Crosswalk
Periodic restriping of crosswalks is necessary
to maintaing visibility of the traffic markings.

Crosswalk may be restriped with high
visibility markings.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=3
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Tactile warning devices must be detectable
to visually impaired pedestrians. Curb ramps
must follow the DIB 82-06 design guidelines.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
68 Widen Sidewalk
Widening sidewalks provides a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high volumes
of pedestrians, and provides space to
accommodate people in wheelchairs.

Widening sidewalks reduces the likelihood
of collisions with pedestrians walking in the
road.

Cost $$

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system adjusts the start time of the yellowsignal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on observed vehicle locations and speeds. The
Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system
minimizes the number of drivers that are
faced with the dilemma of determining if
they should stop at the intersection or drive
through the intersection based on their
speed and distance from the intersection.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S04

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
69 Extend Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Increases time for pedestrian walk phases,
especially to accommodate vulnerable
populations, such as children and the elderly.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S03

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Extend Yellow and All Red Time
Extending yellow and all red time increases
the time allotted for the yellow and red
lights during a signal phase. Extending
yellow and all red time allows drivers and
bicyclists a few additional seconds of time
at the end of a signal phase to cross through
a signalized intersection before conflicting
traffic movements are permitted to enter the
intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S03

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
70 Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Flashing yellow turn arrow alerts drivers to
proceed with caution and decide if there
is a sufficient gap in oncoming traffic to
safely make a turn. To be used only when
a pedestrian walk phase is not called.

Protected-only phases should be used when
pedestrians are present.

Cost $$

SIGNALS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Pedestrian Scramble
A form of pedestrian “WALK” phase
at a signalized intersection in which all
vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing
pedestrians to cross through the intersection
in any direction, including diagonally.

Cost $
LRSM ID S03

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
71 Prohibit Left Turn
Prohibitions of left turns at locations where a
turning vehicle may conflict with pedestrians
in the crosswalk or where opposing
traffic volume is high. Reduces pedestrian
interaction with vehicles when crossing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S15/NS16

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
Currently the CMF Clearinghouse does not include
specific studies; however, permitting right-turnson-red shows an increase in ped/vehicle crashes.

Additional information is available at the FHWA
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection
System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=49
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements
should be considered at skewed
intersections, or where exclusive pedestrian
“WALK” phases, Leading Pedestrian
Intervals (LPIs), sight distance issues, or high
pedestrian volumes are present. Can help
prevent crashes between vehicles turning
right on red from one street and through
vehicles on the cross street, and crashes
involving pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
72 Prohibit Turns During
Pedestrian Phase
Restricts left or right turns during the
pedestrian crossing phase at locations
where a turning vehicle may conflict with
pedestrians in the crosswalk. This restriction
may be displayed with a blank-out sign.

Cost $

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Protected Left Turns
A protected left turn can be implemented
at signalized intersections (with existing
left turns pockets) that currently have
a permissive left-turn or no left-turn
protection. Providing protected left-turn
phases for signalized intersections removes
the need for the drivers to navigate through
gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S06/S07

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
73 Retroreflective Tape on Signals
Retroreflective borders enhance the
visibility of traffic signals for aging and
color vision impaired drivers enabling them
to understand which signal indication is
illuminated. Retroreflective borders may also
alert drivers to signalized intersections during
periods of power outages when the signals
would otherwise be dark, and non–reflective
signal heads and backplates would not be
visible.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S02

SIGNALS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
(1) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway
Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/
downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.
pdf (2) FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Provides a green arrow phase for rightturning vehicles. Avoids conflicts between right-turning traffic and bicyclists or
pedestrians crossing the intersection on their
right.

Cost $$$

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
74 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=45
Shorten Cycle Length
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a significant
impact on the quality of the urban realm
and consequently, the opportunities for
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles
to operate effectively along a corridor. Long
signal cycles, compounded over multiple
intersections, can make crossing a street or
walking even a short distance prohibitive
and frustrating. Short cycle lengths of 60–90
seconds are ideal for urban areas.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Signal Interconnectivity and
Coordination / Green Wave
The emphasis of improving signal
coordination for this countermeasure is to
provide an opportunity for slow speed signal
coordination. Coordinating signals to allow
for bicyclist progression, also known as a
‘green wave,’ gives bicyclists and pedestrians
more time to cross through the ‘green wave’
intersections. It also slows vehicle speeds
helping to reduce the likelihood of severe
collisions.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S03

SIGNALS
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
75 Speed Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
At certain hours (e.g. late night) a signal
remains red for all approaches or certain
approaches until a vehicle arrives at the
intersection. If the vehicle is going faster than
the desired speed, the signal will not turn
green until after vehicle stops. If the vehicle
is going the desired speed the signal will
change to green before the vehicle arrives.

This signal timing provides operational
benefit to drivers traveling at the desired
speed limit. Can be paired with variable
speed warning signs.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R26

SIGNALS
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
Supplemental Signal Heads
Additional signal heads allow drivers to
anticipate signal changes farther away
from intersections. Supplemental traffic
signals may be placed on the near side of an
intersection, far-left, far-right, or very high.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S02

SIGNALS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
76 Upgrade Signal Head
Upgrading Signal Heads replaces existing
8-inch signal heads with 12-inch signal heads
to comply with the California MUTCD’s 2014
guidelines. Upgrading signal heads provides
better visibility of intersection signals and
by aiding drivers’ advanced perception of
upcoming intersections.

Cost $
LRSM ID S02

SIGNALS
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Advance Stop Bar
An advanced stop bar is a horizontal stripe
painted ahead of the crosswalk at stop
signs and signals to indicate where drivers
should stop. An advanced stop bar reduces
instances of vehicles encroaching on the
crosswalk. Creating a wider stop bar or
setting the stop bar further back may
be appropriate for locations with known
crosswalk encroachment issues.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
77 Advance Yield Markings
Yield lines are placed 20 to 50 feet in
advance of multi-lane pedestrian crossings
to increase visibility of pedestrians. They can
reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat
crash.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Chevron Signs on
Horizontal Curves
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to
warn drivers of an approaching curve and
provide tracking information and guidance to
the drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R23

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
78 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Curve Advance Warning Sign
A curve advance warning sign notifies drivers
of an approaching curve and may include
an advisory speed limit as drivers navigate
around the curve. This warning sign is ideally
combined with other infrastructure that
alerts drivers of the curve, such as chevron
signs, delineators, and flashing beacons. A
curve advance warning sign provides drivers
additional time to slow down for the curve.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R24

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Flashing Beacon as
Advance Warning
A flashing beacon as Advanced Warning is a
blinking light with signage to notify motorists
of an upcoming intersection or crosswalk. A
flashing beacon improves provides motorists
more time to be aware of and slow down
for an intersection or yield to pedestrians
crossing a crosswalk.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S10

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
79 LED-Enhanced Sign
An LED-Enhanced Sign has LED lights
embedded in the sign to outline the sign
itself or the words and symbols on the sign.

The LEDs may be set to flash or operate
in a steady mode. An LED-enhanced
sign improves the visibility of signs at
locations with visibility limitations or with a
documented history of drivers failing to see
or obey the sign (e.g. at STOP signs).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS08

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Painted Centerline and Raised
Pavement Markers at Curves
on Residential Streets
A raised pavement marker is a small
device attached to the road and used as a
positioning guide for drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
80 Speed Feedback Sign
A speed feedback sign notifies drivers of
their current speed, usually followed by a
reminder of the posted speed limit. A speed
feedback sign provides a cue for drivers
to check their speed and slow down, if
necessary.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Speed Legends on Pavement
at Neighborhood Entries
Speed legends are numerals painted on the
roadway indicating the current speed limit in
miles per hour. They are usually placed near
speed limit signposts.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
81 Striping Through Intersection
Adding clear pavement markings can guide
motorists through complex intersections.

Intersections where the lane designations are
not clearly visible to approaching motorists
and/or intersections noted as being complex
and experiencing crashes that could be
attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt
to navigate the intersection can benefit from
this treatment.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S09

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Time-Based Turn Restriction
Restricts left-turns or right-turns during
certain time periods when there may be
increased potential for conflict (e.g., peak
periods, school hours).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Manage
Conflicts
in Time
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
82 Upgrade Intersection
Pavement Markings
Upgrading intersection pavement marking
can include “Stop Ahead” markings and
the addition of centerlines and stop bars.

Upgrading intersection pavement markings
can increase the visibility of intersections for
drivers approaching and at the intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS07

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Upgrade Signs with
Fluorescent Sheeting
Upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting
replaces existing signs with new signs that
can clearly display warnings by reflecting
headlamp light back to vehicles. Upgrading
signs with fluorescent sheeting improves
visibility of signs to drivers at night.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R22

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
83 Upgrade Striping
Restripe lanes with reflective striping to
improve striping visibility and clarify lane
assignment, especially where the number of
lanes changes.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Upgrade to Larger
Warning Signs
Upgrading to larger warning signs replaces
existing signs with physically larger signs with
larger warning information. Upgrading to
larger warning signs increases the visibility
of the information provided, particularly for
older drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS06

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
84 Wayfinding
A network of signs that highlight nearby
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Can help to
reduce crossings at locations with poor sight
distance or limited crossing enhancements.

Cost $

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Yield To Pedestrians Sign
“Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs alert
drivers about the presence of pedestrians.

These signs are required with advance yield
lines. Other sign types can be placed on the
centerline in the roadway.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS06

SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
85 Other Reference Information
The CMF Clearinghouse has limited research related to
vehicle/pedestrian crashes. See additional reference:

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=20
Access Management/
Close Driveway
Vehicles entering and exiting driveways may
conflict with pedestrians and with vehicles
on the main road, especially at driveways
within 250 feet of intersections. Driveway
consolidation reduces conflict points along a
segment and/or near intersections.

Cost $$
OTHER
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Back-In Angled Parking
Back-In Angled Parking requires motorists to
back into an angled on-street parking spot
and to drive forward when exiting a parking
spot. Back-in angled parking increases the
visibility of passing vehicles and bicycles while
exiting a spot, particularly if large adjacent
vehicles obstruct sight, and allows trunk
unloading to happen on the curb instead of
in the street.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
86 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Create or Increase Clear Zone
A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable
roadside area that allows a driver to stop
safely or regain control of a vehicle that has
left the roadway. The width of the clear zone
is informed by roadway context, desired
vehicle speeds, and agency design standards.

Cost $$
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Curbside Management
Curbside management helps prioritize
different uses that would otherwise be in
conflict with one another such as location
of bus stops, bicycle infrastructure, freight
deliveries, passenger pick-ups/drop-offs,
green stormwater infrastructure, public
spaces, and parking management.

Cost $
OTHER
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
87 Delineators, Reflectors,
and/or Object Markers
Delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers are intended to warn drivers of
an approaching curve or fixed object that
cannot easily be removed. They are generally
less costly than Chevron Signs as they don’t
require posts to place along the roadside.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R27
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Far-Side Bus Stop
Far-side bus stops are located immediately
after an intersection, allowing the bus to pass
through the intersection before stopping for
passenger loading and unloading. Far-side
stops encourage pedestrians to cross behind
the bus for greater visibility and can improve
transit service reliability.

Cost $
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
88 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Impact Attenuators
Impact attenuators bring an errant vehicle
to a more-controlled stop or redirect the
vehicle away from a rigid object. Impact
attenuators are typically used to shield rigid
roadside objects such as concrete barrier
ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars
from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators
tend to be installed where it is impractical for
the objects to be removed.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R05
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
Pedestrian-Level Lighting: FHWA Pedestrian
Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection
System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=8
Intersection Lighting
Adding intersection and/or pedestrianscale lighting at intersections increases the visibility of all road users. This
countermeasure is most effective at reducing
or preventing collisions at intersections
at night or in low light conditions. When
lighting pedestrian crosswalks, it is helpful
to use lighting analysis to avoid designs that
inadvertently introduce glare or backlight
pedestrians making it hard for motorists to
see them.

Cost $$
LRSM ID NS01
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
89 Median Guardrail
The installation of median guardrail is most
suitable for use in traversable medians
having no or little change in grade and cross
slope. While these systems may not reduce
the frequency of crashes due to roadway
departure, they can help prevent a lanedeparture crash from becoming a head-on collision.

Cost $$
OTHER
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Red Light Camera
A red light camera enforces traffic signal
compliance by capturing the image of a
vehicle that has entered an intersection in
spite of the traffic signal indicating red. The
automatic photographic evidence is used by
authorities to enforce traffic laws and issue
traffic violation tickets.

Cost $$
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
90 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Relocate Select Hazardous
Utility Poles
Relocating or removing utility poles from
within the clear zone alleviates the potential
for fixed-object crashes. If utility poles
cannot be completely eliminated from within
the clear zone, efforts can be made to either
relocate the poles to a greater offset from
the road or delineated.

Cost $$
OTHER
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Remove
Severe
Conflicts
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Remove Obstructions
For Sightlines
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear
sightline. May include installing red curb at
intersection approaches to remove parked
vehicles (also called “daylighting”), trimming
or removing landscaping, or removing or
relocating large signs.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS11
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
91 Segment Lighting
Providing roadway lighting increases driver
awareness and can improve visibility of other
road users and/or objects in the roadway.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R01
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference Information
TRB Study on Setting Speed Limits; also Richard,
C. M., Magee, K., Bacon-Abdelmoteleb, P., &
Brown, J. L. (2018, April). Countermeasures that
work: A highway safety countermeasure guide
for State Highway Safety Offices, Ninth edition
(Report No. DOT HS 812 478). Washington, DC:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Speed Limit Reduction
As an industry, there is a consistent
movement away from setting speed limits
solely based on 85th percentile vehicle
speeds. Roadway characteristics, adjacent
land use context, as well as the risk higher
speeds create for all road users are now
considered. Where separate space is not
available for vulnerable road users and/
or severe conflicts (e.g., crossing or turning
conflicts) are present between motorvehicles
speeds of 25 mph are preferable to reduce
the risk of severe collisions. Where separated
space is provided for vulnerable road users
and severe conflicts between vehicles are
managed, speed limits above 25 mph can be
considered.

Cost $
OTHER
Increase
Attentiveness
and Awareness
Safe System Hierarchy
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Reduce
Vehicle
Speeds
92 93
94 Education & Public Awareness Campaigns Targeted at Speeding, Driving Under the Influence, and Increasing Awareness of People Walking and Biking Coordinate with member agencies to use
existing social media accounts (e.g. Facebook,
NextDoor, Twitter, etc.) to establish an ongoing
public education campaign focused on safe
and responsible driving, discouraging drinking
and driving, and increasing awareness of
pedestrians and bicyclists. Campaigns could
also involve collaborating with local radio
stations to disseminate safety messages in
English and Spanish. Additionally, campaigns
could collaborate with community-based
organizations and direct service providers to
vulnerable populations.

Resources
The OTS Go Safely California campaign has
free resources for local agencies to use in
implementing public awareness campaigns.

Lead Agency
• MCAG
• Member agency Police Departments
Partners
• Member agency Communications
Departments
• Member agency Public Health
Departments
• Community-based organizations
• Local media outlets
• OTS Go Safely California Campaign
Funding Sources
California Office of Traffic (OTS) grants
Context
Regional
Effectiveness
Mass Media Campaigns on DUI
Pedestrian Crossing Campaign
San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency’s (SFMTA) “Be Nice, Look Twice”
Pedestrian Safety Campaign aims to increase
driver awareness of pedestrians in crosswalks
and encourage proper yielding behavior.

Source: SFMTA
Turning Campaign
“Safety - It’s Your Turn”, an SFMTA campaign,
encourages safe left-turn behavior through
social media, billboard, and bus poster
messaging, disseminated in multiple languages.

Source: SFMTA
Nonengineering Countermeasures
95 Prevention and education policies focus on
mobilizing and educating the community and
intervening before driving under the influence
takes place. According to NHTSA research,
alcohol problem assessment and treatment
programs, as well as alcohol intervention in
settings such as a doctor’s office, are highly
effective strategies for improving safety
outcomes.

To help residents with alcohol treatment,
the Merced County Substance Use Disorder
(SUD) Division provides services that include
treatment and education. The County’s
Department of Public Health could partner
with the member agency Police Departments
to share information and conduct screenings.

Resources • Behavior Change Campaigns to Improve
Traffic Safety Toolkit
• Countermeasures that Work, 10th Edition
Lead Agency • Merced County Substance Use Disorder
(SUD) Division
• Merced County Department of Public
Health
Partners • Medical offices/centers • Member agency Police Departments • California Highway Patrol (CHP) Funding Sources
California Office of Traffic (OTS) grants
Context
Regional, focused on DUI crash hotspots
Effectiveness
Alcohol Screening & Brief Intervention
Public Health Partnerships on
DUI Prevention
96 Deterrence policies, such as high visibility
enforcement, focus on raising the actual and
perceived risk of high-risk behaviors. Member
agency Police Departments should continue
their use of high visibility enforcement for
DUIs to deter and increase awareness of the
risks of this behavior.

High visibility enforcement for driving under
the influence, such as publicized sobriety
checkpoints and saturation patrols, has
been found to be effective to improve
safety outcomes. Since speeding and driving
aggressively are moving violations, officers
can focus their efforts along corridors with
a history of speeding-related collisions and
speeding violations since they must observe
driving behavior on the road.

Based on the evaluation evidence gathered
by NHTSA in Countermeasures that Work,
the findings have been inconclusive on the
effectiveness of high-visibility enforcement
efforts focused on speeding and driving
aggressively. Some studies found these efforts
produced safety-related benefits while other
studies found these efforts produced no
benefits or even negative outcomes (e.g. an
increase in crashes).

Integrated enforcement would include
coordination with Public Awareness
Campaigns. For example, widespread
dissemination of multi-lingual educational
messaging and promotion of safe rides
home programs in advance of major DUI
enforcement efforts will help to mitigate
equity concerns about disproportionate
impacts of fines/fees on lower income
residents.

High-Visibility Enforcement for DUI
Resources
Massachusetts Saving Lives – Enforcement
Strategies, https://solutions.edc.org/solutions/
prevention-solutions
This program combines community
engagement events, high-visibility
enforcement including sobriety checkpoints,
and media communication to discourage DUI.

Lead Agency
Law Enforcement Officials
Partners
• MCAG
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Funding Sources
California Office of Traffic (OTS) grants
Context
Regional, focused on DUI crash hotspots
Effectiveness
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols
97 Safe Ride Home Program
Develop partnerships between the
member agencies’ public works and police
departments, TNC operators, MCAG, and local
businesses to offer promotional codes for free
or discounted rides home from establishments
or events throughout the county to reduce the
potential for DUI, drowsy driving, or distracted
driving.

Resources
Portland Bureau of Transportation Safe Ride
Home Program, https://www.portlandoregon.
gov/transportation/76611
PBOT partnered with the Portland Police
Bureau, TriMet, Old Town Hospitality Group,
and Portland cab companies Radio Cab,
Broadway Cab, New Rose City Cab and United
Independent Cab, as well as transportation
network companies Lyft and Uber to provide
promo codes for discounted rides. The
program is funded by a 50-cent fee charged
for every taxi and TNC ride in Portland.

Lead Agency
Member agency Police Departments
Partners
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• MCAG
• Local businesses
• TNC operators
Funding Sources
User Fees (taxi and TNC fares)
Context
Regional, during weekends, holidays, and
other special events
Effectiveness:

Alternative Transportation
Rapid Response Safety
Communication Protocol and
Multi-Disciplinary Team
Employ an internal, multi-departmental
communication strategy in response to severe
and fatal collisions. The protocol should
outline a path forward for transportation
planning and engineering staff to be a part
of the immediate on-the ground-response
to an investigation of severe and fatal
collisions, ensuring a multi-disciplinary
response team focused both on the behavioral
and engineering elements of a collision.

Development of this multi-disciplinary team
can also support timely data sharing among
County departments.

The development of an integrated database
with law enforcement collision data and
injury surveillance provides can also improve
communication protocol. Data integration can
help practitioners estimate actual injury costs
and costs of treatments for future planning
efforts.

Lead Agency
Office of Emergency Services
Partners
• MCAG
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Sheriff’s Department
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
• Merced County Department of Public
Health
• Merced County Fire Department
• Merced County Public Works
• Emergency medical service providers
Funding Sources
• Merced County
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
grants
Context
Regional
98 Unhoused services provide temporary
residence for unhoused individuals and
families. In jurisdictions with a large
unsheltered population, unsheltered people
are often disproportionately represented in
pedestrian collisions. Unsheltered people have
a relatively high level of traffic exposure as
they may stand in medians, cross roadways
outside of designated pedestrian crossings,
and/or frequent parking lots.

Lead Agency
Merced County Department of Public Health
Partners
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Sheriff’s Department
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
• Housing organizations
Funding Sources
County Funds
Public-private partnerships
Context
Regional, focused on areas with higher
unhoused populations
Effectiveness
High-visibility Saturation Patrols
Integrated Enforcement
Pedestrian Safety and
Unhoused Services
Use crash history and emphasis area corridors
as criteria to direct enforcement efforts, with
a focus on the three “Ds” identified by the
Member agency Police Departments: Driving
Under the Influence, Distracted Driving, and
Dangerous Driving. This may require additional
police department funding.

Resources
• Behavior Change Campaigns to Improve
Traffic Safety Toolkit
• Countermeasures that Work, 10th Edition
Lead Agency
Law Enforcement Agencies
Partners
• MCAG
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Funding Sources
California Office of Traffic (OTS) grants
Context
Hot spot corridors and locations with DUIs,
distracted driving, and dangerous driving
Effectiveness
Communications and Outreach Supporting
Enforcement
High-Visibility Cell Phone and Text Messaging
Enforcement
Enforcement
Priorities Mandate
99 Educational materials can be used to teach
people how to use new and unfamiliar safety
countermeasures, such as rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFB), roundabouts,
or protected bikeways. These materials
can consist of informational signs or
demonstration videos, and should
be presented in multiple languages, including
English and Spanish.

Resources
City of Sacramento Bicycling Videos
The City of Sacramento has used
demonstration videos to engage residents
in bicycling safety procedures. The videos
on their website feature a series of safety
improvements such as protected bike lanes,
bike boxes, and bike signals, and inform
residents how to use these new roadway
features, both as a bicyclist and a driver.

City of San Francisco Informational Signs
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency (SFMTA) posted signs with a brief
explanation next to a newly installed protected
bike lane in multiple languages as part of their
Vision Zero SF initiative. This approach was also
applied to educate people about pedestrian
scrambles and bulb outs.

Pair Education with
Engineering Countermeasures
San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency’s (SFMTA) signage explaining newlyinstalled protected bike lanes. Source: SFMTA City of Berkeley “How to Use a Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon” Flyer
This informational flyer was paired with the
installation of a new PHB and includes both
driver and pedestrian instruction for properly
using the new countermeasure.

City of Los Angeles Education through Pop-Up
Installations
As part of Bike to Work Day in 2019, LADOT
used temporary pop-up installations to
introduce safety improvements in specific
neighborhoods. In addition to introducing
safety improvements, pop-up installations can
bring out emergency vehicles to ensure the
vehicles can navigate around roundabouts or
curb extensions.

Lead Agency
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Department of Public
Health
Partners
Office of Traffic Safety
Funding Sources
• California Office of Traffic (OTS) grants
• Local funds
Context
High Injury Network or other locations where
new engineering countermeasures are
implemented.

The City of
Berkeley's flyer
explaining
its newlyinstalled PHBs.

Source: City of
Berkeley
100
Source: NACTO
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Partners
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Sheriff’s Department
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Funding Sources
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
grants
• Local funds
Context
Regional, focused on “safety corridors,”
business activity districts, and school zones
Effectiveness
Speed Limits
Speed Limit Modification
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was passed
in 2021 to provide a means to lower speed
limits on additional corridors. Cities will have
increasing flexibility starting in June 2024 to
enforce context-sensitive speed limits. AB 43
features the following five major components,
focused on giving local jurisdictions more
flexibility in setting speed limits, especially
regarding vulnerable road users:
• Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS)
An option to extend enforceable time
period
• Post E&TS
An agency can elect to retain current or
immediately prior speed limit
• Speed Limit Reduction
Reduction of additional 5 mph based on
several factors, including designation of
local “Safety Corridors”
• Prima Facie Speed Limits
Options for 15 and 25 mph in certain areas
depending on context
• Business Activity Districts
Option for 20 or 25 mph
In particular, the designation of “Safety
Corridors” could be applied to roadways
where the highest number of serious injury
and fatality crashes occur, identifying specific
locations or corridor-level segments with high
crash occurrences and stratified by mode.

These designations must be approved by a
professional engineer.

The most recent California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is
the document that provides guidance on how
to re-evaluate posted speed limits in light of
these AB 43 changes.
101
Automated enforcement, such as red-light
cameras or speed cameras, target the specific
drivers who are behaving dangerously. Such
enforcement is already allowed in California.

Automated speed detection devices can
identify speeding violations and provide
citations. Such enforcement is currently allowed
on a pilot bases in six cities in California and
may be allowed to be implemented in all cities
in the future.

A strictly data-driven approach to automated
enforcement might place red-light or speed
cameras in locations with the highest number
of collisions. However, given that many lowincome neighborhoods have historically received fewer infrastructure investments,
which often results in a higher rate of collisions,
a strictly data-driven approach could lead to
a disproportionate burden of enforcement.

Therefore, automated enforcement should
be implemented evenly across a jurisdiction
at problem locations. In addition, jurisdictions
should pair automated enforcement with
updated fine structures so that low-income
communities don’t bear a disproportionate
burden.

Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Partners
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Sheriff’s Department
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
• Community-based organizations
Funding Sources
US Department of Transportation funding
Context
Regional, focused on areas with traffic signs
and signal violations or unsafe speed collision
trends
Effectiveness
Automated Enforcement
Automated Enforcement
Continue existing safety education campaign
targeting safe speeds. This could include yard
signs, wall boards/posters along high-injury
corridors and neighborhoods, ads on bus
exteriors, radio ads, etc. Safe Speeds is also
applicable to those who bike and scooter. On
Class I shared-use paths, those who roll should
manage speeds to ensure safety for all those
using the facility.

Resources
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Go
Safely California campaign has free resources
for local agencies to use in implementing
public awareness campaigns.

Lead Agency
MCAG
Partners
• Member agency Communications
Departments
• Member agency Police Departments
• Merced County Sheriff’s Department
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
• Merced County Department of Public
Health
• Local media outlets
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Go
Safely California Campaign
Funding Sources
• MCAG funds
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
grants
Context
Regional, focused on areas with unsafe speed
collision trends
Effectiveness:

Communications and Outreach on Speeding
Safe Speeds Education Campaign
102
Emerging Technology
Recent advancements in transportation
technology have not only introduced new
transportation modes and travel patterns, but
have also presented opportunities to better
understand travel behavior and encourage
safe behavior.

Intelligent Transportation Systems
Some existing and emerging on-board
vehicle technologies require investments
in public infrastructure in order to function
properly. For example, lane departure warning
technology common on newer vehicles
requires regular maintenance of roadway
striping and the use of highly retroreflective
materials to maximize effectiveness. Emerging
Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies
will likely require integration with existing
infrastructure. MCAG's Capital Improvement
Plan can facilitate the effectiveness of safe
vehicle technology with traffic signal and
detection upgrades and systematic resurfacing
projects to ensure roadway striping is easily
visible.

Near Miss Data
Near miss collisions have historically been
difficult to study in practical safety applications
due to an overall lack of reported information.

In the absence of sufficient crash data, near
miss data is an important indicator for guiding
crash prevention. Video data and incident data
from connected vehicles are emerging data
sources that can provide key safety insights
regarding near misses.

Autonomous Vehicle Readiness Planning
Having strategies prepared to meet and
address the oncoming challenges posed by
autonomous vehicle (AV) technology will
be crucial in advancing road safety. Fully
automated vehicles have the potential to
transform travel behavior and safety outcomes
given that AVs are ultimately designed to
operate without any human intervention.

Some strategies for preparation include
educating the public on current and future
safety features and limitations, developing
signing and striping standards, and conducting
reviews of equity implications. Without
appropriate research and guidance, AVs
could widen accessibility and safety gaps for
vulnerable communities.

Lead Agency
MCAG
Partners
• Vehicle manufacturers
• Data vendors
Funding Sources
• MCAG
• California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
grants
• Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Context
Regional
103
5 This chapter presents the Safety Action Plan
for MCAG and its member agencies. MCAG is
committed to providing regional leadership
to improve roadway safety, and MCAG and its
member agencies are committed to working
to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on
the region’s roadway network. The Action
Plan is composed of strategies to facilitate
successful implementation and evaluate and
communicate progress. This chapter also
identifies potential funding sources for safety
improvements in the region.

Infrastructure projects are an important
part of the solution towards meeting the
region’s safety goals, and are organized into
two categories. Capital projects are large,
long-term infrastructure projects that require
advanced design, engagement, coordination,
and permitting. These can include intersection
redesigns, roadway reconfigurations, and
other similar projects. Quickbuild projects
typically have a shorter implementation time
frame and lower cost than capital projects
due to their semi-permanent nature. These
projects may include spot improvements such
as signal timing adjustments, installation of
a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB),
and intersection enhancements. Projects
will typically have a community engagement
component and will be focused on spot
locations. A list of safety projects are presented
for each jurisdiction in their respective chapters
within Volume Two of this LRSP.

Taking Action for
Roadway Safety
In addition to infrastructure projects, the
success of this LRSP is also dependent on
changes to the policies and practices that
institutionalize the Safe System Approach for
MCAG and each of the local agencies in the
region. The Action Plan covers these practices,
policies and programs.

The Action Plan contains strategies that aim
to use policy updates to create institutional
improvements to design standards and create
new standard practices that center safety
in the day-to-day operations of MCAG and
local agencies. For example, rolling safety
projects into existing capital improvement
projects by consolidating safety improvements
with maintenance efforts such as roadway
resurfacing can be cost efficient and expedite
project implementation and delivery.

The Action Plan also establishes safety as
the overriding priority for MCAG in decisions
where trade-off between safety and other
considerations, such as on-street parking
or vehicle delay, arise as a result of limited
funding or right-of-way. MCAG’s commitment
to this LRSP and its goals is also a commitment
that safety considerations are prioritized in
projects throughout the region over other
competing priorities.
106
The Action Plan also provides for oversight
and accountability towards the region’s
commitment to safety. MCAG will establish a
standing Regional Roadway Safety Working
Group that continues the work of the
Stakeholder Group that was empaneled during
the creation of this Plan. Having the leadership
and oversight of this group will help maintain
buy-in and support for the Plan from elected
officials and the community. The Working
Group’s duties can include conducting
briefings and presentations at board and
agency meetings; collecting, and sharing
information on a regular basis; and updating a
public-facing web page on the MCAG website
to inform progress towards safety goals, all of
which are strategies within the Action Plan.

Finally, the Action Plan contains policies that
promote community education to develop
collective awareness around safety, target
educational campaigns towards identified
emphasis areas, and create a culture that
supports both policy and infrastructure
changes.

The Safety Action Plan
The following presents safety strategies
organized into seven priorities. MCAG will
periodically review the effectiveness of
the strategies to identify those that would
be helpful to expand vs. those that could
be replaced. Each strategy includes an
implementation timeline, performance
metrics, and identifies the parties and
partnerships needed to be successful. As
the Action Plan is developed with alignment
with the Safe System Approach in mind, each
strategy is also identified with its related Safe
System element and corresponding level on
the Safe Systems Pyramid.
107
How to Read
This Action Plan
Strategy Number, along
with corresponding Safe
System Element and
corresponding level of the
Safe Systems Pyramid
Description of key steps in the action
Estimated implementation timeline
» Near-term: 1-5 years
» Medium-term: 5-10 years
» Long-term 10+ years
» Ongoing: already in progress, and
will continue
Agencies leading implementation
Agencies supporting implementation
Method(s) for monitoring
and communicating action
implementation progress
Systemic resources needed
to implement the action
Parts of the planning
process which inform
action development
Guiding goal for
the following
subset of Actions
Develop a strategy to update roadway,
intersection, and pedestrian crossing lights
with high quality light sources (i.e. LED) while
minimizing impacts.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Create new standards for typical maintenance
that reflect the LRSP goals.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority B
Systemically and proactively
address common crash profiles
These strategies target key areas
for improvement identified through
collision analysis, including intersection
control, lighting, and vulnerable users.
7 Built Environment Built Environment
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Safe Roads
108
Priority A
Update design standards and policies for implementation of safety related projects These strategies aim towards the implementation of safer roadway designs that infuse the Safe System Approach as part of routine practices and design decisions.

Design projects to provide separation for
vulnerable road users where prevailing speeds
are greater than 25 MPH. Where separation
is not feasible, implement geometric changes
to slow vehicle speeds to 25 MPH or slower.

Where posted speed is 25 MPH but prevailing
speeds are greater, implement geometric
changes to slow vehicle speeds to 25 MPH or
slower.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
• MCAG
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Evaluation Framework
Review all pipeline projects to include designs
that separate vulnerable road users from
vehicles where feasible. Implement a strategy
for each agency to commit to a Safe System
focused design review for each engineering
project.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Implement quick build projects as temporary
or low-cost improvements.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Department
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Near-term: Review State Law and City codes to
adopt policy around quick build projects.

Medium-term: Roll out of safety projects as
quick builds to gather public and stakeholder
feedback and make improvements and/or
adjustments before a permanent project is put
in place.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
1 Staff Capacity Collaboration
Policy Evaluation
Funding Legislation
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Safe Roads 2
Built Environment Built Environment
Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
Staff Capacity Collaboration
109
Bundle projects that are similar in scope to
reduce costs and increase the efficiency of
public outreach and engagement.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Prioritize projects along the High-Injury
Network (HIN) that are similar in nature.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Inputblic feedback
Integrate safety projects into Public Works
Department’s regular maintenance.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Create new standards for typical maintenance
that reflect the LRSP goals.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
4 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
3 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Staff Capacity
Policy Evaluation
110
Create an internal training program for
engineering and planning staff to stay up to
date on best practices in Safety, Complete
Streets, and Design Standards. Trainings may
be hosted annually with Technical Advisory
Committee Members and hosted by expert
educators.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
Member agency Public Works Departments
Evaluation Framework
Establish consistent and recurring trainings
with people from each member agency to
keep up to date on best practices.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Update roadway design standards to create
flexibility and push innovation with a Safe
System lens in mind, making use of FHWA
Safe System Design Hierarchy and FHWA Safe
System Speed Management as guidelines.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
• Near-term: Use quick build projects to test
and receive feedback on design standards.
• Medium-term: Develop and adopt context
sensitive design guidance
Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Staff Capacity
Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Priority A
Update design standards and policies for implementation of safety related projects These strategies aim towards the implementation of safer roadway designs that infuse the Safe System Approach as part of routine practices and design decisions. 1 Safe Roads 5 6
Built Environment Built Environment
Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
111
112
Develop a strategy to update roadway,
intersection, and pedestrian crossing lights
with high quality light sources (i.e. LED) while
minimizing impacts.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Create new standards for typical maintenance
that reflect the LRSP goals.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Establish guidance for existing pedestrian
priority areas or activity centers to clearly
designate and beautify pedestrian spaces with
elements such as public art, benches, and
shade.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Economic Development
Groups
Supporting Partners
Merced County Public Health Department
Evaluation Framework
Partner with community-based organizations
(CBOs) and Public Health Department to
identify pedestrian activity areas using crash
data and typology. Work with local artists to
create murals or installations.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority B
Systemically and proactively address common crash profiles These strategies target key areas for improvement identified through collision analysis, including intersection control, lighting, and vulnerable users.

Safe Road Users
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
71 8
Built Environment Built Environment
Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
113
Develop a strategy to update intersection
controls at intersections currently with
permissive left and side-street stop controls,
particularly those along high-traffic or highspeed corridors and the HIN. For intersections with permissive left operations, conversion
to protected left operations is a possible
treatment. For intersections with side-street
stop operations, signalization, conversion to
all-way stop operations, or the installation of
PHBs or RRFBs are all possible treatments.

Conversion to roundabouts or traffic circles is
a possible treatment for all intersections.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Prepare guidance and identify priority
intersections that would benefit from
treatments
Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
In areas with high concentration of
pedestrians, bicyclists, children, or elderly,
adjust signal timings to include Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and longer signal
cycle lengths. Prohibit right turn on red
where feasible or adjust signal phasing to
accommodate right turn movements with
other phases.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Departments
Evaluation Framework
Prepare guidance and identify priority
locations that would benefit from longer cycle
lengths for vulnerable roadway users.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
9 Latent Safety Measures
Staff Capacity
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
10 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
Safe Roads
114
As part of the Design Standards update in
Strategy 5, include countermeasures and
best practices for speed management.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Department
Evaluation Framework
Develop context-sensitive design guidance
and standards to include in an agency’s
Design Standards.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Reevaluate speed limits across the roadway
network to determine if any are candidates for
speed limit reductions based on the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD).

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Caltrans
Evaluation Framework
Each member agency completes an
Engineering and Traffic Survey for arterial
and colelctor roadways to determine if speed
reduction is appropriate.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority C
Reduce speeds through policy and design
These strategies aim towards achieving safer speeds and better speed management along the region’s roadways.
117 12 Built Environment Built Environment Latent Safety Measures Staff Capacity
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Safe Speeds Safe Speeds
115
Roll out a regional engineering strategy
that changes the roadway landscape to
intentionally slow or manage vehicle speeds.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
Member agency Public Works Departments
Evaluation Framework
Develop a strategy with member agency
support to identify where it’s feasible to
implement roundabouts, road diets, signal
progression, etc. Strategy may have phases,
where quick build occurs prior to full build out.

Support legislation to allow the use of speed
safety cameras to allow for more equitable
enforcement.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
• MCAG
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Evaluation Framework
Monitor and participate in lobbying efforts in
support of speed safety cameras in California.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
13 Built Environment Built Environment Built Environment Latent Safety Measures Legislation
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Safe Speeds Safe Speeds 14
116
Prioritize and implement safety treatments
along the HIN that respond to the identified
Emphasis Areas. Roadways with a similar
typology should be identified for proactive and
systemic improvements.

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Public Works Department
Supporting Partners
• MCAG
• Caltrans
Evaluation Framework
• Near Term: Weave improvements into
ongoing or planned projects
• Mid Term: Identify funding to implement
safety treatments
Reevaluate currently-funded general road
projects and potentially reallocate funds to
prioritize high priority locations identified
in this Plan, adding safety improvements to
project scopes.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
• County Board of Supervisors
• Member agency Councils
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Review current capital improvements plans
and strategically develop future plans to
create opportunities for safety improvements
with typical CIP projects.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority D
Prioritize safety improvements on the HIN
These strategies aim to highlight the safety concerns along the highinjury network developed as part of the creation of this Plan, which represent locations with the highest numbers of past injury collisions.

Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Emphasis Areas/HIN
16 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
15 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
117
118
Establishing the Regional Roadway Safety
Working Group to support projects through all
phases of development and provide elected
officials and stakeholders with periodic LRSP
updates. The Working Group will likely be
made up of elected officials and member
agency staff.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Evaluation Framework
• Establish clear and on-going
communication with community leaders
through the Working Group.
• Identify when the Working Group meets
(quarterly, bi-annually, etc.) where
members get compensated for their time.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Public Feedback
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Safe Road Users
Active Safety Measures
17 Prioritize safety criteria in local funding
decision-making processes, consistent
with federal, state, and regional funding
requirements.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• Local Non-Profits
Evaluation Framework
• Near-term: Prepare Guidance on the
decision-making process where projects
located on the HIN or other safety
enhancements can play a larger role in
prioritization
• Medium-term: Increase transparency and
provide public-facing updates
Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority E
Integrating the Safe System Approach in policy and practice These strategies aim to institutionalize the Safe System Approach in MCAG’s processes and establishes its leadership role in the region’s roadway safety efforts.

Staff Capacity
Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Safe Roads 18
Built Environment Built Environment
119
Conduct and prepare an annual crash analysis,
and periodically update the HIN and Action
Plan.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• Law Enforcement Officials
Evaluation Framework
Annual updates should include crash profiles
and comparison of various time periods to
better identify trends and progress toward
safer streets. Analysis should layer available
demographic and environmental justice data.

Updates to the HIN should reflect progress
being made to develop new strategies if
current actions are not achieving the desired
results.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Post Crash Care
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Built Environment Latent Safety Measures 20
Coordinate quarterly meetings with member
agencies to coordinate on federal, state,
regional, and local funding opportunities.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Evaluation Framework
Identify staff from Member Agencies to attend
and execute quarterly meetings focused on
safety funding opportunities.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Emphasis Areas/HIN
191 Safe Roads
Built Environment Built Environment
120
Develop an equitable engagement strategy
for transportation safety-related projects that
include multilingual options, and consider
cultural differences.

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Councils
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• Community-Based Organizations
Evaluation Framework
Create a plan that uses national examples
of LRSP related equitable engagement
strategies that includes types of outreach and
thresholds for evaluation of effectiveness.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority F
Engage disadvantaged communities
in transportation planning
These strategies serve to emphasize
disadvantaged communities and other
people who are historically disadvantaged
or excluded from the planning process and
who tend to have fewer mobility choices.

Built Environment Socioeconomic Factors
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Safe Road Users 22
Utilize the MCAG website to provide the
public with annual progress updates on
LRSP safety implementation.

Timeline
Ongoing
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
Evaluation Framework
Annual updates on Plan project
implementation and crash data to provide
transparency on progress.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Staff Capacity
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Education
Safe Road Users
Built Environment Built Environment
21 Priority E
Integrating the Safe System
Approach in policy and practice
These strategies aim to
institutionalize the Safe System
Approach in MCAG’s processes and
establishes its leadership role in the
region’s roadway safety efforts.
121
122
Create programs for additional transit,
microtransit, or shuttle service during
holidays, festivals, and other large events that
include promotional and proactive campaigns,
schedules, and rates for fare purchases.

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
MCAG (with Event Sponsorship)
Evaluation Framework
Identify events or times of year with highest
rates of DUI-related collisions and offer free
or subsidized transit fares, or partner with
a private sponsor (e.g. microtransit service
providers, event host, beverage company) to
offer safe rides home.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Active Safety Measures
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Safe Road Users
Work with local businesses to offer overnight
parking around restaurants, bars, and
entertainment venues.

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
Member agency Parking Enforcement
Supporting Partners
• Merced County Public Health Departments
• Local Businesses
Evaluation Framework
Partner with local businesses to identify
locations to allow vehicles to park overnight,
focusing on areas with high DUI-related
crashes.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback
Emphasis Areas/HIN
Safe Road Users
Priority G
Coordinate Travel Demand Management
These strategies can help reduce the number of high-risk vehicle trips on the roadway network, such as those that may involve DUIs, at night, or during major large events.

Active Safety Measures Active Safety Measures
23 24
123
Develop a workshop for media outlets on
how to best communicate traffic crashes and
roadway safety to the public.

Timeline
Medium-term
Lead Agency
• Law Enforcement Officials
• Member agency Public Information
Officers (PIOs)
Supporting Partners
MCAG
Evaluation Framework
Develop a workshop for media outlets to
attend annually that focuses on language
around crashes and roadway safety.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
Priority H
Educate all roadway users
These strategies represent a variety of educational and outreach programs and strategies that encourage behavior change in road users.

Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Funding
Staff Capacity Collaboration
Public Feedback Policy Evaluation
Education Education
Safe Road Users Safe Road Users 25 26
Develop roadway safety educational
campaigns.

Timeline
Near-term
Lead Agency
MCAG
Supporting Partners
• Member agency Planning Departments
• Member agency Public Works
Departments
• Merced County Public Health Department
Evaluation Framework
Work to create an educational campaign with
key stakeholders that target all audiences and
educate all roadway users on the Safe System
Approach, the goals and priorities of the LRSP,
rules of the road, and changes to the roadway
that involve new or unfamiliar features (for
example, roundabouts). Campaigns can also
focus on specific issues, such as impaired
driving or promoting safe biking in partnership
with organizations such as the Merced Bicycle
Coalition.

Implementation Needs
Evaluation Input
124
Funding Considerations
Many of these policy items from the Action
Plan, as well as the infrastructure projects
for each jurisdiction listed in Volume II of this
Plan, can be funded through a wide range
of sources at the federal, state, and regional
levels. Project funding is often limited due to
a variety of factors, including demand from
the number of outstanding projects, finite
resources, and trade-off decisions. The
sources listed here may be used to fund a
broad scope of projects targeting air quality
and sustainability, affordable housing,
and transportation. Successful projects
often entail creative solutions that address
challenges beyond safety alone.
125
Federal Sources
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
continued the CMAQ program to provide
a flexible funding source to State and local
governments for transportation projects and
programs to help meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to
reduce congestion and improve air quality
for areas that do not meet the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,
carbon monoxide, or particulate matter
(nonattainment areas) and for former
nonattainment areas that are now in
compliance (maintenance areas).

Frequency Annual funding cycle
Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Discretionary Grant Program
This program supports projects that are
“road or bridge projects eligible under title
23, United States Code;” and “intermodal
projects.” Previously the BUILD grant, this
program replaces the TIGER program.

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

Frequency Annual funding cycle
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program
The Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant program
is a Federal grant program established by
the BIL centered around the Department of
Transportation’s National Roadway Safety
Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious
injuries on America’s roadways. It will provide
$5 billion in grant funding over its five-year
duration to develop and implement safety plans
and projects.

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

Frequency Annual funding cycle
126
State Sources
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
ATP is a statewide competitive grant
application process with the goal of
encouraging increased use of active modes of
transportation. The ATP consolidates existing
federal and state transportation programs,
including the Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA), and State Safe Routes to School
(SRTS), into a single program with a focus to
make California a national leader in active
transportation. The ATP is administered by the
Division of Local Assistance, Office of State
Programs.

Frequency Biennial funding cycle
Clean California Grants
The Clean California Local Grant Program
(CCLGP), operated by Caltrans, was created
by AB 149 in 2021 to beautify and clean up
local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks,
pathways, transit centers, and other public
spaces. The program will allocate $296 million
in state funds, in grants not to exceed $5
million, to local and regional public agencies
that install beautification measures and
art in public spaces and remove litter and
debris to enhance communities and improve
spaces for walking and recreation. The goals
of the CCLGP are to: reduce the amount of
waste and debris within public rights-of-way,
pathways, parks, transit centers, and other
public spaces; enhance, rehabilitate, restore,
or install measures to beautify and improve
public spaces and mitigate the urban heat
island effect; enhance public health, cultural
connection, and community placemaking
by improving public spaces for walking
and recreation; and advance equity for
underserved communities.

Frequency Three-year cycle
California Natural Resources Agency
Urban Greening Program
This program supports projects that “use
natural systems or systems that mimic natural
systems to achieve multiple benefits.” Eligible
projects include “Non-motorized urban trails
that provide safe routes for travel between
residences, workplaces, commercial centers,
and schools.”
Frequency Annual funding cycle
California Strategic Growth Council (SGC)
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Program
The Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) Program empowers the communities
most impacted by pollution to choose their
own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and local air
pollution.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
SGC Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program makes it
easier for Californians to drive less by making
sure housing, jobs, and key destinations are
accessible by walking, biking, and transit.

Frequency Quarterly funding cycle
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grant Program
OTS administers traffic safety grants in the
following areas: Alcohol Impaired Driving,
Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving,
Emergency Medical Services, Motorcycle
Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety, Police Traffic Services, Public
Relations, Advertising, and Roadway Safety
and Traffic Records. This funding is primarily
geared to enforcement and outreach efforts.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
127
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on
infrastructure projects with nationally
recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs).

Local HSIP projects must be identified based
on collision experience, collision potential,
collision rate, or other data-supported means.

There are opportunities to include systemic
safety projects as well.

Frequency Biennial funding cycle
California Natural Resources Agency
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation
(EEM) Program
This program supports projects that
“contribute to mitigation of the environmental
effects of transportation facilities.” According
to the program guidelines, projects that
fall under the following category can apply:
“Mitigation Projects Beyond the Scope of
the Lead Agency responsible for assessing
the environmental impact of the proposed
transportation improvement.”
Frequency Annual funding cycle
Caltrans Strategic Partnerships Grants
These grants, a subset of Caltrans’ Sustainable
Transportation Planning Grant Program, fund
multi-modal planning studies, with a focus
on transit, of regional, interregional, and
statewide significance. Studies are conducted
in partnership with Caltrans and must assist
in achieving the Caltrans Mission and Grant
Program Objectives.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
SB 1 Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP)
SB 1 dedicated approximately $1.5 billion per
year in new formula revenues apportioned by
the State Controller to cities and counties for
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and
critical safety projects on the local streets and
roads system.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
SB 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP)
The purpose of this program is to provide
local and regional transportation agencies that
have passed sales tax measures, developer
fees, or other imposed transportation fees
with a continuous appropriation of $200
million annually from the Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Account to fund road
maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls,
and active transportation projects. There
is also a competitive grant portion of this
project.

Frequency Biennial funding cycle
SB 1 Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program (SCCP)
The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
funds projects designed to reduce congestion
in highly traveled and highly congested
corridors. This statewide, competitive
program makes $250 million available
annually for projects that implement specific
transportation performance improvements
and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan
by providing more transportation choices
while preserving the character of local
communities and creating opportunities for
neighborhood enhancement.

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

Frequency Biennial funding cycle
128
Regional and Local Sources
Measure V Funding
Administered through MCAG, Measure
V is a half-cent regional transportation
sales tax measure that is designed to
fund transportation maintenance and
improvements in the Merced region. Local
jurisdictions must spend at least 20 percent of
their local Measure V funding on “alternative
mode” projects, such as bicycle and
pedestrian projects. As such, this Plan may be
used as a resource to identify these projects.

Developer Fees
California law allows local governments to
establish and charge a fee on residential and
non-residential developments to fund public
facilities and to service population growth.

Public facility fees can be charged to new
development based on density and traffic
impacts, and can go towards a variety of public
facilities, including local roadways.

Frequency Not applicable
Program for Arterial System Synchronization
(PASS)
PASS delivers financial and technical assistance
to cities and counties to enhance signal
coordination across jurisdictions. This includes
engineering help for local governments
seeking to re-time signals, adjustments to
existing traffic-responsive timing systems,
“flush” plans for managing traffic incidents,
and more.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
Transportation Development Act Article 3
(TDA3) Funding
TDA3 provides funding annually for bicycle and
pedestrian projects. Each county coordinates
a consolidated annual request for projects
to be funded in the county. Some counties
competitively select projects, while other
counties distribute the funds to jurisdictions
based on population.

Frequency Annual funding cycle
Local Funds
A variety of local fund sources are available
for transportation improvements and
non-infrastructure programs, including
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds,
local membership fees and contributions,
Caltrans funding for specific projects, and
periodic one-time grants.
129
Volume II
Volume II
Jurisdiction-specific information including:
• Collision Data Analysis
• Collision Profiles
• Priority Locations and Project Concepts
1 City of Atwater
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety
Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to
“consider a wide range of data sources to get
an overall picture of the safety needs.” To this
end, this Local Roadway Safety Plan is datadriven and synthesizes findings from collison records alongside input from key stakeholders,
a technical advisory group, and staff.

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

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

The following section presents findings from
the first of these stages of data analysis,
identifying collision patterns and trends.
134
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdown
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdowns over Time
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 1.2
KSI Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 1.1
Injury Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
A Note on the Data Source
This analysis utilizes data on injury
collisions from 2015 through 2022
available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of
August 2023. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), but
excludes collisions that cause property
damage only (PDO) and no injuries.

Geographically, the data includes all
collisions that occur within the City of
Atwater. However, the data excludes
collisions on State Route 99, as it is a
controlled-access roadway (i.e. freeway).

While collision databases like TIMS
remain the best source of collision data,
they have been found to have certain
reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking,
on bicycles, or on motorcycles
are less likely to be reported than
collisions with people driving
• Property damage only collisions are
less likely to be reported compared
to more severe collisions
• Younger victims are less likely to
report collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions may be
underreported
Race, income, immigration status, and
English proficiency may also impact
reporting, but there is limited research
on these factors.
135
Figure 1.3
Collision
Mode Share
by Severity,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Modal Breakdowns by Percent
84%
6%
10%
Vehicle Bike Ped
69%
11%
20%
Vehicle Bike Ped
Injury Collisions
by Percent
69%
11%
20%
Vehicle Bike Ped
KSI Collisions
Collisions by Year and by Mode
The table below provides a summary
of the number of collisions in Atwater
by mode and severity within the
dataset, which includes all collisions
that resulted in injury or fatality. From
2015 to 2022, there were a total of 621
injury collisions, of which 55 were KSI
collisions: collisions where someone was
killed or severely injured.

Collision Summary Total KSI
Total 621 55
Bicycle 37 6
Pedestrian 61 11
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the temporal
trends of collisions in Atwater. As shown,
the annual number of injury collisions in
Atwater has fluctuated through the study
period, but peaks in 2021, as restrictions
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
began to lift. The number of KSI collisions
per year over the study period has also
fluctuated, but also with the largest
increase occurring in 2021. This is in
line with national trends in 2020 and
2021, during and after the initial wave
of the pandemic, where the number of
collisions, especially KSI collisions, has
increased despite travel restrictions and
decreases in traffic volume.

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

As a result, collisions involving people
walking or biking are more likely to
result in injury and fatality. As shown in
Figure 1.3, people walking and biking are
involved in 16% of all injury collisions,
but 31% of KSI collisions.
136
Collisions by Collision Type
Figure 1.4 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that fall into each collision
type. As shown, the most common collision
types across all injury collisions in Atwater are
broadside collisions at 33%, rear-end collisions
at 28%, and head-on collisions at 10%.

Taking a closer look at KSI collisions shows a
different breakdown. Broadside collisions are
also the most common type of KSI collisions, at
24%, followed by vehicle-pedestrian collisions
at 20%, and head-on collisions at 16%.

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

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

Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 1.5 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that are classified under each
Primary Collision Factor (PCF). PCFs are cited
by the responding officer and are based on
that person’s judgment of what contributed to
the collision. It is important to note that PCFs
do not include contextual information about
the design aspects of the collision location
that could have been primary or secondary
contributors to a collision.

In Atwater, the most common PCFs are Vehicle
Right of Way Violation at 28% of collisions,
Unsafe Speed at 25%, and Improper Turning at
10%.

Taking a closer look at KSI collisions shows
a different PCF breakdown percentage.

The most common PCFs for KSI collisions
are Vehicle Right of Way Violation at 24%,
Improper Turning at 18%, and Unsafe Speeds
at 15%.
137
Collision Type
10%
9%
28%
33%
8%
1%
8%
3%
16%
5%
4%
24%
11%
7%
20%
13%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Head-On Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle- Other Pedestrian
Rear-End
PCF
28%
25%
10%
7%
5% 4% 4%
7%
11%
24%
15%
18%
7% 7%
4%
5%
11%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle Right Other
of Way
Violation
DUI Wrong
Side of
Road
Signals
and Signs
Pedestrian- Related* Unsafe Lane
Change
Figure 1.4
Share of Injury Collisions by Collision Type, 2015-2022 Figure 1.5
Share of Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2015-2022 * Note on Pedestrian PCF Categories
The “Pedestrian-Related” category shown here combines two PCF categories: “Pedestrian Violation” and “Pedestrian Right of Way Violation.” The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, where the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances, and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected to not show the distinction in these tallies, and instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
138
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Figure 1.6 illustrates the share of collisions
in the study period that occur at night*.

As shown, nighttime collisions are
overrepresented among KSI collisions. While
27% of all injury collisions occurred at night
where streetlights were present and a further
2% occurred where streetlights were not
present or present but not functioning, those
percentages jump to 32% and 13% for KSI
collisions, respectively.

Collisions that occur during nighttime also
disproportionately affect people walking,
with almost two-thirds of all pedestrian KSI
collisions occurring at night.

The concern around lighting is especially
relevant given Atwater’s small-town context
and rural surroundings. There continue to be
locations without functional street lighting
in the City, and collisions at those locations
are disproportionately represented in the KSI
collision record. Furthermore, even where
streetlights were present, the quality of the
lighting can vary widely. Factors that may
contribute to the quality of streetlights include
lights being insufficiently bright, placed too
widely apart, or poor quality of lighting for
people walking on the sidewalk, as streetlights
are often designed primarily for vehicles in
travel lanes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Figure 1.7 illustrates the share of collisions of
various types in the study period that involved
at least one party driving under the influence
(DUI). Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
of increased crash severity. As shown, the
number of DUI collisions are overrepresented
amongst KSI collisions. While 9% of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol in Atwater,
23% of KSI collisions do.

These percentages reflect the portion of
collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. Driving under the influence may
not always be listed as the primary collision
factor even if a driver is found to be under the
influence.
* Nighttime collisions are defined as those collisions
whose lighting information is not reported as "daylight". 139
Lighting
27%
a Nighttime Daytime
13%
32%
a Nighttime DaytimeN
All Collisions KSI Collisions Ped
Injury Collisions
Lighting
e
13%
32%
a Nighttime Daytime
9%
55%
Nighttime Daytime
KSI Collisions Pedestrian KSIs
KSI Collisions
e
9%
55%
Nighttime Daytime
Pedestrian KSIs
Pedestrian
KSI Collisions
DUI
91%
9%
Vehicle Bike
Figure 1.7
DUI Collisions,
2015-2022
DUI Collisions
Other Collisions
DUI
91%
9%
Vehicle Bike
84%
16%
Vehicle Bike
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 1.6
Nighttime
Collisions,
2015-2022
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime Collisions,
Streetlights Working
Nighttime Collisions, Streetlights
Not Present or Not Working
140
Collisions by Pedestrian Location
Figure 1.8 illustrates for pedestrian-involved
collisions the location of the pedestrian(s)
at the time of collision. The most common
location for pedestrians at the time of collisions
is crossing the street, whether at a marked
crosswalk (43%) or not (21%). This is followed
by walking in or along the shoulder of the
roadway, at 13%, and collisions with the
pedestrian(s) not on the roadway at all, at 11%.

For pedestrian KSI collisions, crossing at and not
at a crosswalk were equally common at 27%,
followed by walking in or along the shoulder of
the roadway and not in road at 18% each.

This data illustrates the importance of both the
presence and appropriate design of sidewalks,
crosswalks and other similar pedestrian
facilities that help reduce the risk of people
being struck by separating them from moving
vehicles.

Furthermore, the high number of collisions
occurring with people walking in the roadway
or shoulder or crossing not at crosswalks shows
that there are pedestrian desire lines currently
unserved by sidewalks and existing crosswalks.

This points to the need for improving the
coverage of pedestrian infrastructure and
closing gaps.

Collisions by Day of Week
Figure 1.9 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period by day of week. As shown,
while injury collisions are overall fairly evenly
distributed across the seven days of the week,
KSI collisions are heavily concentrated on
the weekends, with 44% of KSIs occurring on
Saturday and Sunday.
141
Pedestrian Location
Crossing at
Intersection
Crosswalk
Crossing at
Midblock
Crosswalk
In Road or
Shoulder
Crossing Not in Road Other
Not at
Crosswalk
43%
7%
21%
13%
11%
5%
27%
0%
27%
18% 18%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Figure 1.8
Share of Pedestrian-Involved Injury Collisions by
Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision, 2015-2022
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 1.9
Share of Injury Collisions by Day of Week, 2015-2022
15% 16% 15%
12%
16% 15%
11% 11% 11%
13% 13%
9%
24%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of WeekInjury Collisions
KSI Collisions
142
High Injury Network
From the collision data, a High Injury Network
was developed to identify the roadways
in Atwater with the highest levels of injury
collisions, as shown on Figure 1.10.

The High Injury Network consists of just 9% of
the roadway network in Atwater, but is the site
of the majority of injury collisions. Of the 621
collisions that occurred during the study period,
409, or 66%, were located along the network.
55 of these study period collisions were KSIs,
of which 34, or 62%, were located along the
network.
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 1.10
High Injury Network
City of Atwater N
143
144
Equity Considerations
Both Merced County and the larger Central
Valley region have historically been subject
to underinvestment and marginalization. As
a result, most of the region, including most
areas within the six cities covered by this
Plan, are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and federal
governments.

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

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

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

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

Figure 1.11 shows areas in Atwater identified
as disadvantaged under these two criteria. As
shown, almost the entirety of Atwater, as well
as all the unincorporated areas to the north
of the city, are identified as disadvantaged by
both metrics. The far southeastern corner of
the city and the far southern fringes of the
city south of SR 99 are the only areas not
identified by either metric. With almost the
entire city falls within these disadvantaged
areas, the vast majority of collisions in Atwater
occur within them as well, including 95% of all
injury collisions and 93% of all KSI collisions.
145
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 1.11
CEJST and ETC Explorer Results
City of Atwater
N
identified as disadvantaged by CEJST
identified as disadvantaged by ETC Explorer
identified as disadvantaged by both
2 City of Atwater
Collision Profiles
Through a systemic analysis of collision
records, collision profiles were identified
to represent the most significant patterns
behind injury collisions � and especially KSI
collisions � in the region. Seven such profiles,
identified with the letters “A” through “G”
were identified across the region, with each
one applicable to one, several, or all of the
communities covered by this LRSP.

Atwater is covered by six of these profiles:

A. Driving Under The Influence
B. Dark Conditions
C. Side Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
D. Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
E. Driveway Clusters on Arterials
F. Non-Standard Intersection Geometry
The following pages contain cutsheets that
present each collision profile, along with the
following information:
• Description and associated information
about each profile
• Number of collisions associated, including
number of KSI collisions among those
(note that profiles are not mutually
exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple
profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• A map of collision locations
Engineering countermeasures that can
potentially address these collisions are also
presented with each profile. The full suite of
engineering countermeasures can be found in
Chapter 3 of Volume I.
148
Driving under the influence is a significant
contributor to injury collisions, especially and
disproportionately to collisions that cause
someone to be killed or severely injured (KSI).

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

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

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

Driving Under The Influence KSIs
17 (31%)
4 (4%)
9 (10%)
Injury
89 (14%)
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A
149
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 1.12
Profile A Collisions
City of Atwater
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
150
A substantial number of collisions are
occurring in the nighttime across the region.

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

Dark Conditions KSIs
25 (45%)
6 (3%)
21 (12%)
Injury
179
(25%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B
151
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 1.13
Profile B Collisions
City of Atwater
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
152
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can be
confusing for drivers in side street stop-controlled
intersections. Accurately judging and using a
gap in traffic can also be challenging. Similar
to permissive left-turn operations, high traffic
volumes, high speeds, and limited visibility due to
roadway width on the major crossing are factors
that also contribute to risk at these locations.

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

Atwater saw a total of 203 collisions at
side-street stop-controlled intersections,
accounting for a quarter of all injury crashes
within the city. Of the collisions, 18 were
KSIs and 33 involved bicycles or pedestrians.

The top primary collision factors (PCFs) were
vehicle right-of-way violations, accounting
for a third of all such collisions, followed by
speeding at 30%.

Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
18 (33%)
13 (6%)
20 (10%)
Injury
203
(33%)

PROFILE C
153
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
N
Figure 1.13
Profile C Collisions
City of Atwater
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
154
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
18 (33%)
13 (6%)
20 (10%)
Injury
203
(33%)

PROFILE C
155
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

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

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

Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Lane
Narrowing
Separated
Bikeway
Speed Hump
or Speed Table
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Raised
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Restripe
Crosswalk
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Speed Legends
on Pavement at
Neighborhood
Entries
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Neighborhood
Traffic Circle
Back-In
Angled
Parking
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
KSIs
15%
Injury
25%

PROFILE D
156
Atwater features many instances of the land
use typology of suburban, parking-fronted
shopping centers along high-speed, multilane arterials that feature frequent driveway ingresses and egresses. Frequent interactions
between fast-moving arterial traffic with
slow traffic turning from or to driveways is a
significant risk factor, with left turns to or from
such driveways being particularly conflictprone. Higher densities of these driveways add additional complexity and risk. These
contexts are particularly problematic for people
walking and biking, who must also interact with
frequent driveway crossings while traveling on
sidewalks or bike facilities in such areas. These
areas are also likely to feature higher volumes
of walking and biking, as they are often
significant destinations featuring essential retail
and services.

In Atwater, this typology is found along Bellevue
Road from Third Street and Elmer Wood
Elementary School to Constitution Drive and
Osborn Park. A total of 37 collisions occurred at
driveway clusters along this short, three-quarter
mile stretch, accounting for 6% of all citywide
collisions. This included 8 collisions involving
bikes and pedestrians, and 3 KSI collisions. The
predominant PCFs were speeding, right-of-way
violations, and improper turning, accounting for
more than two-thirds of these collisions.

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

Driveway Clusters
on Arterials
KSIs
3 (6%)
2 (5%)
6 (16%)
Injury
37 (6%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Road
Diet
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Lane
Narrowing
Bike Lane
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Segment
Lighting
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
SharedUse Path
Co-Locate
Bus Stops and
Pedestrian
Crossings
Striping
Through
Intersection
Raised
Median
Refuge
Island
Splitter
Island
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Raised
Crosswalk
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Median
Guardrail

PROFILE E
157
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
N
N
Figure 1.14
Profile E Collisions
City of Atwater
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
158
Atwater features a number of intersections
with more than four legs and/or roadways
intersecting at non-right angles, which
contributes to limited visibility, especially for
turning traffic. Moreover, these intersections
tend to be large by virtue of their geometry,
which lengthens crossing distances and makes
them especially difficult to navigate for people
biking and walking. They also can feature slip
lanes for certain turning movements that allow
free flow turning traffic to proceed at higher
speeds, which poses additional risk for people
walking and biking as well conflicting traffic.

In Atwater, these include the five-way
intersection of Bellevue Road, Shaffer Road,
and First Street; the intersection of Shaffer
Road and Atwater Boulevard; the intersection
of First Street and Linden Street; and a series
of intersections along Winton Way near
Downtown. Despite being a small subset of the
road network, these intersections combined
saw 85 collisions – more than 13% of the
citywide total, of which 8 were KSI collisions
and 13 involved bicycles or pedestrians.

Speeding and vehicle right-of-way violations
were the top PCF categories, accounting for
nearly two-thirds of collisions.

Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
KSIs
8 (15%)
6 (7%)
7 (8%)
Injury
85 (14%)

PROFILE F
159
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
N
N
Figure 1.15
Profile F Collisions
City of Atwater
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
160
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
Bike
Box
Bike
Detection
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Extend
Green Time
For Bikes
Centerline
Hardening
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Protected
Intersection
Bicycle
Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Intersection
Lighting
Lane
Narrowing
Roundabout
Signal
Separated
Bikeway
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
All-Way
Stop
Control
Floating Transit
Island or Bus
Boarding Island
Raised
Intersection
Straighten
Crosswalk
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Countdown
Timer
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Supplemental
Signal Heads
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Prohibit
Left Turn
Prohibit
Right-Turnon-Red
Separate
Right-Turn
Phasing
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Upgrade
Signal
Head
Protected
Left Turns
Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Pedestrian
Scramble
Striping
Through
Intersection
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Upgrade
Striping
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Wayfinding
Close or
Reconfigure
Approaches
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Non-Standard
Intersection Geometry
KSIs
8 (15%)
6 (7%)
7 (8%)
Injury
85 (14%)

PROFILE F
161
3 City of Atwater
A set of locations to prioritize safety
improvements were identified based on
collision history as well as alignment with
collision profiles, which are summarized in
the previous chapters. These locations are
presented in the following table. A project
concept was developed for the locations along
Priority Locations
and Project Concepts
Winton Way to demonstrate how the principles
outlined in this LRSP can be implemented to
address identified safety risk factors. These
locations are intended to be addressed in
the medium- to long-term, within the next
5-15 years, subject to further study and the
availability of funding.

Location
Injury
Colli- sions
KSI
Colli- sionsMatching Profiles and Associated Risk Factors On
Caltrans
Facility?
Bellevue Rd/
Shaffer Rd/
1st St
26 2
C A number of intersections immediately adjacent to this one are side-street stop-controlled
No
E Multiple shopping plaza driveways in close proximity
F Five-legged intersection with oblique turn angles
D Intersecting roadways are wide (multiple lanes per
direction) and high speed (speed limits 35 MPH+)
Bellevue Rd/
Winton Way 15 1
E Multiple shopping plaza driveways in close proximity
No
D Intersecting roadways are wide (multiple lanes per
direction) and high speed (speed limits 35 MPH+)
Winton Way/
Olive Ave and
Winton Way/
Cedar Ave
15 1
C Both intersections (as well as other adjacent ones
along the corridor) are side-street stop-controlled No
F Winton Way intersects these and other streets along
the corridor at non-right angles
Winton Way/
Fruitland Ave 14 0
F The intersection contains a slip lane
No
D Winton Way is wide (multiple lanes per direction) and high speed (posted speed limit 40 MPH)
Juniper Ave/
Shaffer Rd 14 0
D
Intersecting roadways are wide (multiple lanes per
direction on Shaffer Rd and east leg of Juniper Ave)
and high speed (speed limits 35 MPH along Shaffer Rd,
40 MPH along east leg of Juniper Ave)
No
- Missing crosswalk on the south side of the intersection 164

WINTON WAY
from Atwater Boulevard
to Bellevue Road

ATWATER BLVD WINTON WAY

BELLEVUE RD

GROVE AVE

JUNIPER AVE

ELM AVE
Install
crosswalk
N

CORRIDOR WIDE
Conduct a feasibility study for a
potential road diet to one lane in
each direction with a center left
turn lane and upgrade bike lanes
to Class IIB buffered bike lanes.

BROADWAY AVE
77 all collisions
9 bike collisions
10 pedestrian collisions
8 KSI collisions
Collision History
Yes
On HIN?
Collision Profiles

C D E F
165
This conceptual project covers two of the
identified priority locations along Winton Way
from Atwater’s list. The existing posted speed
limit is 35 MPH south of Juniper Avenue and
increases to 40 MPH northwards. City of Atwater
staff report routine observations of speeding.

Throughout the half-mile stretch between Juniper
Avenue and Olive Avenue, there is one signalized
intersection and no stop controls for traffic along
Winton Way, which can contribute to higher
vehicular speeds.

The first priority location is along the portion of
the corridor south of Grove Avenue. Through
this stretch, Winton Way is an arterial with two
lanes and a parking lane in each direction. Traffic
volumes are relatively low – an average daily
traffic (ADT) of approximately 15,000 vehicles –
compared to vehicle capacity, which contributes
to higher vehicular speeds. South of Mitchell
Avenue, Winton Way also runs at an angle from
the rest of the street grid of the city, and features
several side street stop-controlled intersections
with non-right angles (i.e., skewed intersections).

The intersection skews increase the likelihood
of collisions; the more skewed an intersection
is (i.e., further from 90 degrees), the harder it is
for motorists to see and accurately judge gaps
in conflicting traffic. There is a rapid rectangular
flashing beacon (RRFB) at the intersection with
Grove Avenue, but vehicles have been observed
not yielding to pedestrians when the beacon is
activated. Limited visibility of pedestrians due to
the intersection skew may contribute to lack of
yielding by motorists.

North of the signalized intersection with Juniper
Avenue, Winton Way remains two lanes in each
direction, but with a center turn lane and no
parking lanes. While the surrounding land use
context are similar to what they are farther
south along the corridor, the posted speed limit
increases along this stretch leading up to the
intersection with Bellevue Road, the second
priority location. The Bellevue Road intersection
features driveway ingresses and egresses in
close proximity on each of its four legs; this
increases the number of potential conflict
points and corresponding likelihood of collisions
at or near the intersection.

Due to the relatively low volumes along Winton
Way for the number of lanes, it is a candidate
for a road diet to three lanes (that is, one lane
in each direction with a center turn lane).

This is consistent with FHWA guidance and
Proven Safety Countermeasures resources.

A road diet would slow traffic speeds along
the corridor and also allow for the creation
of Class IIB buffered bike lanes, in line with
the recommendations of the regional Active
Transportation Plan (ATP). With a center turn
lane in place for the entirety of the corridor,
there would be space to add median pedestrian
refuges to most of the crosswalks along
the corridor, which improves the visibility
of crosswalks and reduces overall crossing
distances, and also has the effect of slowing
vehicle speeds. An additional crosswalk at Elm
Avenue can be considered to maintain the
frequency of crosswalks along the corridor.

With these improvements, a lowering of the
posted speed limit across this corridor could
also be considered and would help further
reduce the likelihood of severe collisions.
1 City of Dos Palos
Collision Analysis
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety
Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to
“consider a wide range of data sources to get
an overall picture of the safety needs.” To this
end, this Local Roadway Safety Plan is datadriven and synthesizes findings from collison records alongside input from key stakeholders,
a technical advisory group, and staff.

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

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

The following section presents findings from
the first of these stages of data analysis,
identifying collision patterns and trends.
168
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdown
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 1
2 3
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Modal Breakdowns over Time
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 2.2
KSI Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 2.1
Injury Collisions by Year,
2015-2022
A Note on the Data Source
This analysis utilizes data on injury
collisions from 2015 through 2022
available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of
August 2023. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), but
excludes collisions that cause property
damage only (PDO) and no injuries.

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

While collision databases like TIMS
remain the best source of collision data,
they have been found to have certain
reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking,
on bicycles, or on motorcycles
are less likely to be reported than
collisions with people driving
• Property damage only collisions are
less likely to be reported compared
to more severe collisions
• Younger victims are less likely to
report collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions may be
underreported
Race, income, immigration status, and
English proficiency may also impact
reporting, but there is limited research
on these factors.
169
Figure 2.3
Collision
Mode Share
by Severity,
2015-2022
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Modal Breakdowns by Percent
86%
14%
Vehicle Bike Ped
50% 50%
Vehicle Bike Ped
Injury Collisions
by Percent
50% 50%
Vehicle Bike Ped
KSI Collisions
Collisions by Year and by Mode
The table below provides a summary of
the number of collisions in Dos Palos by
mode and severity within the dataset,
which includes all collisions that resulted
in injury or fatality. From 2015 to 2022,
there were a total of 29 injury collisions,
of which 6 were KSI collisions: collisions
where someone was killed or severely
injured.

Collision Summary Total KSI
Total 29 6
Bicycle 0 0
Pedestrian 4 3
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the temporal
trends of collisions in Dos Palos. Owing
to the small size of the City, the sample
size of its collision records is small.

However, the trend of an increase in the
number of collisions in the City since
2018 is still apparent.

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

As a result, collisions involving people
walking or biking are more likely to result
in injury and fatality. While there were
no collisions involving people biking in
Dos Palos during the study period, as
shown in Figure 2.3, people walking
are involved in just 14% of all injury
collisions, but 50% of KSI collisions
- a significant overrepresentation.

Furthermore, three of the four collisions
involving pedestrians that occured in Dos
Palos during the study period were KSI
collisions.
170
Collisions by Collision Type
Figure 2.4 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that fall into each collision
type. As shown, the most common collision
types across all injury collisions in Dos Palos
are broadside collisions at 45%, rear-end
collisions at 21%, and head-on collisions at
14%.

Taking a closer look at KSI collisions shows
a different breakdown. Six KSI collisions
occurred in Dos Palos during the study period:
three were broadside collisions, and three
were vehicle-pedestrian collisions.

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

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

Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 2.5 illustrates the share of collisions in
the study period that are classified under each
Primary Collision Factor (PCF). PCFs are cited
by the responding officer and are based on
that person’s judgment of what contributed to
the collision. It is important to note that PCFs
do not include contextual information about
the design aspects of the collision location
that could have been primary or secondary
contributors to a collision.

In Dos Palos, the most common PCFs are
Vehicle Right of Way Violation at 27% of
collisions, Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence (DUI) at 17%, Unsafe Speeds at 10%,
and Pedestrian-Related at 10%.

The most common PCFs for KSI collisions
is Pedestrian-Related at 33%, again
demonstrating the overrepresentation of
pedestrian collisions in the KSI collisions
record.
171
Collision Type
10%
7%
21%
45%
0% 0%
14%
0% 0% 0% 3%
50%
0% 0%
50%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
Head-On Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle- Other Pedestrian
Rear-End
PCF
27%
17%
10%
7% 7% 7% 7%
10% 10%
0%
17%
0% 0%
17%
0%
17%
33%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle Right Other
of Way
Violation
DUI Wrong
Side of
Road
Signals
and Signs
Pedestrian- Related* Following
Too Closely
Figure 2.4
Share of Injury Collisions by Collision Type, 2015-2022 Figure 2.5
Share of Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF), 2015-2022 * Note on Pedestrian PCF Categories
The “Pedestrian-Related” category shown here combines two PCF categories: “Pedestrian Violation” and “Pedestrian Right of Way Violation.” The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, where the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances, and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected to not show the distinction in these tallies, and instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
172
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
Figure 2.6 illustrates the share of collisions
in the study period that occur at night*.

Nighttime collisions and issues around lighting
are top concerns for Dos Palos. As shown,
nighttime collisions account for a large share
of collisions overall, and are even more
overrepresented among KSI collisions.
24% of all injury collisions occurred at night
where streetlights were present and a further
21% occurred where streetlights were not
present or present but not functioning
- already nearly half of all collisions. Those
percentages jump further to 50% and 33%
for KSI collisions, respectively, amounting to
almost 90% of all KSI collisions occurring in the
dark.

Collisions that occur during nighttime also
disproportionately affect people walking. All
three pedestrian KSI collisions occurred at
night.

The concern around lighting is especially
relevant given Dos Palos’ rural context.

Nighttime collisions represent nearly half of
the injury collision record, indicating a clear
need for focused attention on the issue. There
continues to be locations without functional
street lighting in the City, and collisions at
those locations are prominently represented
in the collision record. Furthermore, even
where streetlights were present, the quality of
the lighting can vary widely. Factors that may
contribute to the quality of streetlights include
lights being insufficiently bright, placed too
widely apart, or poor quality of lighting for
people walking on the sidewalk, as streetlights
are often designed primarily for vehicles in
travel lanes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Figure 2.7 illustrates the share of collisions of
various types in the study period that involved
at least one party driving under the influence
(DUI). Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
of increased crash severity. As shown, the
number of DUI collisions are overrepresented
amongst KSI collisions. While 20% of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol in Dos Palos,
33% of KSI collisions do.

These percentages reflect the portion of
collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. Driving under the influence may
not always be listed as the primary collision
factor even if a driver is found to be under the
influence.
* Nighttime collisions are defined as those collisions
whose lighting information is not reported as "daylight". 173
Lighting
21%
24%
a Nighttime Daytime
33%
50%
a Nighttime Daytime
67%
a N
All Collisions KSI Collisions Ped
Injury Collisions
Lighting
e
33%
50%
a Nighttime Daytime
33%
67%
a Nighttime Daytime
KSI Collisions Pedestrian KSIs
KSI Collisions
e
33%
67%
a Nighttime Daytime
Pedestrian KSIs
Pedestrian
KSI Collisions
DUI
80%
20%
Vehicle Bike
Figure 2.7
DUI Collisions,
2015-2022
DUI Collisions
Other Collisions
DUI
80%
20%
Vehicle Bike
67%
33%
Vehicle Bike
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 2.6
Nighttime
Collisions,
2015-2022
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime Collisions,
Streetlights Working
Nighttime Collisions, Streetlights
Not Present or Not Working
174
High Injury Network
From the collision data, a High Injury Network
was developed to identify the roadways in Dos
Palos with the highest levels of injury collisions,
as shown on Figure 2.8. It is important to note,
however, that the collision record in Dos Palos
is limited due to the City’s small size and, as
a consequence, small sample size of collision
records.

The High Injury Network consists of just 8% of
the roadway network in Dos Palos, but is the
site of the majority of injury collisions. Of the 29
collisions that occurred during the study period,
19, or 66%, were located along the network.
six of these study period collisions were KSIs,
of which five, or 83%, were located along the
network.
33 33
33 Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Palo Alto St
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Reynolds Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd
Figure 2.8
High Injury Network
City of Dos Palos
N
175
Equity Considerations
Both Merced County and the larger Central
Valley region have historically been subject
to underinvestment and marginalization. As
a result, most of the region, including most
areas within the six cities covered by this
Plan, are identified as disadvantaged by the
various criteria used by the state and Federal
governments.

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

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

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

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

The entirety of the City of Dos Palos, as well
as all of the surrounding unincorporated areas
(including the community of South Dos Palos),
are identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST.

There are no areas identified as disadvantaged
by the ETC Explorer in or near Dos Palos.
2 City of Dos Palos
Collision Profiles
Through a systemic analysis of collision
records, collision profiles were identified
to represent the most significant patterns
behind injury collisions � and especially KSI
collisions � in the region. Seven such profiles,
identified with the letters “A” through “G”
were identified across the region, with each
one applicable to one, several, or all of the
communities covered by this LRSP.

Dos Palos is covered by four of these profiles:

A. Driving Under The Influence
B. Dark Conditions
C. Side Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
D. Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
The following pages contain cutsheets that
present each collision profile, along with the
following information:
• Description and associated information
about each profile
• Number of collisions associated, including
number of KSI collisions among those
(note that profiles are not mutually
exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple
profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• A map of collision locations
Engineering countermeasures that can
potentially address these collisions are also
presented with each profile. The full suite of
engineering countermeasures can be found in
Chapter 3 of Volume I.
178
However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of DUI collisions occurred
outside these time periods as well.

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

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

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

KSIs
2 (33%)
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
Injury
6 (21%)
Potential Supplemental Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Roundabout
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
LEDEnhanced
Sign
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Upgrade
Striping
Red
Light
Cameras
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave

PROFILE A
179
33 33
33 Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Palo Alto St
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Reynolds Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd
N
Figure 2.9
Profile A Collisions
City of Dos Palos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
180
A substantial number of collisions are
occurring in the nighttime across the region.

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

Dark Conditions KSIs
5 (83%)
0 (0%)
3 (23%)
Injury
13 (45%)
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Separated
Bikeway
Add
Sidewalk
Rumble
Strips
Safety
Edge
Guardrail
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Speed Limit
Reduction
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves
Upgrade
Striping
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection
Lighting
Segment
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings

PROFILE B
181
33 33
33 Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Palo Alto St
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Reynolds Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd
Figure 2.10
Profile B Collisions
City of Dos Palos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
N
182
Similar to permissive left-turn operations,
the question of who has right-of-way can be
confusing for drivers in side street stop-controlled
intersections. Accurately judging and using a
gap in traffic can also be challenging. Similar
to permissive left-turn operations, high traffic
volumes, high speeds, and limited visibility due to
roadway width on the major crossing are factors
that also contribute to risk at these locations.

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

The majority of Dos Palos’ recorded
collisions – 62% – occurred at side-street
stop-controlled intersections. There were 18
such collisions in total, of which 14 occurred
along Elgin Avenue. Of the collisions, 4 were
KSIs, none involved bicycles, and 2 involved
pedestrians. The top PCFs were vehicle rightof-way violations, accounting for 22% of all such collisions, followed by DUIs at 17%.

Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
5 (83%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
Injury
18 (62%)

PROFILE C
183
33 33
33 Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Palo Alto St
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Reynolds Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd
Figure 2.11
Profile C Collisions
City of Dos Palos
KSI collisions
Other injury
collisions
N
184
Advance
Stop Bar
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
Yield To
Pedestrians
Sign
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
Upgrade
Striping
Bus Stop
Relocation/
Enhancements
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Green
Conflict
Striping
Separated
Bikeway
All-Way
Stop
Control
Centerline
Hardening
Signal
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Raised
Intersection
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Upgrade
Uncontrolled
Pedestrian
Crossings
Restrict Left Turns
with Directional
Median Openings
Lane
Narrowing
Straighten
Crosswalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Roundabout
Intersection
Lighting
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Splitter
Island
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Raised
Median
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Restripe
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Upgrade
Curb
Ramp
Prohibit
Left Turn
Widen
Sidewalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Striping
Through
Intersection
Speed
Feedback
Sign
TimeBased Turn
Restriction
Median
Guardrail
Side Street Stop-Controlled
Intersections
KSIs
5 (83%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
Injury
18 (62%)

PROFILE C
185
The region’s agricultural heritage has resulted
in many roadways that are designed to be
wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
such as trucks and farm equipment. However,
many of these design features are no longer
necessary as many areas become more
residential or retail-oriented in character.

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

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

Excessive Roadway and Lane
Widths Leading To Speeding
Potential Engineering Countermeasures
Bike Lane
Green
Conflict
Striping
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Curb
Extensions
Speed Limit
Reduction
Add
Sidewalk
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
Lane
Narrowing
Separated
Bikeway
Speed Hump
or Speed Table
Speed
Feedback
Sign
Raised
Intersection
Refuge
Island
Road
Diet
Raised
Crosswalk
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Widen
Sidewalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Safety
Edge
Restripe
Crosswalk
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extend Yellow
and All Red
Time
Shorten
Cycle
Length
Advance
Stop Bar
Advance
Yield
Markings
Speed Legends
on Pavement at
Neighborhood
Entries
Partial
Closure/
Diverter
Neighborhood
Traffic Circle
Back-In
Angled
Parking
Improved
Pavement
Friction
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
Signal
Coordination/
Green Wave
KSIs
0%
Injury
10%

PROFILE D
3 City of Dos Palos
Due to the small sample size of Dos Palos’
collision records, a full set of priority locations
was not identified. The collision records that
was extant in the City were largely centered
around Elgin Avenue, which is a Caltrans
facility that also carries SR 33. The contextual
characteristics of the roadway aligns with
Profiles 4 and 7. A proactive safety project
concept is presented on the following pages
for one intersection along the corridor,
selected based on community feedback and
walk audit findings. The timeframe for any
implementation would be in the medium- to
long- term, in the next 5-15 years, pending
additional study, funding availability, and
coordination with Caltrans.

Priority Locations
and Project Concepts
188

ELGIN AVE

STEARMAN ST
N
Install
roundabout