Milpitas City Council
January 23, 2024

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
13 Advanced Stop Bar
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Advanced stop bars are recommended on roads with
◢ Four or more lanes
◢ Three lane roads with
⤷ AADT>15,000
⤷ AADT between 9,000 and 15,000 and posted speed of
greater than 30 mph
◢ Advanced stop bars may also be considered on roads with posted speeds of 30 mph or less, with AADT<15,000
◢ Advanced stop bars can be installed as part of the regular resurfacing /restriping efforts
Advanced stop bars are applicable at signalized intersections with crosswalks, and are recommended at locations with higher pedestrian volumes. Vehicles are required to stop at the stop bar, providing a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians.

Guiding Documents: USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018.
) CRF: 15%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Intersections with high pedestrian volumes and heavy
conflicting vehicular turning volumes
◢ Intersections with school-aged children or elderly
◢ Limited or restricted crosswalk visibility (geometry, stopped vehicles, vegetation, streetside features
◢ Locations with multiple crashes or a history of severe injury/ fatal crashes over the last 3 years
This signal timing strategy provides pedestrians with a 3-5 second head start to cross the road, enhancing their visibility and reinforcing pedestrian right of way. Drivers are more likely to see and yield to pedestrians already in the crosswalk than pedestrians that are looking to begin crossing. LPIs can be implemented at locations with higher pedestrian volumes, crash history, vulnerable populations, and limited intersection visibility.

Implementation Guide: FHWA, Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Safe Transportation For Every Pedestrian Countermeasure Tech Sheet; California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 4E.06; Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 21-01: Leading Pedestrian Interval Implementation Guidelines.
) CRF: 60%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
14 Pedestrian Median Fencing
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Consider the number of jaywalking pedestrians per day or during peak hours, especially school age children ◢ Intersections with raised medians on the approaches
Pedestrian median fencing is applicable at locations where there is a history of pedestrian jaywalking. Median fencing on the intersection approaches is a proven strategy to encourage pedestrians to cross at the designated marked crossings by providing a raised barrier to discourage jaywaking at undesirable and unsafe locations.

Implementation Guide: Caltrans Highway Design
Manual, Chapter 700.
) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Install Pedestrian Countdown Heads
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Install at new signals (and modified) with pedestrian phases Pedestrian countdown heads are recommended at all signalized intersections. These signal heads are standard design features which display how much time pedestrians have remaining to cross the road, enabling pedestrians to make informed decisions about if they should cross the road and signaling to drivers that pedestrians have the right of way.

Implementation Guide: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 4E.07; SRTS Guide, Traffic Signals.
) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
15 Close Slip Lane
Slip lanes (or channelized right turns) are intended to improve traffic flow by reducing delay for vehicles making right turns. However, slip lanes can lead to conflicts between cars and pedestrians as vehicles are able to turn right without stopping, and minimal reduction in speed, depending on the circumstance. In order to improve pedestrian safety and reinforce pedestrian right of way, some agencies support closing channelized right turn lanes. The CMF Clearinghouse does not yet include a crash reduction factor for this countermeasure.

In order to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and reinforce active transportation right of way, agencies and associations like NACTO support removing slip lanes and tightening up the intersection by reducing curb radii to slow vehicles turning across cycle and pedestrian paths. For added safety, intersections with slip lanes and bike lanes can be reconfigured as protected intersections to provide raised separation between vehicles and bicycles and reduce pedestrian crosswalk lengths. Signalized turn lanes for vehicles can be used in leu of slip lanes to improve traffic flow for right-turn movements.

Implementation Guide: California Highway Design Manual Section 405.3; Slip Lane Guidelines: Well Designed Right–Turn Slip Lanes, FHWA; Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design, PEDSAFE; Major Intersection: Cycle Protection, Global Street Design Guide. ) CRF: --
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: --
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Locations with slip lanes where bike/pedestrian crashes are occurring are candidate locations
◢ A traffic study should be conducted to estimate the impact of removing the slip lane
◢ It is generally not recommended to remove slip lanes
connected to highway ramps as there is potential for rear-end crashes if the vehicle queue extends onto the highway

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
16 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Locations where drivers are observed to be running stop signs, where line of sight to the stop sign is limited, lighting is poor, or near schools.
◢ Intersections where regulatory or warning sign compliance is disregarded or observed to be poor ◢ Intersections with patterns of crashes related to stop sign violations Install/Upgrade Intersection Lighting
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Install at least 2 luminaires (one on each receiving lane corner) at intersections with 2-lane streets. Photometric analysis is recommended to confirm number and location of luminaires needed to achieve minimum light levels. ◢ Install one luminaire per corner at intersections with 4-lane streets ◢ Intersections where existing light levels do not meet recommended standards, see Table 12-1 in RP-8-21, Table D in Caltrans Roadway Lighting Manual
Installing intersection safety lighting (new or upgraded) is a proven safety countermeasure which can prevent crashes occurring at night. Drivers are made more aware of their surroundings and of the presence of the intersection, roadway conditions, and other vehicles or active transportation users during nighttime conditions. This countermeasure is applicable at signalized intersections without lighting or with insufficient lighting, where crashes are known to be occurring at night. Providing adequate safety lighting should be considered as a preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of nighttime crashes at intersections.

Relevant Design Guides: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America RP-8-21: Design of Roadway Facility Lighting; Caltrans Roadway Lighting Manual.
) CRF: 40% (Applies to Nighttime Crashes)
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-End, Sideswipes,
Hit Object, Dark, Bike+Ped
Install Improved Signage
and/or Reflective Strips
At locations where vehicles are known to be running stop signs or where line of sight to the intersection traffic control device (i.e. regulatory sign) is limited, additional warning signage, reflective strips or similar features can be applied to raise driver awareness.

Solutions such as supplemental stop signs (on left hand side) or reflective strips on posts provide additional warning and raise driver awareness of the presence of the stop sign and can be an effective tool to increase compliance. Additional or new reflective signage and strips are a low-cost initial improvement that can be implemented by City forces.

Relevant Design Guides: CMUTCD Chapter 2A, 2C.
) CRF: 15% (applies to night crashes)
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides, Rear-Ends, Dark
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
17 Install Stop Signs with Flashing LEDs
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Flashing stop signs are recommended in the following scenarios:
◢ Reflective signage and/or strips have been installed but additional crash reduction is desired ◢ Intersections which experience a disproportionately higher percentage of driver non-compliance with stop signs, where line of sight to the stop sign is limited, or near schools.
◢ Intersections with patterns of crashes related to stop sign violations Stop signs with flashing LED beacons provide enhanced visibility and can improve driver compliance with the traffic control device. This countermeasure is applicable at intersections with low stop sign compliance, particularly where crashes have been occurring at night, and/or where there are higher volumes of vulnerable road users.

Relevant Design Guides: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 2A.07.
) CRF: 15% (applies to night crashes)
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides, Rear-Ends, Dark, Bike+Ped
Flashing Beacons
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Existing STOP sign is not conspicuous
◢ Poor visibility of the intersection
◢ Crash history due to non-compliance or lack of awareness of intersection traffic control ◢ Locations with high rate of driver non-compliance of traffic control device Flashing beacons installed in tandem with warning signage are proven to raise driver awareness that they are approaching stop- controlled intersection when direct line of sight is limited. Flashing beacons are especially effective in situations where a horizontal curve or a fixed object obscures view to the intersection. If traffic queues extend beyond the intersection and lead to rear-end crashes, this LED flashing beacon raising driver awareness of the approaching intersection and of the potential need to stop.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2A.15 & 4L.05; Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide, Treatment ID No. 007.
) CRF: 30%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides, Rear-Ends, Dark, Bike+Ped
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
18 Install Transverse Rumble
Strips on Approach
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Transverse rumble strips are not recommended in residential areas due to the noise ◢ Rumble strips can be milled-in, rolled-in, or raised and can be installed as part of regular resurfacing projects or as a separate improvement.
◢ Rumble strips should be used in combination with advance warning signs Transverse rumble strips are appropriate at locations where drivers may be unaware that they are approaching an intersection or areas prone to speeding. Transverse rumble strips alert drivers with an auditory and tactile warning as they drive over them on the approach to the intersection.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 6F.87.
) CRF: 20%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: : Rear-Ends, Broadsides
Convert 2-way Stop or Yield Control
to All-Way Stop
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Intersection experiences 5 or more collisions in a 12-month period ◢ Volumes exceed stop-warrant thresholds (see Attachments for All-way Stop Control Warrants) ◢ Sight Distance requirements not met (see Attachments for Sight Distance Requirements) Side street stop (or yield controlled) controlled intersections with high frequencies of broadside crashes may benefit from all-way stop control. However, because this traffic control has operational considerations, the side-street volume would need to meet all- way stop warrants.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2B.07.
) CRF: 50%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: : Rear-Ends, Broadsides, Bike+Ped
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

CRASH HISTORY ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
19 Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Visually inspect traffic striping and pavement markings yearly and refresh if faded ⤷ Thermoplastic striping typically lasts approximately 4-7 years ⤷ Water-based paints typically lasts approximately 6-12 months ◢ Ensure traffic striping width meets Caltrans 6” minimum and is in conformance to the Caltrans Standard Plans Upgraded pavement markings and enhanced striping are proven to raise driver awareness of the presence of the intersection and guide drivers though intersections.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3B, Caltrans Standard Plans.
) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-Ends, Head-Ons, Sideswipes, Dark
Install Traffic Signal
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Meets one or more of the signal warrants (See Attachments for Traffic Signal Warrants) ◢ Intersection experiences 5 or more collisions in a 12-month period Traffic signals are a traffic control device which can provide significant safety and operational benefits including reduction in travel time and delay. Signalized intersections also provide opportunities for controlled pedestrian crossings. Traffic signals can also reduce conflicts leading to broadside and head-on crashes. An intersection must meet signal warrants established in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4C.
) CRF: 50%
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides, Head-Ons, Dark, Bike+Ped
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
20 Create Directional Median Openings to Allow
(and Restrict) Left-Turns and U-Turns
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Crash history or observed conflicts involving left-turning vehicles ◢ Provide downstream U-turn location
◢ Consider if side-street delay exceeds 50 seconds
◢ Consider if the major road is three lanes or more in each direction Directional median openings allow left-turns from major street while restricting left and through movements from minor street onto the major street. The number of conflict points is reduced with implementation of this access control strategy. Additional benefits include increased traffic capacity and improved operations ) CRF: 50%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-Ends, Broadsides, Head-Ons, Sideswipes Install Splitter Island on
Minor Road Approaches
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Truck turning paths and the size of the median should be considered in the design of the splitter island ◢ Splitter islands should be paired with pavement markings, raised pavement markers, and proper signage to enhance visibility and reduce the likelihood of being struck
Splitter islands separate entering from exiting traffic, deflect and guide traffic into the intersection, and improve the visibility of signage on the intersection approach Splitter islands are best suited for side street stop-controlled intersections, though they can be effective at all-way stop controlled intersections.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3B.
) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides, Head-Ons
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
21 Install Pedestrian Refuge Island
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Examples of locations are mid-block crossings, approaches to multilane intersections, and areas near transit stops, parks, or other pedestrian focused sites. Medians or pedestrian refuge islands should be considered:
◢ Urban/suburban multilane roads with curbs, roadways with volumes over 9,000 ADT, travel speeds of 35 mph or greater. ◢ The USDOT recommends that pedestrian refuge islands be considered on roads with 4+ lanes without a raised median, (when AADT<9000 and Posted Speed >30 mph) and on roads with AADT>9000.

The preferred median width is 8 feet (minimum recommended width is 4 ft). Safety lighting should be used to installed at the intersection to enhance pedestrian visibility.

Pedestrian refuge islands provide a designated space for pedestrians to wait as they cross multi-lane roads in a two-stage crossing.

Refuge islands are applicable at marked pedestrian crossings where pedestrians have to cross multiple lanes on each approach.

Pedestrians have time to judge conflicts separately or wait for an adequate gap in traffic before crossing.

Guiding Documents: California Highway Design Manual Chapter 400, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3B FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas, USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018. ) CRF: 45%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Install Marked Pedestrian Crossing
at Uncontrolled Location
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Consider when crossing is on a direct route to/from a significant pedestrian generator
◢ Consider when 20 pedestrians cross during the peak hour or 60 pedestrians cross during any consecutive 4-hour period (children and seniors may count as 1.5 pedestrians)
◢ Consider sight distance of crossing pedestrians and
conflicting vehicles
◢ Consider an engineering study
◢ Continental crosswalks per Caltrans Standard Plans are recommended at new uncontrolled locations. Existing
uncontrolled crosswalks can be enhanced with ladder
crosswalk markings as part of regular restriping efforts, and can be marked as continental crosswalks as part of regular resurfacing efforts
This countermeasure is applicable at non-signalized intersections without marked pedestrian crossings, where there is significant traffic volumes, high travel speeds, and pedestrians are known to be crossing.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3B, USDOT; Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018; Menlo Park, Citywide Crosswalk Policy, September 2016.
) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
22 Improve Sight Distance at Intersection
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Conduct a sight distance evaluation using AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street Intersections where sight distance is limited due to removable objects, vegetation, or parked cars can benefit from improved sight distance. This countermeasure is particularly applicable for turning vehicles at stop-controlled side-streets which intersect higher volume, higher speed roadways. Improving driver visibility to provide adequate stopping sight distance is an effective strategy to reduce the potential for broadside crashes.

Guiding Documents: City of Milpitas Standard Drawing No. 405; Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 400 topic 405.
) CRF: 20%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadsides
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Consider RRFBs at marked crosswalks on roadways that meet the following criteria:
◢ Two lane roads (and three lane roads with a median) with AADT<9,000 and posted speed of greater than or equal to 40 mph. ◢ Roads with more than two lanes (with or without a median) with AADT 9,000-15,000 and posted speed of greater than or equal to 35 mph.
◢ Four lane roads (with or without a median) with AADT>15,000 and posted speed of 30 mph. ◢ Three lane roads with a median with ADT>15,000 and posted speed of 35mph.

RRFBs are applicable at intersections where there is moderate to high pedestrian activity. Consideration should also be given to locations where pedestrians cross an uncontrolled approach at a non-signalized intersection.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) increase driver awareness of a pedestrian crossing the road in a marked crosswalk.

The pedestrian-activated LED flashing beacons accompany a pedestrian crossing warning sign and are applicable at roads with higher design speed and multilane crossings. RRFBs are also an effective traffic control device near schools, parks, or where larger volumes of pedestrians are known to be crossing.

Guiding Documents: FHWA, Proven Safety Countermeasures
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), FHWA; Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Safe Transportation For Every Pedestrian Countermeasure Tech Sheet, USDOT; Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018.
) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
23 Install Raised Median
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ At loca tions where crashes or near-misses occur near driveways proximate to the intersection approaches ◢ At intersections with two or more through lanes to separa te opposing streams of traffic and restrict turning movements ◢ In areas with mixtures of significant pedestrian and vehicle traffic (more than 12,000 ADT) and speeds a bove 30 MPH.
◢ Continuous raised medians are not al
ways appropriate as they can contribute to increased vehicle speeds by increasing driver perception of safety.

Installing raised medians at intersection approaches is proven to reduce the frequency of head-on crashes by providing an extra buffer between queued vehicles and turning vehicles. Raised medians can also provide space for pedestrian refuge islands or improved street lighting, both discussed further in this document.

Raised medians provide enhanced access control and reduce broadside crashes related to proximate driveways.

Guiding Documents: Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas , FHWA, 2013.
)
CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-On, Broadsides, Sideswipes
Install Right or Left Turn Lanes
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Left turn and opposing and advancing volumes meet the left turn lane warrants based on design speed of roadway (see Attachments f
or Left turn warrants)
◢ Right turn and advancing volumes meet the right turn lane warrants based on design speed of roadway (see Attachments for
Right turn warrants)
This countermeasure is recommended at intersections where the approach does not have a left turn lane, and which are experiencing a high number of broadside or rear-end crashes. Providing a dedicated turn lane improves traffic flow and reduces the potential for rear-end crashes by providing a dedicated space for turning vehicles to decelerate and wait to turn while outside of the through lane. Dedicated left and right turn lanes are recommended at unsignalized intersection approaches where turning volumes warrant consideration and there is adequate right-of-way. ) CRF:
20%
) Cost:
$$
) Expect
ed Life: 20 yrs
) Crash T
ypes: Rear-Ends, Broadsides, Sideswipes
Non-Signalized Intersections: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
24 Install Median Barrier
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Median barriers can contribute to increased vehicle speeds by increasing driver perception of safety ◢ Median barriers can restrict pedestrian access and vehicular turning movements ◢ Median barriers can also inherently result in increased jaywalking as it provides a pedestrian refuge Median barriers provide enhanced safety by providing a raised physical barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The presence of the median reduces the likelihood of head-on crashes as a result of vehicle lane departure. This countermeasure should be considered based on the amount of right of way available and is applicable along collector and arterial roadways.

Guiding Documents: FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures,
Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas. ) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-Ons
2:24 PM 152 Tunnel Rd - Google Maps
w .google.com/maps/@37.8553195,-122.2389109,3a,75y,96h,98.57t,1.03r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMgcJHvSEzDqNXiW9hRzp1g!2e0!7i1638… 2/3 Install/Upgrade Roadway Lighting
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Roadways where existing light levels do not meet recommended standards, see Table 11-1 in RP-8-21, Table C in Caltrans Roadway Lighting Manual
◢ Photometric analysis is recommended to confirm number and location of luminaires needed to achieve minimum light levels Installing intersection safety lighting (new or upgraded) is a proven safety countermeasure which can prevent crashes occurring at night.

Drivers are made more aware of their surroundings and of the presence of the intersection, roadway conditions, and other vehicles or active transportation users during nighttime conditions. This countermeasure is applicable along roadway segments without lighting or with insufficient lighting, where crashes are known to be occurring at night. Providing adequate safety lighting should be considered as a preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of nighttime crashes along segments.

Guiding Documents: 1) Illuminating Engineering Society of North America RP-8-21: Design of Roadway Facility Lighting 2) City of Milpitas Standard Drawing No. 441, 442 3) Caltrans Roadway Lighting Manual. ) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-End, Broadsides, Head-Ons,
Sideswipes, Hit Object, Bike+ Ped, Dark
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
25 Install Delineators, Reflectors
or Object Markers
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Install object markers to mark obstructions or conditions within or adjacent to the roadway ◢ Delineator posts can be installed to enhance visibility of features within the roadway, but often require routine maintenance to address post knock-down.
◢ Recommend consultation with operations and maintenance staff as these traffic control devices may be knocked down and/or present maintenance challenges (i.e. street sweeping)
Delineators, reflectors, and object markers are intended to provide guidance and warn drivers of an approaching curve, transition, or fixed object. They can also be used to guide drivers along a curve in the road or a horizontal offset. These items may be used as a preventative measure or in response to a crash. Delineator posts are often used in conjunction with bike lanes and crosswalks to enhance their visibility.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2C.
) CRF: 15%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Hit Objects, Sideswipes, Dark
Install Curve Advanced Warning Signs
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ MUTCD requirements/recommendations
◢ Consider after completing a sight distance evaluation Advanced curve warning signs provide enhanced driver awareness of an approaching roadway condition (i.e. unexpected or sharp curve). The CAMUTCD details under what circumstances curve warning signs are required or recommended, and how far in advance the signs should be placed in advance of curve based on roadway speeds.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2C.
) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-Ons, Sideswipes, Dark, Hit Object
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
26 Road Diet
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

A road diet is a candidate treatment on roads with total of 4+ lanes (with or without raised medians). ◢ Complete basic volume warrant for roadway segment capacity (a more thorough traffic study would be needed to confirm operations) Implementation of a road diet reduces travel lanes by reallocating a portion of the street right of way to enhanced bike facilities (i.e.

Class II bike lanes, buffered bike lanes), new/expanded pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalk, path), and other roadway features which improve multi-modal safety and access. It is important that a study is completed to determine the impact of the road diet on traffic operations prior to implementation.

Guiding Documents: 1) Federal Highway Administration Road Diet Information Guide 2) FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, Road Diet Informational Guide 3) USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018.
) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Before After
Install a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Consider along roadways where:
⤷ AADT < 28,000
⤷ Posted speed of <45 mph
⤷ Majority of driveways are commercial
⤷ <20% of vehicles left turning vehicles during peak hour Two-way left-turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel, and also separate left-turns from through traffic.

This countermeasure is applicable along roadway segments with driveway access, provided that sufficient sight distance and right of way is available.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3.
) CRF: 30%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-End
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
27 Install Edgelines and Centerlines
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Install Edgelines:
◢ On rural arterials or collectors with traveled way is >=20 ft in width and ADT is >= 3,000 veh/day Install Centerlines:
◢ On an urban arterials or collectors when traveled way is >=20 ft in width and ADT is >= 4,000 veh/day ◢ On rural arterials or collectors with traveled way of >=18 ft and ADT is >=3,000 veh/day ◢ On two-way streets with three or more lanes
Roadway edgeline and centerline pavement markings with high visibility thermoplastic provide enhanced visibility and driver awareness of both lane and roadway. This standard design feature is proven to address lane departure crashes.

Guiding Documents: California Standard Plans, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 3B.01 & 3B.07. ) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-Ons, Hit Object, Sideswipe, Dark
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Prioritize roads located adjacent to schools or corridors with high crash rates ◢ Program a regular review of signage
Signs (including object markers) with fluorescent retroreflective sheeting provide enhanced visibility and driver awareness.

This countermeasure is best applied at a systemic level and encompasses considerations such as sign size, retroreflectivity, and sign placement.

Guiding Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
) CRF: 15%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-Ons, Sideswipes, Hit Object, Dark
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
28 Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Sign
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Locations with history of speeding
◢ Change in speed limit, roadway condition or land use
◢ Changeable speed limit by time and day of the week
Dynamic/variable speed warning signs provide drivers with a visual display of their travel speeds and provides warning when traveling faster than the recommended speed for an approaching curve. This countermeasure is recommended approaching curves with speed- related crashes, but does not apply to general roadway segments with speed feedback signs.

Guiding Documents: Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide. ) CRF: 30%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Broadside, Rear-Ends, Hit Object, Ped & Bike, Sideswipes, Head-Ons, Dark
Install Rumble Strips
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Rumble strips are not recommended on roads with speed limits of 35 mph or less, commercial areas, or in areas with high volume turning movements.
◢ Caltrans requires a minimum clearance of five feet for the shoulder if bike lanes are present. Smaller rumble strips can also be used to better accommodate cyclists
◢ Milled sinusoidal rumble strips are recommended in urban contexts because they produce less sound, while still providing drivers with a tactile alert when driven on
◢ Raised rumble strips can be considered in contexts
where milled rumble strips are not feasible, such as thin surface treatments
Centerline and edgeline rumble strips provide drivers with an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers when they drift out of their travel lane. Centerline rumble strips are applicable along roadway segments with patterns of head-on crashes or sideswipes, while edgeline rumble strips are applicable along roadway segments with patterns of hit object or other lane departure crashes.

Guiding Documents: 1) Caltrans, Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-07: Rumble Strip Guidelines. 2) Decision Support Guide For The Installation Of Center Line And Shoulder Rumble Strips. 3) NCHRP 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips ) CRF: 15-20%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Head-Ons, Sideswipes, Hit Object
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
29 Install Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Crash history or observed conflicts involving left-turning vehicles ◢ Provide downstream U-turn location
◢ Consider if side-street delay exceeds 50 seconds
◢ Consider if the major road is three lanes or more in each direction This improvement provides space for vehicles to accelerate and safely merge into traffic, or to slow down before a turn without impacting traffic flow. This is demonstrated to prevent rear-end crashes between cars at speed and slower vehicles. This countermeasure is most applicable on roads with higher speeds, or where there are higher volumes of vehicles turning right onto the cross street. ) CRF: 25%
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Rear-Ends, Broadsides, Sideswipes
Improve Pavement Friction
(High Friction Surface Treatments)
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Applicable at spot locations such as:
◢ Interchange ramps
◢ High volume intersection approaches
◢ Segments of steep grade
This countermeasure is applicable along roadways where skidding or failure to stop is contributing to crashes. Increasing the pavement friction enables cars to grip the road more effectively and safely maneuver through a turning movement or decelerate. High friction surface treatments are effective along roads with horizontal curves.

HFST is different from typical asphalt overlay treatments in that it should not be used as a pavement preservation treatment.

Guiding Documents: Federal Highway Administration, High Friction Surface Treatments.
) CRF: 55%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Hit Object, Sideswipes, Head-Ons
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
30 Install Bike Lanes
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Consider if roadway speeds are between 25 mph and 35 mph ◢ Consider if roadway vehicular volumes are between 3,000 vehicles per day and 7,000 vehicles per day Dedicates a portion of the road’s width for bicyclists only, rather than having cyclists ride in the same lane as traffic. Class II bike lanes are required to have a minimum width of 4 feet, except when adjacent to on street parking (5 feet) or on roads with posted speeds of greater than 40 mph (6 feet). Sufficient roadway width is required to accommodate a bike lane safely.

Guiding Documents: Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 300; FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, Bicycle Lanes. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide.
) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Install Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Chevrons are required at curves with an advisory speed differential of 15 mph or more ◢ Chevrons are recommended at curves with a differential of 5 or 10 mph.

Post-mounted chevrons warn drivers of an approaching curve and prepares them to safely maneuver the curve. These items may be used as a preventative measure or in response to a crash on a location with relatively sharp curves in periods of light and darkness.

Guiding Documents: MUTCD Chapter 2C.
) CRF: 40%
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 10 yrs
) Crash Types: Hit Object, Dark
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
31 Install Additional Signage
to Pedestrian Crossing
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ In-Street pedestrian crossing signs (R1-6, R1-6a) are recommended on two and three lane roadways with speed limits of less than or equal to 30 mph.
◢ Advanced yield/stop here to pedestrian signs (R1-5, R1-5a) are recommended for 3 lane roads with raised medians (except for AADT<9000 and posted speed less than or equal to 30 mph) as well as on 4 lane roads.

Additional signage at pedestrian crossings Increase warning and awareness for motorists at a crossing. USDOT recommends in- street pedestrian crossing signs be considered on two and three lane roads with sped limits of less than or equal to 30 mph.

Relevant Design Guides: USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018.
) CRF: 35% (applies to nighttime crashes)
) Cost: $
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Install Separated Bike Lanes
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Consider if roadway speeds are greater than 35 mph
◢ Consider if roadway vehicular volumes are greater than 3,000 vehicles per day Separating vehicular traffic from bicycles provides cyclists with additional safety and comfort.

Guiding Documents: City of Milpitas Bicycle/Pedestrian
and Trails Plan.
) CRF: 45%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
32 Sidewalks provide pedestrians with dedicated facilities at a separated grade. Pedestrian facilities are recommended by FHWA and ITE to be a minimum of 5’ wide. Curb ramps and grades should be ADA accessible.

Guiding Documents: USDOT, Office of Safety Proven Safety Countermeasures: Walkways, July 2018.
) CRF: 80%
) Cost: $$$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
USDOT defines raised pedestrian crossings as “Ramped speed tables spanning the entire width of the roadway, often placed at midblock crossing locations”. Raised crossings encourage drivers to reduce their speed as they approach the crosswalk. Raised crossings clearly mark the limits and location of the crossing and also allow pedestrians to cross the road at a constant grade Guiding Documents: USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018.
) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ According to the USDOT, raised crosswalks are a candidate treatment for two and three lane roads with AADT below 9000 and speeds less than or equal to 30 mph.
◢ Should be accompanied by speed hump markings (MUTCD 3B.25) ◢ Generally avoid installing raised crossings on truck routes, emergency routes, arterial streets Install Sidewalk
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
◢ Locations without sidewalks or pedestrian facilities that also have significant pedestrian volumes ◢ Roadway segments with trends of pedestrian crashes and no sidewalks Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
33 Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:

Consider RRFBs at marked crosswalks on roadways that meet the following criteria:
◢ Two lane roads (and three lane roads with a median) with AADT<9,000 and posted speed of greater than or equal to 40 mph; and with ADT 9,000-15,000 and posted speed of greater than or equal to 40 mph
◢ Roads with more than two lanes (with or without a median) with AADT 9,000-15,000 and posted speeds of 35 mph.
◢ Three lane roads with a median with ADT>15,000 and posted speed of 35mph.
◢ Four lane roads (with or without a median) with AADT>15,000 and posted speed of 30 mph.
◢ Three lane roads with medians, with AADT>15,000 and design speed of 35 mph
RRFBs are applicable at intersections where there is moderate to high pedestrian activity. Consideration should also be given to locations where pedestrians cross an uncontrolled approach at a non-signalized intersection.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) increase driver awareness of pedestrians crossing the road in a marked crosswalk.

The pedestrian-activated LED flashing beacons accompany a pedestrian crossing warning sign and are applicable at roads with higher design speeds and multilane crossings. RRFBs are also an effective traffic control device near schools, parks, or where larger volumes of pedestrians are known to be crossing.

Guiding Documents: 1) FHWA, Proven Safety Countermeasures Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), 2) FHWA, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Safe Transportation For Every Pedestrian Countermeasure Tech Sheet, 3) USDOT, Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, July 2018. ) CRF: 35%
) Cost: $$
) Expected Life: 20 yrs
) Crash Types: Bike+Ped
Roadway Segments: Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT
ANSI IES RP-8-21 TABLE 12-1

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT

CALTRANS ROADWAY LIGHTING MANUAL

Roadway Lighting Manual
Division of Traffic Operations, First Edition, July 2021

Version Date: 07/27/2021 i
Acknowledgments
The Roadway Lighting Manual was developed through the dedication and efforts of the following Caltrans staff:

Allen Abad – District 7, Electrical Design
Brian Chow – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
Craig Fearn, PE – Division of Engineering Services
Dave Gamboa, PE – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
Derran Reitz, PE – Central Region, Project Development
Duper Tong, PE, TE – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
Gonzalo Gomez, PE – Headquarters, Maintenance
Hamid Zolfaghari, PE – Headquarters, Traffic Operations Harrison Lam – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
James Gilliam, PE – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
Jennifer Gillies – Headquarters, Environmental Analysis John Castro, PE – Headquarters, Traffic Operations
Kenneth Xu, PE – District 4, Electrical Design
Lai Saetern, PE - District 3, Electrical Design
Oswald Elizondo, PE – District 7, Electrical Design
The drafting services for this manual were provided by Leonard Hudnall and staff of the Division of Engineering Services:

Elenita Stickler – Structural Design Detailing
Michael Slayton - Structural Design Detailing
My Nguyen – Structural Design Detailing

© 2021 California Department of Transportation – All rights reserved

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 ii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... i Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 – Lighting Development Procedures ...................................................................... 2 Chapter 1.1 – Introduction................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1.2 – Project Report .............................................................................................. 4 Chapter 1.3 – Utility Coordination ....................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1.4 – Financing ...................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1.5 – Lighting by Local Agencies and Others ......................................................... 6 Chapter 1.6 – Reconstruction of Existing Facilities ............................................................. 6 Chapter 1.7 – Lighting Levels ............................................................................................. 7 Chapter 1.8 – Lighting Area ................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 1.9 – Plans, Coordination, and Processing ............................................................ 8 Chapter 1.10 – Environmental Coordination ...................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 – Freeway Lighting ................................................................................................10 Chapter 2.1 – Introduction..................................................................................................10 Chapter 2.2 – Warrants ......................................................................................................10 Chapter 2.3 – Entrance/Exit Ramps ...................................................................................12 Chapter 2.4 – Freeway to Freeway Connections ...............................................................13 Chapter 2.5 – Lighting of Local Streets Within Limits of Freeway Projects .........................13 Chapter 3 – Highway Lighting ................................................................................................14 Chapter 3.1 – Introduction..................................................................................................14 Chapter 3.2 – Warrants ......................................................................................................14 Chapter 4 – Special Lighting Applications ..............................................................................16 Chapter 4.1 – Introduction..................................................................................................16 Chapter 4.2 – Bike Paths ...................................................................................................16 Chapter 4.3– Roundabouts ................................................................................................16 Chapter 4.4 – Railroad Grade Crossings ...........................................................................17 Chapter 4.5 – Park and Ride Lots ......................................................................................18 Chapter 4.6 – Bus Stops ....................................................................................................18

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 iii
Chapter 4.7 – Overhead Signs ...........................................................................................18 Chapter 4.8 – Chain On/Off Areas .....................................................................................19 Chapter 4.9 – Falsework ....................................................................................................19 Chapter 4.10 – Tunnels .....................................................................................................19 Chapter 4.11 – High Masts ................................................................................................20 Chapter 4.12 – Temporary ................................................................................................. 20 Chapter 5 – Structure Lighting Facilities ................................................................................21 Chapter 5.1 – Introduction..................................................................................................21 Chapter 5.2 – Road Tunnels ..............................................................................................21 Chapter 5.3 – Exclusive Pedestrian Facilities.....................................................................22 Chapter 5.4 – Transportation-Related Facilities ................................................................. 23 Chapter 6 – Luminaires .........................................................................................................24 Chapter 6.1 – Roadway Luminaires ...................................................................................24 Chapter 6.2 – Soffit Luminaires ..........................................................................................24 Chapter 6.3 – Wall Luminaires ...........................................................................................24 Chapter 7 – Lighting Software ...............................................................................................25 Chapter 7.1 – Introduction..................................................................................................25 Chapter 7.2 – Lighting Design Using Software Applications ...............................................25 Chapter 7.3 – Software Applications and Validation ...........................................................25 Appendix A – Figures and Diagrams (Typical) .......................................................................26 Appendix B – Tables .............................................................................................................32 Appendix C – Application Policies .........................................................................................40 Appendix D – Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 41 Appendix E – References ......................................................................................................48

Version Date: 07/27/2021 1
Introduction
The Roadway Lighting Manual is the culmination of extensive research and effort by Caltrans staff to develop guidelines for roadway lighting designs. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Field and economic conditions may call for variation from this publication's requirements and may be subject to approval by designated levels of management in the district. This publication is neither a textbook nor a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.

The information in this manual is written to assist Caltrans roadway lighting designers in preparing uniform and standard designs of roadway lighting systems.

The Roadway Lighting Manual supersedes all prior versions of the Traffic Manual, Chapter 9, Sections 9-06 through 9-12.

Purpose
The purpose of this manual is to provide a comprehensive source of information concerning Caltrans policies for roadway lighting within the State Highway System and to develop uniformity in designing roadway lighting systems.

The illumination requirements are based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American National Standards Institute/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Recommended Practice (ANSI/IES RP) 8-18 guidelines, and industry practices and recommendations.

The Roadway Lighting Manual provides guidance for the following:
• Installing uniform lighting for various applications within the State right-of-way (including freeways, highways, expressways, intersections, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, roundabouts, park and ride lots, bus stops, and railroad crossings). • The standardization of lighting structures.
• Adjusting luminaire spacing and light fixture characteristics for a more uniform lighting distribution.
• Evaluating lighting levels using computer-based lighting software. • Updating Caltrans’ lighting practices and standards (plans and specifications).

The terms used in this manual are defined in Appendix D.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 2
Chapter 1 – Lighting Development Procedures
Chapter 1.1 – Introduction
The design of freeway and highway lighting should comply with the most current version of the following publications:
• Roadway Lighting Manual
• Construction Contract Standards
• Construction Contract Development Guide
• Highway Design Manual (HDM)
• Plans Preparation Manual
• Cooperative Agreement Handbook
• Project Development Procedures Manual
• Electrical Systems Design Manual
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) • Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines
• Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER)
Lighting standards for installation on State highways will normally be one of the types shown in the Standard Plans. The exception is where a local agency uses a different type of lighting standard and either of the following:
• Has existing lighting that is being replaced due to State highway construction; or • Desires the inclusion of their roadway lighting into a State highway project.

The types, applications and mast arm lengths of the roadway luminaires are as follows:

Luminaire Standards
Type 15
Type 15 and 15D standards are used:
• On highways and expressways.
• At intersections of freeway ramps with surface streets. • On structures in lieu of a Type 21 standard where a lower mounting height is desired.

A 12 feet mast arm is normally used on Type 15 and 21 standards, but lengths of 6, 8, 10, and 15 feet are also available. A 15-foot mast arm is not available for Type 15D and 21D standards.

Type 21
Type 21 and 21D standards are used on structures and may be mounted on a barrier railing or a retaining wall.

Types 30, 31 and 32
Type 30, 31, and 32 standards are used on freeways and in freeway interchange areas.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 3
A Type 30 standard is used where the standard cannot be located further than 18 feet from the edge of the traveled way. The normal mast arm length for Type 30 is 15 feet, but lengths of 6, 8, 10, and 12 feet are available.

A Type 31 standard is available only with a mast arm of 20 feet and should be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the traveled way.

A Type 32 standard is available only with a 30-foot mast arm and without a slip base and should be located a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of the traveled way.

Luminaire Placement
Placement of luminaire standards should comply with the latest Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Section 309.1, “Horizontal Clearances for Highways.” Foundations
The foundation and installation details for each lighting standard are shown in the Standard Plans. Location of foundations are described in the following section:

Lateral (Set Back)
In general, lighting standards should normally be set as far from the right or left edge of the pavement as conditions permit. Exceptions to this occur in cut or fill sections with slopes steeper than 4:1; foundation locations for these conditions are shown in the Standard Plans. On curved ramps, lighting standards should be located on the inside of the curve.

Longitudinal
• Typical spacing for Type 21, 30, 31 and 32 standards is 180 feet. The typical spacing for a Type 15 is 150 feet.
• The typical location of standards for each application is shown in Appendix A. Designers should adjust the spacing to achieve required lighting levels in the conflict area using lighting software.

Structures
On structures and retaining walls, lighting standards should be located at least five feet from the structure expansion joints or hinges. Care should be taken in locating standards on lower roadways or structures to avoid creating glare to vehicles on a higher structure.

Slip bases shall be installed with Type 30 and 31 standards and with Type 15 standards on freeways, expressways, and highways within the Clear Recovery Zone (CRZ) as defined in the Caltrans High Design Manual. Exceptions to this policy are that slip bases are not used under signal standards with lighting or under lighting standards located in the following areas:
• On or behind structures, retaining walls, or sound walls; • Behind guard rail or barrier railing;
• In sidewalk areas;

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 4
• Where pedestrians would be close enough to be endangered by a pole knockdown; Chapter 1.2 – Project Report
General requirements for developing lighting projects are noted in the Project Development Procedures Manual. The cost of lighting on Federal Aid highway projects is eligible for federal participation under certain conditions.

The FHWA Lighting Handbook describes recommendations for roadway lighting and requirements for federal aid eligibility. This manual is in substantial conformance with the FHWA Lighting Handbook to ensure federal aid eligibility.

For scoping and programming purposes, the preparation of a Project Initiation Document is required for all projects that include lighting. The Project Development Procedures Manual and the corresponding Project Manager should be consulted to determine specific reporting requirements.

The following data is required to determine the need for highway lighting installation and shall be included in the Project Initiation Document.

Traffic Counts–Both pedestrian and vehicular traffic counts shall be shown for any single hour that may be in darkness during winter months. Traffic counts shall be shown on Figure 4C-101 (CA) and Figure 4C-102 (CA) of the CA MUTCD. For Figure 4C-101 and Figure 4C-102 the single-hour traffic count shall be measured during a period of darkness that shows the highest traffic count. Pedestrian traffic counts should be shown on each crosswalk for the same periods as the vehicular count.

Vehicle Speed–This shows the posted speed limit or 85th percentile speed of vehicles on approaches to the intersection.

Electrical Service–This is a statement on the availability of electrical service. Where the cost of establishing electrical service is excessively high due to line extension, consider alternate sources of power or deferring the installation.

Other Data–This includes the following documentation:
a. Location map;
b. Condition diagram showing existing conditions;
c. Summary of accidents and the collision diagram;
d. Figure 4C-101 (CA), Figure 4C-102 (CA), or Figure 4C-103 (CA) (Traffic Signal Warrants Sheet [sheets 1 to 5] from CA MUTCD);
e. Applicable warrant in Table 4C-1, Table 4C-2, Table 4C-3, and Table 4C-4, and Figure 4C-102 (CA) from CA MUTCD;
f. Improvement diagram showing existing and proposed lighting, channelization, and other proposed improvements. This may be combined with (b), (c), (d), and (e) on a single plan;
g. Estimate of cost; and
h. Explanation of confusing or unsatisfactory conditions to be improved by the lighting.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 5
Chapter 1.3 – Utility Coordination
During the design stage, the local electrical utility should be contacted to determine the location and type of service available.

Chapter 1.4 – Financing
General Policy
Caltrans participation in financing is based on the use of standard equipment in accordance with Caltrans standard plans and standard specifications. If local agencies plan to use more expensive equipment, the additional cost over the standard equipment shall be at 100 percent local agency expense except as noted below.

Freeways
The cost of installing lighting on freeways is at 100 percent Caltrans expense. If other agencies desire to provide lighting between interchange areas, such lighting may be included in the State's project. However, Caltrans will not be responsible for installation costs. Caltrans will maintain and operate the lighting at 100 percent local agency expense.

On Federal Aid projects, federal participation will be requested when one or more of the traffic volume warrants in Chapter 2.2 are met.

At the intersections of freeway ramps with local streets, the installation cost of lighting shall be at 100 percent Caltrans expense if it is found to be warranted at any time within five years after the date the freeway is opened to traffic. Lighting that meets the warrants stated in Chapter 2.2 may be installed at Caltrans expense on new frontage roads and local streets constructed as part of a freeway project when such lighting will be owned by a local agency. Lighting design may conform to the established design standards of the local agency.

Existing Highway Intersections
Highway lighting to be installed at existing intersections shall be financed jointly by Caltrans and the local agency in the same ratio as the number of legs under each jurisdiction bears to the total number of legs at the intersection.

The District Director may approve installing warranted utility-owned lighting without submitting a Project Initiation Document to Headquarters.

Normally, the monthly charges for utility-owned lighting installed at the request of Caltrans should be shared jointly with the local agency, as stated above or as indicated on the District Maintenance Agreement.

New Highway Intersections
The installation cost of highway lighting at new intersections on a State highway because of a State highway project shall be at 100 percent Caltrans expense. The installation cost of highway

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 6
lighting at new intersections on a State highway because of a local agency project shall be at 100 percent local agency expense.

Railroad Grade Crossings
The cost of installing and maintaining lighting at railroad grade crossings on State highways shall be at 100 percent Caltrans expense.

Chapter 1.5 – Lighting by Local Agencies and Others
Where a local agency proposes to install lighting on a State highway, an encroachment permit is required. Lighting may also be installed at the intersection of a State highway and private driveway by a private property owner under an encroachment permit. However, the local agency should also obtain an encroachment permit agreeing to own and maintain the lighting installed by a private party. Such lighting shall in no way detract from the effectiveness of existing State lighting or in any way interfere with the safe movement of traffic. On existing roadways, except expressways or freeways, the lighting may be installed on wood poles with overhead wiring for temporary construction. On expressways and freeways, the equipment shall meet Caltrans standards, i.e., steel standards and underground wiring. Where a local agency proposes to install continuous lighting using luminaires of higher light output than the existing highway luminaires, the project should include replacing the existing units with new luminaires with the higher light output. Caltrans will review the design of such lighting. The installation may be performed by local agency forces, a contractor, or an electrical utility.

Caltrans will only be responsible for the costs of installing or upgrading, maintaining, and operating lighting as warranted in Chapter 2.2 and Chapter 3.2.

Chapter 1.6 – Reconstruction of Existing Facilities
Freeways
When affected by State freeway construction, existing street lighting facilities shall be replaced in kind at 100 percent Caltrans expense, using salvaged material where feasible, under the following conditions:
a. Existing lighting was installed under permit; and
b. Existing lighting was warranted for installation; and c. Existing lighting is owned by a local agency.

In the event the local agency requests to have the relocated lighting system owned by the local agency reconstructed to an improved standard as part of the State contract, the difference in cost between replacement in kind and the construction requested shall be estimated and the agency shall agree to reimburse the State for the additional cost.

The reconstruction of existing street lighting facilities owned by a private utility is the responsibility of the utility and will be handled by the Division of Right of Way (see Chapter 2.2 for more information).

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 7
Highways
When affected by construction on a State highway, existing street lighting facilities owned by a city, county, or lighting district shall be reconstructed at the sole expense of the owner unless prior rights can be established.

In the event a local agency desires to have an existing continuous lighting system along a State highway reconstructed to an improved standard, or a new system built above Caltrans standards, the cost to Caltrans shall be limited to its share of the lighting at those locations where lighting is warranted.

Chapter 1.7 – Lighting Levels
The level of illumination on freeways, expressways, and controlled intersections are dictated by the roadway classification and pedestrian volumes.

See appropriate tables A through G in Appendix B for information on Average Maintained Illuminance, Uniformity Ratio, and lighting levels for pedestrian crosswalks.

Chapter 1.8 – Lighting Area
Freeway or Highway
Critical points are the points in the highway or freeway where the driver will have to decide on which through lane to follow or where there is a conflict. The following are critical points:
a. Decision point – location where the motorist must decide on which lane to follow. (i) Example 1: The decision point is at the location where one through lane transitions into two through lanes or where one through lane transitions into one through lane and an exit ramp.
(ii) Example 2: The beginning of the exit ramp gore is the decision point. b. Merge point – location where two or more lanes merge into one. The merge point is where the merging lane becomes 9 feet wide.

Lateral means going along the direction of travel of the highway (parallel to the highway).

Longitudinal means going across the highway (perpendicular to the highway).

The minimum lighting areas for conventional highway, expressway, and freeway are defined as follows:
a. Decision point:
i. Lateral boundary: Starts 90 feet upstream the merge point and ends 270 feet downstream the merge point.
ii. Longitudinal boundary: Starts at the right-side edge of travel way and ends at the left-side edge of travel way for a 4 or lower lane highway. For wider highways, the boundary starts at the right-side edge of travel way and ends 48 feet across the highway. The usual ending boundary is at the lane line between the 4th and 5th lane

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 8
if the lane widths are the standard width of 12 feet. (The 48 feet is for 4 lanes: 4*12 feet=48 feet.)
b. Merge point:
i. Lateral boundary: Starts 90 feet upstream the merge point and ends 90 feet downstream the merge point.
ii. Longitudinal boundary: Starts at the right-side edge of travel way and ends at the left-side edge of travel way for a 4 or lower lane highway. For wider highways, the boundary starts at the right-side edge of travel way and ends 48 feet across the highway. The usual ending boundary is at the lane line between the 4th and 5th lane if the lane widths are the standard width of 12 feet. (The 48 feet is for 4 lanes: 4*12 feet=48 feet.)
For examples, see Appendix A.

The lighting area lateral boundary is extended if ramp traffic meets the volumes shown in Appendix B, Table F, during one hour of darkness.

Intersection
The lighting area for intersection is defined by the area bounded by the crosswalks. Where there are no crosswalks, the lighting area is defined by the area normally bounded by the crosswalks.

Chapter 1.9 – Plans, Coordination, and Processing
General requirements for submitting plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) are noted in the Project Development Procedures Manual and the Caltrans Construction Contract Development Guide.

The designer should coordinate with the Division of Engineering Services, Office of Structure Design to coordinate with a structure engineer for the exact location of luminaires and pull boxes, foundation details, and conduit routes through the bridge structure to ensure proper design is included for all structures within the project limits.

Chapter 1.10 – Environmental Coordination
Coordination between Design and Environmental should begin early in the project development process and continue through construction. The Project Development Team (PDT) should work together to identify potential lighting impacts or requirements related to environmental resources ensuring that the project complies with applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

Potential lighting impacts can include disturbances to bird nestings or sensitive habitats, or work that is within a coastal zone or historic district. The designer should consult with their District Environmental / Biology offices and the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) for potential lighting mitigation measures.

Some potential lighting mitigation measures may include:
a. Utilizing roadway lighting analysis software to perform lighting level analysis in areas of concern such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA).

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 9
b. Reducing correlated color temperature (CCT) of proposed lighting fixtures. See Appendix D for definition. Current Caltrans Standard Specifications require a nominal CCT of 3000 K. Document changes in project design files. c. Lowering luminaire mounting heights. (Consult HQ Structures if non-standard lighting standards are used)
d. Installation of luminaire glare shields.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 10
Chapter 2 – Freeway Lighting
Chapter 2.1 – Introduction
In general, freeway lighting includes the following characteristics:
• Freeway lighting refers to lighting that is provided for freeways, expressways, and limited-access roadways.
• Freeway lighting consists of complete interchange lighting, including all ramps, mainlines, cross streets, gore areas, and intersections. • Freeway lighting serves to illuminate areas of potential vehicle conflict and to delineate exit ramps, entrance ramps, and gore areas.
• The designer may consider extending the limits of the conflict area to include side- specific areas, such as intersections, points of access, means of egress, curves, and steep hills.
• Lighting shall be installed where unusual freeway geometrics exist and traffic volume warrants are met. Current enhanced conspicuity standards for signage, markings, and delineation make it feasible in such situations to defer the installation of lighting facilities until required by increased traffic.

Chapter 2.2 – Warrants
Definitions
a. Urban, Suburban, and Rural Conditions. Urban conditions exist in areas designated on maps approved by the FHWA. Suburban conditions exist in areas contiguous to the designated urban areas. Rural conditions exist in all other areas. b. Average daily traffic (ADT) is the average calculated for up to five years after the freeway is opened to traffic.
c. Arterial1 roadways provide a high level of mobility, often in the form of fully or partially controlled access highways, with no or very few intersecting roadways to hinder traffic flow.
d. Collector1 roadways provide a more balanced blend of mobility and access to land and residence. (Collectors “collect” traffic from local roads and connect traffic to arterial roadways.)
e. Local1 roadways provide a high level of accessibility, provide direct access to adjacent land (e.g. low-density residential, multiple properties) and higher systems (e.g., collector, arterial), and may carry no through traffic movement.

1 Road Definition (Arterial, Collector, Local) is defined in the FHWA: Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, 2013 Edition.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 11
Freeway Interchange Lighting
Freeway Interchange lighting is warranted under either of the following conditions:
a. Where the total sum of the ADT ramp traffic entering and leaving the freeway within the interchange area exceeds 5,000 under urban conditions, 3,000 under suburban conditions, and 1,000 under rural conditions. The above numbers refer to the total sum of the ADT for the normal four ramps at an interchange. Where the number of ramps connecting with the freeway is less than four, the above total sum of ADT may be reduced proportionately.
b. Where the ADT on the freeway exceeds 25,000 for urban conditions, 20,000 for suburban conditions, and 10,000 for rural conditions.

Freeway Interchange Lane Lighting
Freeway interchange lanes are the acceleration lane (entrance ramp), deceleration lanes (exit ramp), or any extra lane(s) that starts from an entrance ramp and ends at the next exit ramp.

Lighting for freeway interchange lanes should be considered to illuminate the full-length of the lane if it is shorter than ½ mile.

Freeway Ramp and Surface Street Intersection Lighting
Lighting at the intersection of a freeway ramp and a surface street is warranted if either of the conditions in Freeway Interchange Lighting (a) or (b) above are satisfied.

Typically, two luminaires are placed at each freeway exit ramp and one luminaire at each freeway entrance ramp. Typical locations are shown in Appendix A Figure A-1 and A-2. Typical locations for luminaires at the intersections of freeway ramps and surface streets are shown in Appendix A Figure A-2. One or more additional luminaires may be installed when justified by geometrics, traffic patterns, background ambient lighting and/or freeway ramp traffic volumes.

This configuration should light the lighting area to the appropriate level shown in the Appendix B tables.

Freeway Structures Lighting
Lighting on or under a freeway (underpass) structure is warranted under either of the following conditions:
a. The lighting is illuminating acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, weaving areas, or walkways.
b. It is a part of local street lighting as stated in Chapter 2.5.

Provisions for future lighting may be installed in structures for freeway illumination only if there is a definite requirement to install lighting, as warranted above in Freeway Structures Lighting (a) or (b). Provisions for future lighting consist of conduits, pull boxes, foundations with anchor bolts, and flush soffit luminaires. The Project Engineer shall coordinate with the Division of Engineering Services, Office of Design and Technical Services.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 12
Structures considered to be an underpass are those in which the length and physical configuration of the structure do not substantially limit the driver's ability to see objects ahead.

No supplemental daytime lighting is required for these underpasses.

Short underpasses, such as those encountered where a roadway goes beneath two- or four- lane roadways, can generally be lighted with the standard luminaires for nighttime illumination only, if warranted.

Long underpasses, where overlapping of the lighting from the street luminaires cannot be accomplished, requires special treatment. When the lighting levels and uniformity on the roadway pavement are getting affected by the structure, then the underpass can be classified as “long” and will require additional daytime and nighttime lighting. And, if the pedestrian's lanes or sidewalks are included as part of the underpass then pedestrian lighting should be considered as per ANSI/IES RP-8-18 requirements.

Chapter 2.3 – Entrance/Exit Ramps
This section includes general requirements for installing lighting on freeways.

Freeway entrance and exit ramps lighting includes:
• Freeway entrance and exit ramps (freeway ramps and connections) • Freeway interchange
• Freeway ramps at single point interchange
• Freeway ramp meters
Typically, two luminaires are placed at each freeway exit ramp, starting at the full width of the exit lane, and a second luminaire placed at 180 feet downstream from it. This configuration should light the lighting area to the appropriate level shown in Appendix B tables. The luminaire position is to notify drivers of the decision point to exit the freeway.

Typically for each freeway entrance ramp, one luminaire is placed at the point where the on- ramp lane is tapered to nine feet wide and the adjoining freeway through lane is 12 feet. The luminaire position is to caution drivers of the merging freeway traffic to oncoming vehicles.

Typical locations for luminaires at the intersections of freeway ramps and surface streets are shown in Appendix A, Figure A-1 and A-2 (Partial Cloverleaf Interchange or Diamond Interchange). The lighting area can be increased when justified by geometrics, traffic patterns, background ambient lighting, or freeway ramp traffic volumes.

For metered freeway entrance ramps, a minimum of one luminaire should be placed at the limit line of metered-entrance ramp lanes.

The luminaire spacing and quantity of poles used for the entrance and exit ramps should be adjusted to achieve the lighting level shown in Appendix B.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 13
Chapter 2.4 – Freeway to Freeway Connections
Luminaires at freeway to freeway connections should be located as shown in Appendix A, Figure A-5. The typical advanced locations for luminaires at the diversion from one freeway to another is to warn drivers of the following:
a. When additional lanes are added or reduced from the freeway or highway. b. Merging traffic between vehicles toward their destination routes.

Chapter 2.5 – Lighting of Local Streets Within Limits of Freeway Projects Chapter 2.5A – Lighting of Existing Local Streets Within Limits of Freeway Projects The lighting of existing local streets within the limits of a freeway project, including lighting on local streets over or under the freeway, is warranted if:
• The local street is lit to modern standards up to the freeway right of way and the local agency agrees to assume ownership and cost of maintenance; or • The local street is not lit to modern standards and the local agency agrees to assume ownership and all costs of installation and maintenance.

If a local agency indicates that it proposes to install lighting on the local street within five years after construction is completed, the following should be installed on the project at 100 percent State expense:
• Conduits and other equipment in and under paved areas. • Provisions for future structure lighting as stated in Chapter 2.2 under Freeway Structure Lighting.

Chapter 2.5B – Lighting of New Local Streets Within Limits of Freeway Projects Installing lighting on new local streets, including new frontage roads, that are constructed on a new alignment for a local agency shall be governed by the following:
• Lighting may be installed when requested by the local agency, only if there is existing lighting in the area and if that lighting is owned by the local agency. The lighting design and financing shall follow the guidelines in Chapter 1.5. • Where the existing lighting is owned by a private utility, only equipment that will be in or under paved areas shall be installed by Caltrans (see Chapter 1.5).

If no lighting exists in the area, new lighting shall be installed only if the local agency agrees to finance the installation and to assume the cost of ownership and maintenance.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 14
Chapter 3 – Highway Lighting
Chapter 3.1 – Introduction
The purpose of highway lighting is to promote the safe and orderly movement of traffic by illuminating certain permanent features or conditions that are unusual and require additional care and alertness to navigate.

When highway lighting is to be installed at an intersection, the “Basic” illumination requirements are provided as shown in Appendix B.

Lighting on highways and expressways shall be limited to lighting requirements at the intersection with traffic signals, flashing beacons, stop/yield controls, and locations where lighting is warranted, as shown in Chapter 3.2.

The existence of an intersection is not itself a justification for lighting.

A minimum of two luminaires should be placed on the downstream side of the intersection. The luminaire position is to notify drivers the perimeter of the intersection, past the approaching limit line, as well as the surrounding geometrics of the area (see Appendix A, Figure A-3, and A-4).

For each signalized intersection, a minimum of one luminaire should be placed at each corner to illuminate the pedestrian crosswalk. The lighting level emphasizes the middle of the intersection to all turning and oncoming vehicles.

Chapter 3.2 – Warrants

1. Existing Intersections.

Lighting may be provided at existing intersections on expressways and highways if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
a. Warrant 1, Condition A (Minimum Vehicular Volume) and Condition B (Interruption of Continuous Traffic) (See Figure 4C-101 (CA) Traffic Warrants Sheet Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 5)), or Warrant 4, Part 1, Section B (Pedestrian Volume) (See Figure 4C- 101 (CA) Traffic Warrants Sheet Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 5) and Figures 4C-7 and 4C- 8 from CA MUTCD) is satisfied for any single hour, which may be in darkness during winter Months.
b. Four or more nighttime accidents in any recent consecutive 12-month interval or six or more nighttime accidents in any recent consecutive 24-month interval. c. Where a traffic signal or an intersection flashing beacon is installed. d. Where a controlled pedestrian crossing (e.g., Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon System) is installed.
e. Where combinations of sight distance, horizontal or vertical curvature of the roadway, channelization, or other factors constitute a confusing or unsatisfactory condition that may be improved with lighting. The Project Initiation Document covering such lighting should include an explanation of the factors constituting the confusing or unsatisfactory condition.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 15

2. New Intersections
a. Lighting may be provided at new intersections on expressways or highways if there are indications that any of the warrants listed in 1(a) above will be fulfilled within five years after the opening of the project to traffic.

3. Replacement of Lighting Owned by Other Agencies (see Chapter 1).

4. Warrants for Continuous Highway Lighting
Continuous lighting may be provided with uniformity and average illuminance values in accordance with the current edition of ANSI/IES RP-8.

If one of the lighting warrants shown below is satisfied, then continuous lighting should be considered:
• Where a new pedestrian/bikeway is installed in an expressway • If a crash analysis indicates that both the following conditions exist:
a. At least 30% of crashes occur at night over the last 5 years b. High vehicle speed/volume sections with pedestrians/bikeway facilities

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 16
Chapter 4 – Special Lighting Applications
Chapter 4.1 – Introduction
Chapter 4 sets guidelines for special lighting applications used in projects. These applications entreat specific considerations that may differ depending on funding, available right of way, nearby electrical power, surrounding climate, etc. The special lighting applications include the following types:
• Bike paths
• Roundabouts
• Railroad grade crossings
• Park and ride lots
• Bus stops
• Signs
• Chain on/off areas
• Falseworks
• Tunnels
• High masts
• Temporary
Chapter 4.2 – Bike Paths
The location of bike paths parallel to a freeway ramp and crossing and parallel to a roadway may warrant lighting.

This section covers the information needed for designing a lighting system that can be used for bike paths and/or pedestrian walkways and that are within the Caltrans right of way.

Roadway lighting improves the visibility for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists near a freeway ramp or roadway. Lighting is considered warranted if a crash analysis indicates that at least 30% of crashes occur at night within last 5 years.

Lighting may be considered if either:
a. A new pedestrian/bikeway is installed in an expressway b. High vehicle speed/volume sections exist with pedestrians/bikeway facilities Light levels vary with the functional classification of the highway, the development of the adjacent area, and the level of nighttime activity.

Refer to Appendix B, Table B, C, and D.

Chapter 4.3– Roundabouts
For a roundabout to work effectively, motorists should be able to enter the roundabout, move through the circulating traffic, and separate from the circulating stream in an efficient manner.

To accomplish this, motorists should be able to see the general layout and operation of the

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 17
intersection in time to make the appropriate maneuvers. Adequate lighting should therefore be provided at all roundabouts.

When lighting a roundabout, key decision points and conflict areas should be illuminated.

Crosswalks should be considered a part of the roundabout. Lighting poles should be placed in advance of a crosswalk to provide positive contrast for pedestrians. See Appendix A, Figure A-6 for the conflict area of a roundabout.

Roundabout lighting is also intended to identify:
a. Central island parameters
b. Splitter island nose radii and offsets
c. Merging and diverging traffic
The advantage of providing positive contrast is that the vehicle headlights help increase contrast and improve the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Additional lighting should be provided on the approach nose of the splitter islands at all conflict areas where traffic is entering the roundabout and all places where the traffic exits the roundabout.

The recommended lighting levels for roundabouts is shown in Appendix B, Table E.

Chapter 4.4 – Railroad Grade Crossings
The purpose of railroad grade crossings lighting is to light the conflict area of the railroad crossings.

The conflict area includes the shoulders to 100 feet in front of the crossings in both directions.

Lighting poles should:
a. Not be located closer than 33 feet from the railroad right of way. b. Be installed away from the tracks to avoid falling onto the tracks if knocked down. c. Not block visibility of the traffic signals used to warn drivers of approaching trains.

Designers should be familiar with road geometrics, including sidewalks, bikeways, signage, underground/overhead utilities, and railroad geometrics and crossing features.

Lighting may be provided at railroad grade crossings where a substantial amount of railroad operation is conducted at night, particularly where train speeds are low, where crossings are blocked for long periods, or a study indicates that motorists have trouble seeing trains or traffic control devices during the hours of darkness. For further information, see the CA MUTCD.

The recommended lighting levels for intersections with railroad crossings are shown in Appendix B, Tables A to G.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 18
Chapter 4.5 – Park and Ride Lots
Lighting for park and ride lots should be considered carefully. There may be several reasons why lighting is not provided, e.g., in a rural area where power line extension charges would be excessive.

The following guidelines should be used in determining the amount of lighting to be installed where it has been determined that providing lighting without excessive cost is feasible:
• Design the lighting to provide minimum 0.2 fc (Emin)
• Maximum uniformity ratio (Emax/Emin) of 20:1
• Design for all-night illumination.

Chapter 4.6 – Bus Stops
Bus stops qualify as major activity areas and are warranted for lighting. Particularly, bus stops within State highways, such as areas between Interchanges and at State-owned park & ride lots, should be lit. At locations within an interchange area where a special ramp for buses and a bus stop are provided, a minimum of one luminaire should be provided. Illumination should be provided at bus turn-outs, passenger loading areas, passenger benches, shelters, and crosswalks.

Lighting design should include bus turn-outs, passenger loading areas, passenger benches and shelters, and crosswalks.

The responsibility for lighting at bus stops may be shared with the local agency. The designer should consider illuminating bus stops with shelters as they usually result in higher passenger usage.

Illumination requirements are often a policy of individual local agencies; however, installing lighting that provides between 2 to 3 fc is the general recommendation.

A co-op agreement or maintenance agreement between Caltrans and the local Agency would ensure that operations and maintenance of lighting at bus stops are proportionally shared by the jurisdictions.

Chapter 4.7 – Overhead Signs
In general, all new Overhead sign panels will come with ASTM Type XI retroreflective sheeting that will not require lighting. See Traffic Operations Policy Directive 14-02 Revision 1.

However, lighting for overhead signs may be needed if a location meets one of the following criteria:
• Signs skewed with angles greater than 25 degrees and are not legible when illuminated by vehicle headlights.
• Signs adjacent to other signs requiring or having sign lighting. • Signs located along a horizontal curve with a radii of 880 feet or less in rural areas and radii of 2,500 feet or less in urban areas.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 19
• Where vertical sag curves 1,000 feet or closer to overhead sign panels will limit vehicle headlight illumination of signs.

The sign lighting equipment, number of fixtures, and installation details are shown in the Standard Plans.

Chapter 4.8 – Chain On/Off Areas
The purpose of lighting chain on/off areas is to improve safety for the travelling public when they are installing or removing chains. Lighting should illuminate pedestrians working along the roadside immediately adjacent to traffic. Increasing the lighting levels and lighting uniformity at chain on/off areas improves visibility for motorists.
• Design the lighting to provide minimum 3.0 fc (Eavg)
• Maximum uniformity of 3:1 (Eavg/Emin)
Chapter 4.9 – Falsework
Falsework lighting should be considered for all passageways, including pedestrian openings through or under falsework. The faces of all falsework and forms located within or adjacent to the traveled way should be illuminated on the approach sides during the hours of darkness.

Refer to Standard Specification Section 48-2 for more details on falsework lighting.

The illumination levels for falsework during construction activities are shown in Appendix B, Table G.

Chapter 4.10 – Tunnels
Tunnels should have sufficient illumination during the day so that vehicles inside the tunnel may be seen by approaching motorists. All interior walls and ceilings of tunnels to be lighted should be painted or tiled in a light color. All concrete surfaces to be painted should have a Class 1 finish. Tunnels less than 300 feet long normally do not require daytime lighting but interior walls and ceilings should be painted. Day and night lighting should be installed for tunnels that:
• Have vertical or horizontal curves in the road that may obstruct visibility; • Are over 300 feet long; or
• Include walkways, pedestrians, or bicycle paths.

The recommended lighting level for tunnels is shown in Appendix B, Table C.

Designers should consult with the Division of Engineering Services, Office of Structure Design when designing non-standard poles and sign structures, modifying existing standards, and designing new traffic signal poles with special loading.

The Project Engineer should coordinate with the Office of Design and Technical Services to ensure that the proper structure design approach is included in the PS&E phase of the project.

To request the special design application, designers should complete and submit the “Signs and Overhead Structures” form to the Division of Engineering Services a minimum of three months

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 20
prior to the Ready to List phase of the project. Designers should also provide all required forms and supporting documents (layouts, cross sections, photos, etc.).

Chapter 4.11 – High Masts
The use of high mast lighting systems may be considered where regular lighting standards are difficult to install and maintain. However, high mast lighting should not be applied in substantially developed residential areas to avoid lighting trespass.

Selection between conventional and high mast units should consider several factors: installation and maintenance costs, traffic volume, and possibility of lighting pollution.

Conventional lighting often requires lower installation costs on non-interchange roadway segments, while high mast lighting is less expensive for interchange areas because of reduced conduits and conductors, and requirements for fewer lighting fixtures and poles.

Maintaining high mast lighting also costs less because it involves less extensive lane closures.

Regardless of whether high mast or conventional lighting are used, the same lighting levels and uniformity ratios should be used.

Chapter 4.12 – Temporary
A temporary lighting system may be used to light the work area and the adjacent roadway.

These systems use existing or temporary poles to mount luminaires and may include high-mast lighting. Standard roadway luminaries are usually installed. Installing a temporary lighting system allows for uniform spacing of luminaires at high mounting heights, resulting in uniform lighting with low glare.

Temporary roadway lighting should be considered for the following circumstances:
• Abrupt changes in the roadway alignment, including lane reductions • A medium or high pedestrian activity is present
• Locations with high traffic volumes
• Presence of a fixed roadway lighting system in the work area (existing light levels should be maintained, possibly augmented)
• The work area location is identified as having operational problems (e.g., a high nighttime crash rate)
Maintain required illumination during all construction activities, except when shutdown is permitted to allow for alterations or final removal of the system per the Project Engineer. Site preparation, widening, drainage, guardrail installation, or other work can easily impact existing conduit runs or luminaire locations. Also, changed conditions, such as merging, weaving, or unusual alignment due to traffic control, often require additional temporary illumination.

Note: The same lighting requirements apply whether a condition is temporary or permanent.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 21
Chapter 5 – Structure Lighting Facilities
Chapter 5.1 – Introduction
Designers should consult with the Division of Engineering Services, Structure Design, Office of Electrical, Mechanical, Water & Wastewater (EMWW) for the following lighting applications.

These lighting applications are:

1. Road tunnels

2. Exclusive pedestrian facilities

2.1. Undercrossings

2.2. Overcrossings

3. Transportation-related facilities:

3.1. Safety roadside rest areas

3.2. Commercial vehicle enforcement facilities (truck inspections)

3.3. Toll plazas

3.4. Agriculture inspection facilities

3.5. Maintenance stations

3.6. Transportation labs
Conduit on structure should be run either parallel to or at right angles to the structure girders. A variation of ±15 degrees is acceptable. Except for sidewalk joints, a conduit expansion fitting should be installed at each structure joint, hinge or abutment where a longitudinal movement of

0.5 inches or greater may occur. Where a lateral movement of 0.25 inches or greater may occur, an expansion-deflection fitting should be installed. Details for placement of expansion fittings and expansion-deflection fittings are shown in the Standard Plans.

Chapter 5.2 – Road Tunnels
The new tunnel lighting systems should be designed and installed to comply with the following applicable codes:

1. California Electrical Code

2. ANSI/IES RP-8-18 (Chapter 14-Tunnels)
Lighting for new road tunnels located in rural areas and lighting upgrades to existing road tunnels will be evaluated on case-by-case basis to determine if meeting specific design features is feasible and cost effective.

The road tunnel lighting fixtures must comply with the following criteria:

1. LED type

2. Addressable for remote monitoring and control

3. Continuously dimmable (from 10 percent to maximum output) Road tunnel lighting consists of lighting for the tunnel approach and roadway inside the tunnel.

The tunnel lighting control system should also be upgraded. Road tunnel lighting levels shall be evaluated using lighting software.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 22
Chapter 5.3 – Exclusive Pedestrian Facilities
The lighting for exclusive pedestrian facilities within the freeway project is warranted at the following locations:
a. Pedestrian undercrossings
b. Pedestrian overcrossings
Lighting shall be provided on pedestrian undercrossings and overcrossings where the local agency agrees to assume ownership and cost of maintenance. Pedestrian undercrossings (no vehicular traffic) shall be provided with adequate daytime and nighttime illumination. The designer should coordinate with the Division of Engineering Services, Office of Design and Technical Services.
a. Pedestrian Undercrossing
Lighting for long undercrossings should be considered carefully. The purpose of this lighting is for safety and security considerations. Undercrossings should also have daytime lighting.

The recommended maintained illuminance values for undercrossings are shown in table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Maintained Illuminance Values for Pedestrian Undercrossing Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity
Eavg/Emin
Day 9.3 3.0
Night 3.7 3.0
b. Pedestrian Overcrossings
This section provides information needed for designing lighting systems used for pedestrian overcrossings. Pedestrian overcrossings are facilities that provide a connection between pedestrian walkways as well as connecting the bike paths. Therefore, the use of pedestrian overcrossings is limited to pedestrians and bicyclists.

In general, lighting is required to be installed on pedestrian overcrossings within Caltrans right of ways.

The location of the proposed overcrossing requires special consideration for lighting levels due to environmentally sensitive areas, such as rivers, creeks, and wetlands. Lighting installed on the overcrossing may produce glare that should be shielded from spreading to the structure where light can be a distraction for motorists using the highway and frontage road.

The design criteria for pedestrian overcrossings are based on horizontal and vertical illuminance. The required minimum for maintained horizontal illuminance provides visibility of bikeways and walkways surfaces and their boundaries for their respective users.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 23
Table 5.2: Maintained Illuminance Values for Pedestrian Overcrossing Mixed
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity
Eavg/Emin

0.5 4.0
Consider limited hours of lighting or user-actuated lighting design to minimize unnecessary emissions when the bridge is not in use.

Chapter 5.4 – Transportation-Related Facilities
Lighting design for new transportation-related facilities and major renovations should be designed and constructed to exceed 15 percent of the applicable version of Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Lighting for the transportation-related facilities consists of interior building lighting and exterior walkway or parking lot lighting for these facilities. The foot-candle requirements for interior spaces within these facilities should be as listed in the Maintenance Station Design Manual. The exterior walkway or parking lot lighting should follow the guidelines listed in the ANSI/IES RP-8-

18. In addition, the controls for interior and exterior lighting should meet all the mandatory and perceptive requirements of Title 24, Part 6.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 24
Chapter 6 – Luminaires
Chapter 6.1 – Roadway Luminaires
Utility-owned semi-cutoff type luminaires should be provided with glare shields in rural areas.

Chapter 6.2 – Soffit Luminaires
Normally, the fixtures should not be located over the traveled way on freeways.

Chapter 6.3 – Wall Luminaires
Wall luminaires are fixtures designed to be surface mounted on vertical surfaces. However, a simple right-angle bracket permits mounting them from a horizontal surface such as the bottom slab of a box girder. They are used with the same lamps as soffit luminaires.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 25
Chapter 7 – Lighting Software
Chapter 7.1 – Introduction
With this manual, Caltrans introduces a new tool to assist designers with designing roadway lighting. Lighting software applications will replace the old technique of using the Isofootcandle templates. The lighting industry is using lighting design analysis software that allows the importing of roadway CAD files. These CAD files typically contain roadway properties on different layers (e.g. edge of pavement, road shoulder, stationing, structures, curbs, sidewalks).

Designers will need to eliminate and combine the layers into one layer, confirming the scales and units used in the files.

Chapter 7.2 – Lighting Design Using Software Applications There are four basic steps to roadway lighting design using lighting analysis software applications:

1. Perform an initial assessment to become familiar with the project location and the specific design requirements;

2. Select the types of fixtures and poles to be used;

3. Determine lighting pole placements for constructability and maintainability; and

4. Perform appropriate lighting analysis to ensure conformance to design criteria and lighting levels.

Designers will utilize roadway CAD files and the lighting manufacturers' photometric files to calculate lighting levels for a roadway segment or an intersection. These photometric files are files with an IES file extension. The IES files include the photometric characteristics produced for each luminaire.

Chapter 7.3 – Software Applications and Validation
If time allows, field lighting measurements should be taken for a lighting project once it is installed and over time as the system ages. The Department should periodically validate luminaire photometrics, ensuring that the luminaires are providing the expected light output and distribution, and to confirm that lighting levels and lighting uniformity comply with recommended practice and design specifications.

ANSI/IES RP-8-18 “Recommended Practice for Design and Maintenance of Roadway and Parking Facility Lighting,” provides detailed instruction on how lighting measurements should be conducted in the field.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 26
Appendix A – Figures and Diagrams (Typical)
Figure A - 1: Freeway Lighting

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 27
Figure A - 2: Freeway Lighting

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 28
Figure A - 3: Intersection Lighting

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 29
Figure A - 4: Railroad Crossing and Intersection Lighting

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 30
Figure A - 5: Freeway to Freeway Connections

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 31
Figure A - 6: Roundabout Lighting

Note: LEGEND
For Guidance on Luminaire Placement, See Chapter 4.3, Roundabouts CONFLICT AREA Drawing Source: ANSI/IES RP-8-18

FIGURE A - 6:

ROUNDABOUT LIGHTING

NO SCALE

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 32
Appendix B – Tables
Lighting Design Criteria for Highways
Freeway lighting levels shown in Table A are based on roadways with limited access and low (or even no) significant pedestrian or bicyclist activity.

Expressway lighting levels are higher than freeway lighting levels. This is due to the increase in conflict points at intersections and driveways and a low level (less than 100 per hour) of pedestrian presence.

All lighting levels shown are in illuminance. The 2018 Illumination Engineering Society (IES)/ANSI RP8 recommends luminance for some values, but illuminance is chosen for Caltrans, since it is simpler to verify in the field. 2018 ANSI/IES RP8 chapter 3.2 gives luminance to illuminance conversion for R2 or R3 class roadway surface2. The conversion factor is 1 cd/m2 to 1.39 fc. The calculation is shown below.
1 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑚𝑚2 ∗ 15 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
1 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑚𝑚2
∗ 1 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐

10.76 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 1.39 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐
Roadway 10 (R10) luminaires are typically mounted on Type 15 standards for conventional highway lighting.

Roadway 11 (R11) luminaires are typically mounted on Type 15 standards for expressways.

Roadway 12 (R12) luminaires are typically mounted on non-Type 15 standards for freeways.

2 R2 or R3 class roadway surfaces represent asphalt road surfaces. These are the worst -case scenario for light reflectance. For more information, see 2018 Illumination Engineering Society (IES)/ANSI RP8 publication 3.1.5 pavement classification.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 33
Table A3: Design Criteria for Highways
Roadway
Classification
Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity
Eavg/Emin
Freeway 0.8 3.5
Expressway 1.4 3.0
Conventional 1.4 3.0

3 Reference to 2018 Illumination Engineering Society (IES)/ANSI RP8 publication, table 10-1: Example:
freeway and expressway, with no or low pedestrian (i.e. less than 10 pedestrians per hour at nighttime).

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 34
Lighting Design Criteria for Isolated Intersection
Lighting may be required at an isolated intersection where continuous lighting does not exist.

Lighting levels for isolated intersections should meet the light levels for the type of road where the intersection is located. The values included in Table B are based on R2 and R3 pavement classifications.

When the intersection roadways have different classification, the intersection is classified as the higher ADT classification.

Table B4: Lighting Design Criteria for Isolated Intersection Lighting Roadway
Classification
PED/hr Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum Uniformity
Eavg/Emin
Major Intersection < 100 0.8 3.0
Collector Intersection < 100 0.6 4.0
Local Intersection < 100 0.4 6.0

4 Reference to 2018 IES/ANSI RP8 publication, table 12-2: Example: freeway and expressway, with low or medium pedestrian (i.e. less than 100 pedestrians per hour).

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 35
Lighting Design Criteria for Streets
Street lighting is provided for roads where pedestrians and bicyclists are present. These roads can range from major to collector streets and require different lighting levels based on the expected pedestrian volumes. The recommended values for street lighting are shown in Table C.

Table C5. Lighting Design Criteria for Streets
Roadway Classification PED/hr Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity Eavg/Emin

Major > 100 1.67 3.0
Collector > 100 1.11 3.0

Illumination for Intersections
The recommended lighting levels for intersections of continuously lit roadways are based on the functional classifications of the intersecting roadways and level of pedestrian use. The values are taken from Table 11-1 in ANSI/IES RP-8-18 “Recommended Practice for Design and Maintenance of Roadway and Parking Facility Lighting.” The functional classifications of roadways are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design:
• Major – Over 3,500 ADT
• Collector – 1,501 to 3,500 ADT
• Local – 100 to 1,500 ADT

5 Based on RP8, table 11-1: Use the table based on the number of pedestrians (medium or high).

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 36
Table D6: Pavement Illuminance Criteria for Full Intersection Lighting Roadway Intersection
Classification
PED/hr Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity
Eavg/Emin

Major/Major or
Major/Collector or
Major/Local
> 100 3.2 3.0
Major/Major or
Major/Collector or
Major/Local
< 100 2.4 3.0
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
> 100 2.2 4.0
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
< 100 1.7 4.0

Table D should be used for Full Intersections Lighting with high pedestrian level, e.g., community facilities; libraries; recreation centers; near major airport; truck, rail, or bus terminals; activity centers, such as a central business center to large town centers, shopping center, or malls; large colleges; medical complexes; military bases and large institutional facilities; major industrial or commerce centers; and major recreational areas.

6 Based on RP8, table 12-1 for intersections with a high pedestrian level.

For high pedestrian locations the pedestrian volumes are more than 100 pedestrians/hour at nighttime.

For medium pedestrian locations the pedestrian volumes are within 11 to 100 pedestrians/hour at nighttime. For low pedestrian locations the pedestrian volumes are less than 10 pedestrians/hour at nighttime for isolated locations.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 37
Table E7: Recommended Pavement Illuminance for Roundabouts, Based on Pedestrian Activity Classification
Roadway Classification Ped/hr
Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Maximum
Uniformity
Eavg/Emin

Major/Major or
Major/Local or
Major/Collector
> 100 3.2 3.0
Major/Major or
Major/Local or
Major/Collector
< 100 2.4 3.0
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
> 100 2.2 4.0
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
< 100 1.7 4.0
Local/Local & Isolated > 100 1.7 6.0
Local/Local & Isolated < 100 1.3 6.0

Table F – Criteria for Lighting Area Longitudinal Addition at Exit and Entrance Ramps Freeway ADT Exit Ramp
Volume
Entrance Ramp
Volume
>75,000 >300 vph +90 feet
downstream
>300 vph +90 feet
upstream
>150,000 >700 vph +180 feet
downstream
>700 vph +180 feet
upstream

7 Based on the ANSI/IES RP8 Table 12-4. The lighting levels are recommended for continuously lighted streets. For roundabouts on roadways that are not continuously lighted, the values for the local/local classifications should be used.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 38
Table G – Falsework Illumination Levels
The minimum average illumination levels for falsework during construction are shown in the following table:

Minimum Average Illumination Levels
Illumination Area Minimum Eavg
(fc)
Pavement 0.8
Portal 1.0
Pedestrian Walkway 2.0

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 39
Table H – Relationship Between Older LED Luminaires and LED Newer Luminaires Usage Roadway Intersection
Classification
PED/hr Typical Older
Luminaire
Typical Newer
Luminaire

Major/Major or
Major/Local or
Major/Collector
> 100 Roadway 2 Int L – A or Int M – A
Major/Major or
Major/Local or
Major/Collector
< 100 Roadway 2 Int L – B or Int M – B
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
> 100 Roadway 2 Int M – A
Collector/Collector or
Collector/Local or
Local/Local
< 100 Roadway 2 Int M – B
Isolated Major
Intersection < 100 Roadway 2 Int L – C
Isolated Collector
Intersection < 100 Roadway 2 Int M – C
Isolated Local
Intersection < 100 Roadway 2 Int S – C
Conventional Highway Roadway 1 Roadway 11
Expressway Roadway 1 Roadway 11
Freeway Roadway 2 Roadway 12

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 40
Appendix C – Application Policies
Lighting policies
Breakaway/Slip Base Under Standards Located Along Freeways, Expressways, and Conventional Highways – 10/15/1987
Nonstandard Lighting Poles on Conventional State Highway Installed and Maintained by Others – 1/25/1991
Catwalks on Overhead Sign Structures – 8/16/1991
Clarification on Lighting of Sag Vertical Curves with Nonstandard Stopping Sight Distance – 5/11/1993
Lighting for Nonstandard Sag Vertical Curves – 6/16/1993 Updated Managed Lane Design TOPD – 4/7/2011
Overhead Guide Sign Policy on the State Highway System – 12/11/2014: Revision 1 and Follow-up memo dated 8/24/2015 for Implementation of Retroreflective Sheeting (Types VIII, IX, or XI) for Fluorescent Orange

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 41
Appendix D – Definition of Terms
adaptation: process by which the visual system becomes accustomed to different light intensity or different light colors than it was exposed to previously. It results in a change in the sensitivity of the eye to light.
ambient lighting: general lighting used to provide visibility in a built environment. Ambient lighting includes both artificial and natural lighting and does not include task lighting and accent lighting.
arterial: see Roadway Classification - Major
ballast: device used with an electric-discharge lamp to obtain the necessary circuit conditions (voltage, current, and waveform) for starting and operating. bikeway: any road, street, path, or way that in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. brightness: see luminance and subjective brightness.
conflict: occurs whenever the paths followed by vehicles diverge, merge, or cross. conflict area: area of a roadway where the motorist's special attention is required to interpret the functional features (e.g. bullnose) and/or activities (e.g. pedestrians, turning vehicles, railroad grade crossing) of the roadway, to decide on their driving routine. It is that area which encompasses all the conflict points.
conflict point: point at which conflicts can occur.
continuous lighting: fixed overhead lighting system designed to provide a specific level of illuminance, luminance and uniformity of light on the roadway throughout a highway complex. contrast: see luminance contrast.
correlated color temperature (CCT): unlike the color rendering index (CRI), which describes how faithfully a light source represents other objects, the correlated color temperature (CCT) describes the color output of the lamp itself. Some common CCT values include:
• 2700K, with a warm tinge of yellow that creates appealing and relaxing environments • 4000K, a neutral white tone that strikes just the right balance between relaxation and concentration
• 6500K, with a slight tinge of blue, which has an energizing effect Although the correct technical term is correlated color temperature, it is often shortened to only color temperature. It is also important to note that the CCT is not the real operating temperature of a lamp; it is the temperature to which you would have to heat a black body to make it glow with the same color. For example, an LED bulb with a CCT of 5000K glows in the same color as a black body heated to a real temperature of 5000K, but the LED bulb itself does not reach that temperature.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 42
crosswalk: see pedestrian crosswalk.
darkness: any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance 1,000 feet.
discomfort glare: glare producing discomfort. It does not necessarily interfere with visual performance or visibility.
expressway: divided highway with partial control of access. footcandle, fc: unit of illuminance when a foot is taken as the unit of length. It is the illuminance on a surface that is one square foot in area, on which there is a uniformly distributed flux of one lumen. Or, it is the illuminance produced on a surface of all points that are one foot from a directionally uniform point source of one candela.
glare: sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. Visual impairment caused by a bright source of light, directly visible or reflected by a surface. There are two types of glare:
• Discomfort glare causes an instinctive reaction to close the eyes and look away. This is the type of glare felt when exposed to a potent HID light or when the sun is directly visible through a window.
• Disability glare impairs vision but does not cause the same reaction as discomfort glare.

If a light source gets reflected on your laptop screen, for example, it does not bother your eyes but distinguishing objects on the screen may be impossible. high-intensity discharge (HID): type of lighting often used for industrial and outdoor settings due to its powerful output. Some examples of HID lighting are mercury-vapor, metal-halide, xenon, high-pressure sodium, and low-pressure sodium lamps. high mast lighting: illumination of a large area by means of a group of luminaires that are designed to be mounted in fixed orientation at the top of a high support or pole (generally 20 meters or higher).
high-pressure sodium (HPS): subtype of HID lighting where excited sodium vapor is the source of light. The lighting output of HPS lamps is characterized by its warm yellow hue, and are commonly used in cobra-head street lights.

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA): technical authority in the lighting industry, with dozens of publications to its credit. IESNA has members and recognition throughout the world.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 43
illuminance: density of luminous flux incident on a surface, measured in footcandles, or fc (or lux, lx). One footcandle is the illumination of a surface one square foot in area on which there is a uniformly distributed luminous flux of one lumen. One footcandle is 10.76 lux. The illuminance requirements of built environments are determined by their intended purpose, and there are two common units of measurement:
• Lux - Equivalent to one lumen per square meter.
• Footcandle - Equivalent to one lumen per square foot.

Higher illuminance levels make surfaces appear brighter to the human eye and improve visibility.
interchange: road junction that uses grade separation, and typically one or more ramps, to permit traffic on at least one highway to pass through the junction without interruption from other crossing traffic streams.
intersection: general area where two or more roadways (highways) join or cross, including the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic movement within it. isolated Interchange: separated roadway crossing with one or more ramp connections between the crossing roadways, which is lighted and is not part of a continuous roadway system.
isolated Intersection: lighted area in which two or more non-continuously lighted roadways join or cross at the same level
kelvin (K): measurement unit for temperature, although in the lighting industry it is more commonly used to indicate the CCT of light sources.
kilowatt (kW): measurement unit for electric power, equivalent to 1000 watts; thus, a 10kW light = 10,000 watts. This term should not be confused with kilowatt-hour. See watt. kilowatt-hour (kWh): measurement unit for energy consumption. As implied by its name, it is equivalent to the amount of energy consumed by a one-kilowatt appliance running for one hour.

Electric utility bills are often calculated based on kilowatt-hour consumption per month. This term should not be confused with kilowatt.

L70: extrapolated life in hours of the luminaire when the luminous output depreciates 30 percent from the initial values.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 44
lamp: a generic term for an artificial source of light.

Figure 2 – Relationship between candelas, lumens, lux, and footcandles:

A uniform point source (luminous intensity or candlepower = one candela) is shown at the center of a sphere of unit radius whose surface has a reflectance of zero. The illuminance at any point on the sphere is one lux (one lumen per square meter) when the radius is one meter, or one footcandle (one lumen per square foot) when the radius is one foot. The solid angle subtended by the area A, B, C, D is one steradian. The flux density is therefore one lumen per steradian, which corresponds to a luminous intensity of one candela as originally assumed. The sphere has a total area of 4 (or 12.57) square units (square meters or square feet), and there is a luminous flux of one lumen falling on each unit area. Thus, the source provides a total of

12.57 lumens.
lamp lumen depreciation factor (LLD): multiplier to be used in calculations to relate the initial rated output of light sources to the anticipated minimum output based on the relamping program to be used.

LED (light-emitting diode): solid-state component that emits light when exposed to electric current. LED lighting represents the state-of-the-art in the industry, outclassing most other types of lighting in terms of energy efficiency, design flexibility, and colors of light available. light: visually evaluated radiant energy.
lighting standard: pole and mast arm supporting the luminaire. lumen: measurement unit for the lighting output of lamps or fixtures. The total lumens emitted and their spatial distribution are of paramount importance when creating appealing and luxurious indoor spaces. In lighting, lumens can be compared to miles traveled and watts can be compared to fuel consumption. Radiometrically, it is determined from the radiant power.

Photometrically, it is the luminous flux emitted within a unit solid angle (one steradian) by a point source having a uniform luminous intensity of one candela.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 45
luminance, L (cd/m2): quotient of the luminous flux at an element of the surface surrounding the point and propagated in directions defined by an elementary cone containing the given direction, by the product of the solid angle of the cone and area of the orthogonal projection of the element of the surface on a plane perpendicular to the given direction. The luminous flux may be leaving, passing through, and/or arriving at the surface. Note: In common usage the term "brightness" usually refers to the strength of sensation which results from viewing surfaces or spaces from which light comes to the eye. This sensation is determined in part by the measurable luminance defined above and in part by conditions of observation such as the state of adaptation of the eye.
luminance (photometric brightness): quantity of luminous flux emitted, reflected, or transmitted from a surface in a direction, measured in cd/feet2 or cd/m2. This is the property of light we can visibly see with our eyes.

luminaire: includes the lamp, the ballast or driver, internal wiring, reflectors, lens and any additional components required to deliver light. A complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Sometimes includes ballasts and photocells.

Assembly that houses the light source and controls the light emitted from the light source. luminaire cycle: distance between two luminaires along one side of the roadway. Note: this may not be the same as luminaire spacing along the centerline considering both sides of the road. (See spacing.)
luminous flux: luminous flux is the measure of the total amount of energy radiated per second from a light source in all directions. It is measured in lumens. One lumen is defined as the luminous flux of the uniform point light source having a luminous intensity of 1 candela luminous flux density at a surface: luminous flux per unit area at a point on a surface. Note:
this need not be a physical surface; it may equally well be a mathematical plane. luminous intensity: lighting emission in a specific direction, measured in candelas. Luminous intensity changes depending on the viewing angle. Not to be confused with luminous flux. lux: SI unit for illuminance, or lumens per unit of area. One lux is equivalent to one lumen per square meter. A key component of lighting designed is achieving a suitable illuminance level depending on the application at hand. It is the illuminance on a surface one square meter in area on which there is a uniformly distributed flux of one lumen, or the illuminance produced at a surface all points that are at a distance of one meter from a uniform point source of one candela. Conversion Formula: fc x 10.8 = Lux.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 46
mercury lamp: subtype of HID lamp that produces its lighting output by stimulating mercury vapor, hence its name. Mercury lamps may use a phosphor coating to enhance lighting performance and are commonly used in outdoor and industrial lighting applications. mounting height: vertical distance between the roadway surface and the center of the apparent light source of the luminaire.
overcrossings (For pedestrians/Bikeway): overcrossing is a facility that provides a connection between pedestrian walkways/bikeways or roads open to pedestrian walkways/bicycling. pedestrian classification:
high: areas with significant numbers of pedestrians expected to be on the sidewalks or crossing the streets during darkness. Examples are downtown retail areas, near theaters, concert halls, stadiums, and transit terminals.
medium: areas where lesser numbers of pedestrians use the streets at night. Typical are downtown office areas blocks with libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping, industrial, older city areas, and streets with transit lines.
low: areas with very low volumes of night pedestrian usage. These can occur in any of the cited roadway classifications but may be typified by suburban single-family streets, very low- density residential developments, and rural or semi-rural areas. pedestrian crosswalk: area designated by markings for pedestrians to cross the roadway. pull box: box with a cover that is installed in an accessible place in a conduit run to facilitate pulling in wires or cables.
roadway classification:
major: part of the roadway system that serves as the principal network for through-traffic flow. The routes connect areas of principal traffic generation and important rural roadways leaving the city. Also, often known as “arterials,” “thoroughfares,” or “preferential.” collector: roadways servicing traffic between major and local streets. These are streets used mainly for traffic movements within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. They do not handle long, through trips.
local: local streets are used primarily for direct access to residential, commercial, industrial, or other abutting property.
spacing: distance between successive luminaires measured along the center line of the street.

See luminaire cycle.
subjective brightness: subjective attribute of any light sensation given rise to the perception of luminous intensity, including the whole scale of qualities of being bright, lightness, brilliant, dim, or dark.
surface street: street that is not a freeway and has at-grade intersections with other surface streets.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 47
tunnel: as defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Technical Committee for Tunnels (T-20) are enclosed roadways with vehicle access that is restricted to portals regardless of the structure type or construction method. The committee further defines road tunnels not to include enclosed roadways created by highway bridges, railroad bridges, or other bridges. This definition applies to all types of tunnel structures and tunnels, mined and bored tunnels in rock and soft ground, and immersed tunnels. undercrossing (pedestrians crossing/bikeway): pedestrian undercrossing and bicycle undercrossing are facilities that provide a connection between pedestrian walkways/bikeways or roads open to pedestrian walkways/bicycling.
visibility: quality or state of being perceivable by the eye. In many outdoor applications, visibility is sometimes defined in terms of the distance at which an object can be just perceived by the eye. In indoor and outdoor applications, it is usually defined in terms of the contrast or size of a standard test object, observed under standardized viewing conditions, having the same threshold as the given object.
walkway: sidewalk or pedestrian way.
warrant: threshold condition based upon average or normal conditions that, if found to be satisfied as part of an engineering study, shall result in analysis of other traffic conditions or factors to determine whether a traffic control device or other improvement is justified. Warrants are not a substitute for engineering judgment. The fact that a warrant for a traffic control device is met is not conclusive justification for the installation of the device. watt: measurement unit for the electric power consumption of lighting fixtures, or any other appliance that runs with electricity. In lighting, lumens can be compared to miles traveled and watts can be compared to fuel consumption.

`
Version Date: 07/27/2021 48
Appendix E – References
California Department of Transportation. Traffic Manual. November 2002. Sacramento.

Illuminating Engineering Society. American National Standard Practice for Design and Maintenance of Roadway and Parking Facility Lighting – ANSI/IES RP-8-18. 2018. New York, NY.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. June 2000. Washington D.C.

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT

CALTRANS ROADWAY LIGHTING MANUAL TABLE D

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT

LEFT TURN LANE WARRANTS - AASHTO GREEN BOOK
2018

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT

LEFT TURN LANE WARRANTS - SDDOT TRAFFIC MANUAL

15- 10
The desired roundabout Level of Service is C; the minimum Level of Service is D.

For detailed turn lane, roundabout, and median geometric design information refer to Chapter 7 – Cross Sections or Chapter 12 – Intersections.

TURN LANE WARRANTS
Turn Lane Study Guidelines
At a minimum, turn lane analysis reports should include the following:
A thorough evaluation of each of the warrant criteria. Discussion of access management considerations.
Recommendations as to whether or not turn lanes are appropriate. Note that even though conditions may or may not meet certain criterion, the ultimate deciding factor is the engineer’s judgment. Factors that could influence the decision include conflict analysis results, benefit/cost analysis results, right-of-way cost considerations, constructability, etc.
The recommended storage length if a turn lane is appropriate. The estimated 95th percentile queue value should be used for the recommended length. Queue values should be determined using an acceptable analysis software method.

Left Turn Lane Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections
Generally, left turn lanes should be considered (1) when the hourly volume of turns has a significant negative effect on traffic operations, or, (2) when historical crash analysis shows that a crash trend could be correctable by providing a turn lane.

Left Turn Lane Evaluation Process
A left turn lane should be installed if Criterion 1 (Volume), 2 (Crash), or 3 (Special Cases) are met; and
The left turn lane complies with access management spacing standards; and The left turn lane conforms to appropriate design guidelines.

Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume
The vehicular volume criterion is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for considering installation of a left turn lane. The volume criteria are determined by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) curves in Figure 15-2.

15- 11
Note: The criterion is not met from zero to ten left turn vehicles per hour, but careful consideration should be given to installing a left turn lane due to the increased potential for crashes in the through lanes. While the turn volumes are low, the adverse safety and operational impacts may require installation of a left turn. The final determination will be based on a field study.

Figure 15-2 Left Turn Lane Volume Warrant
Criterion 2: Crash Experience
The crash experience criterion is satisfied when either Condition 1 or 2 are met, and Condition 3 is met:

1. A history of crashes of the type susceptible to correction by a left turn lane (e.g. rear- end crashes involving turning vehicles). A separate left turn lane may be warranted if three or more reported intersection related crashes occur within a 12 month period.

The geometry for warranted turn lanes be used for locations meeting these criteria (see Chapter 12 - Intersections).

2. An economic analysis using predictive measures consistent with the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) shows a benefit/cost ratio ≥ 1.0 and at least two crashes in the last ten years are of the type susceptible to correction by a left turn

15- 12
lane (e.g. rear-end crashes involving turning vehicles), or based on the Highway Safety Engineer’s recommendation to add a turn lane. The geometry for warranted turn lanes will be used for locations meeting these criteria (see Chapter 12 - Intersections).

3. The installation of the left turn lane does not adversely impact the operations of the intersection.

Criterion 3: Special Cases

1. Railroad Crossings: If a railroad is parallel to the roadway, then the likelihood of train movements preventing left turns and creating stopped queues on the highway should be taken into consideration. The provided left turn lane storage length will be dependent on the duration that the side road is closed, the expected number of vehicle arrivals, and the location of the crossing. The analysis should consider all of the variables influencing the design of the left turn lane, and may allow a design for conditions other than the worst case storage requirements, provided safety is not compromised.

2. Geometric/Safety Concerns: Sight distance, alignment, operating speed, adjacent access points, and other safety related concerns should be taken into consideration.

3. Non-Traversable Median: A left turn lane may be considered to be installed at a break in a non-traversable median where left turns are not prohibited and either of the following conditions exist:
a. If Criterion 1 (Vehicular Volume) is not met but there is a significant amount of left turn movements; or
b. If Criterion 2 (Crash Experience) is not met but there has been a pattern of crashes that has occurred, and a left turn lane would prevent or limit those types of crashes to occur if installed.

Left Turn Lane Volume Criterion Example
Figure 15-2a shows an unsignalized intersection with a shared through-right lane and a shared through-left lane on the highway. The peak hour volumes and lane configurations are shown in the figure. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. Does the intersection meet the volume criterion for a left turn lane in either the NB or SB direction?

15- 13
Figure 15-2a Left Turn Lane Example Volumes
Southbound: The SB advancing volume is 555 (90+250+200+15) and the NB opposing volume is 515 vehicles (the opposing left turns are not counted as opposing volumes). The volume for the Y-axis on Figure 15-2 is determined using the equation:

Y-axis volume = ((Advancing Vol/# of Advancing Lanes)+
(Opposing Vol/Number of Opposing Lanes))
= (555/2 + 515/2) = 535
To determine if the SB left turn volume criterion is met, use the 45 mph curve in Figure 15-2, 535 for the y-axis, and 15 left-turns for the x-axis. The volume criterion is not met in the SB direction.
Northbound: The NB advancing volume is 555 (40+200+300+15) and the SB opposing volume is 540 vehicles (the opposing left turns are not counted as opposing volumes). The volume for the Y-axis on Figure 15-2 is (555/2+540/2) = 548. To determine if the SB left turn volume criterion is met, use the 45 mph curve in Figure 15-2, 548 for the y-axis, and 40 left turns for the x-axis. The volume criterion is met in the NB direction.

15- 14
Note: The criterion is not met from zero to ten left turn vehicles per hour, but careful consideration should be given to installing a left turn lane due to the increased potential for crashes in the through lanes. While the turn volumes are low, the adverse safety and operational impacts may require installation of a left turn. The final determination will be based on a field study.

Figure 15-2b Left Turn Lane Example Criterion Graph
SB Peak Hour
(15,535)
NB Peak Hour
(40,548)

15- 15
Right Turn Lane Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections
The purpose of a right turn lane at an unsignalized intersection is to reduce the speed differential between the right turning vehicles and the other vehicles on the roadway.

Research has shown that this will increase roadway capacity and reduce certain types of crashes.

Right Turn Lane Evaluation Process
A right turn lane should be considered if criterion 1 (Volume), 2 (Crash), or 3 (Special Cases) is met; and
The right turn lane complies with access management spacing standards; and The right turn lane conforms to the appropriate design guidelines.

Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume
The vehicular volume criterion is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for considering installation of a right turn lane. The vehicular volume criterion is determined using the curve in Figure 15-3.

Figure 15-3 Right Turn Lane Volume Warrant

15- 16
Criterion 2: Crash Experience
The crash experience criterion is satisfied when either Condition 1 or 2 are met and Condition 3 is met:

1. A history of crashes of the type susceptible to correction by a right turn lane (e.g. rear-end crashes involving turning vehicles). A separate right turn lane may be warranted if three or more reported intersection- related crashes occur within a 12 month period. The geometry for warranted turn lanes will be used for locations meeting these criteria (see Chapter 12 -Intersections).

2. An economic analysis using predictive measures consistent with the HSM shows a benefit/cost ratio ≥ 1.0 and at least two crashes in the last ten years are of the type susceptible to correction by a left turn lane (e.g. rear-end crashes involving turning vehicles), or based on the Highway Safety Engineer’s recommendation to add a turn lane. The geometry for unwarranted turn lanes will be used for locations meeting these criteria (see Chapter 12 - Intersections).

3. The installation of the right turn lane does not adversely affect bicyclists or pedestrians.

Criterion 3: Special Cases

1. Railroad Crossings: If a railroad is parallel to the roadway, then the likelihood of train movements preventing right turns and creating stopped queues on the highway should be taken into consideration. The provided right turn lane storage length will be dependent on the duration that the side road is closed, the expected number of vehicle arrivals, and the location of the crossing. The analysis should consider all the variables influencing the design of the right turn lane and may allow a design for conditions other than the worst-case storage requirements, provided safety is not compromised.

2. Geometric/Safety Concerns: Sight distance, alignment, operating speeds, adjacent access points and other safety related concerns should be taken into consideration.

Right Turn Lane Volume Criterion Example
Figure 15-3a shows an unsignalized intersection with a shared through-right lane and a shared though-left land on the highway. The peak hour volumes and lane configurations are shown in the figure. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. Does the intersection meet the volume criterion for a right turn lane in either the NB or SB direction?

15- 17
Figure 15-3a Right Turn Lane Example Volumes
The NB outside lane has 400 through vehicles and 15 right turning vehicles for a total of 415 vehicles. Using the 45 mph curve in Figure 15-3, along with 415 approaching vehicles and 15 right turning vehicles we find that the vehicle volume criterion is not met.
The SB outside lane has 600 through vehicles and 90 right turning vehicles for a total of 690 vehicles. Using the 45 mph curve in Figure 15-3, along with 690 approaching vehicles and 90 right turning vehicles we find the vehicular volume criterion is met.

15- 18
Figure 15-3b Right Turn Lane Example Criterion Graph
Turn Lane Criteria – Signalized Intersections
The need for turn lanes at signalized intersections is determined differently than at unsignalized intersections. Left and right turn lanes at signalized intersections should be considered if:

1. A reduction in intersection delay can be demonstrated. Intersection analyses will be in accordance with the HCM; or

2. The benefit/cost ratio for the improvement is greater than 1.0.

The operational analysis of dual turn lanes will take into account forecast imbalances in lane utilization.

SB Peak Hour
(90,690)NB Peak Hour
(15,415)

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT
SIGNAL WARRANT – CAMUTCD 2014

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 827
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES

Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard:
01 An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.
01a On State highways, the engineering study shall incl ude consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and pr actical solution, it shall be studied in lieu of, o r in addition to a traffic control signal.

Guidance:
01b On local streets and highways, the engineering stud y should include consideration of a roundabout (yie ld control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and pr actical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal.

Support:
01c Refer to Caltrans’ website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/traffops/liaisons/ice.html) for more information on the Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02, Intersection Con trol Evaluation (ICE), and other resources for the evaluation of intersection traffic control strategies.
02 The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
03 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Support:
04 Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/ or flashing-light signals at highway-rail grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings, respectively.

Guidance:
05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met.
06 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. 07 A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 08 The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches.

Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2. 09 Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 828
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles. 10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. 11 At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed. 12 For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection.

Option:
13 At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn volumes as the “m inor- street” volume and the corresponding single directi on of opposing traffic on the major street as the “ major-street” volume volume of the major-street left-turn volumes plus t he higher volume minor-street approach as the “mino r street” volume and both approaches of the major street minu s the higher of the major-street left-turn volume a s “major street” volume .
14 For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major-street volume and the minor-street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods.
15 For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.

Support:
16 When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians.

Option:
17 Engineering study data may include the following:

A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume.

B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15- minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest.

C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation.

D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility.

E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85 th -percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location.

F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions,

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 829
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use.

G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year. 18 The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17:

A. Vehicle-hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach.

B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street.

C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85 th -percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control.

D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.

E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.

Standard:
19 Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver con fusion, future land use or other evidence of the ne ed for right of way assignment beyond that which could be provid ed by stop sign shall be demonstrated.

Support:
20 Figure 4C–101(CA) and 4C-103(CA) are examples of wa rrant sheets.

Guidance:
21 Figure 4C-103(CA) should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actua l traffic volumes.

Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01 The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. 02 The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. 03 It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and an analysis of the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed.

Standard:
04 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:

A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours.

Option:
05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns.

Guidance:
06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 830
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Standard:
07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:

A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B.

On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.

Option:
08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.

Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01 The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.

Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
01 The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.

Standard:
02 This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:

A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and

2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 831
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.

B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

Option:
04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. 05 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met.

Guidance:
06 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated.

Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Support:
01 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2.

Standard:
04 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E.

Guidance:
06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian- actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 832
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Option:
07 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. 08 A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street.

Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing
Support:
01 The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word “schoolchildren” includes elementary throu gh high school students.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour.
03 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing.
04 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

Guidance:
05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian- actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Support:
01 Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.

B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 833
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Guidance:
03 The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet.

Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Support:
01 The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met:

A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.

Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Support:
01 Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria:

A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or
B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non-normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). 03 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have at least one of the following characteristics:

A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow.

B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city.

C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.

Section 4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Support:
01 The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 834
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Guidance:
02 This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing.

Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are:

A. Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or
B. Reassigning the stop controls at the intersection to make the approach across the track a non-stopping approach.

Standard:
03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:

A. A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and B. During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach that crosses the track (one direction only, approaching the intersection) falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10 for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D, which is the clear storage distance as defined in Section 1A.13.

Guidance:
04 The following considerations apply when plotting the traffic volume data on Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10:

A. Figure 4C-9 should be used if there is only one lane approaching the intersection at the track crossing location and Figure 4C-10 should be used if there are two or more lanes approaching the intersection at the track crossing location.

B. After determining the actual distance D, the curve for the distance D that is nearest to the actual distance D should be used. For example, if the actual distance D is 95 feet, the plotted point should be compared to the curve for D = 90 feet.

C. If the rail traffic arrival times are unknown, the highest traffic volume hour of the day should be used.

Option:
05 The minor-street approach volume may be multiplied by up to three adjustment factors as provided in Paragraphs 6 through 8.
06 Because the curves are based on an average of four occurrences of rail traffic per day, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-2 for the appropriate number of occurrences of rail traffic per day.
07 Because the curves are based on typical vehicle occupancy, if at least 2% of the vehicles crossing the track are buses carrying at least 20 people, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-3 for the appropriate percentage of high-occupancy buses. 08 Because the curves are based on tractor-trailer trucks comprising 10% of the vehicles crossing the track, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-4 for the appropriate distance and percentage of tractor-trailer trucks.

Standard:
09 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the intersection is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. The traffic control signal shall have actuation on the minor street; B. Preemption control shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4D.27, 8C.09, and 8C.10; and C. The grade crossing shall have flashing-light signals (see Chapter 8C).

Guidance:
10 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the intersection is justified by an engineering study, the grade crossing should have automatic gates (see Chapter 8C).

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 835
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Section 4C.101(CA) Criterion for School Crossing Traffic Signals 01 Standard:

A. The signal shall be designed for full-time operatio n.

B. Pedestrian signal faces of the International Symbol type shall be installed at all marked crosswalks a t signalized intersections along the “Suggested Route to School.” C. If an intersection is signalized under this guideli ne for school pedestrians, the entire intersection shall be signalized.

D. School area traffic signals shall be traffic actuat ed type with push buttons or other detectors for pe destrians.

Option:
02 Non-intersection school pedestrian crosswalk locati ons may be signalized when justified.

Section 4C.102(CA) Bicycle Signal Warrant
Guidance:
01 A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume and collision or volume and geometr ic warrants have been met:

1. Volume; When W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B > 50.

Where: W is the volume warrant. B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersectio n. V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersect ion. B and V shall use the same peak hour.

2. Collision; When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collis ions of types susceptible to correction by a bicycl e signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible public w orks official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions.

3. Geometric;
(a) Where a separate bicycle/ multi use path inters ects a roadway. (b) At other locations to facilitate a bicycle move ment that is not permitted for a motor vehicle.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 836
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 837
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 838
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 839
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 840
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 841
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 842
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 843
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 844
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 845
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 846
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 847
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 848
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 849
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ATTACHMENT
STOP WARRANT – CAMUTCD 2014

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 129
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs
Support:
17 Caltrans will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP (R1-1) sign will benefit traffic.

Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications
Guidance:
01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09). 02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:

A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.

Support:
03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05.

Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications
Support:
01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.

Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications.

Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation:

A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.

B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.

C. Minimum volumes:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and

2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but

3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 130
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.

Section 2B.08 YIELD Sign (R1-2)
Standard:
01 The YIELD (R1-2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be a downward-pointing equilateral triangle with a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background.

Support:
02 The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down to a speed that is reasonable for the existing conditions or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic.

Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications
Option:
01 YIELD signs may be installed:

A. On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a full stop is not always required.

B. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 30 feet or greater.

In this case, a STOP or YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway.

C. For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign.

D. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign.

E. Facing the entering roadway for a merge-type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is needed because acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation.

Standard:
02 A YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the circulatory roadway.
03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection.

Section 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement
Standard:
01 The STOP or YIELD sign shall be installed on the near side of the intersection on the right-hand side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP or YIELD sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign or a Yield Ahead sign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign. 02 The STOP or YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. 02a YIELD signs shall not be erected upon the approaches to more than one of the intersecting streets. Refer to CVC 21356.
03 STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. 04 No items other than inventory stickers, sign installation dates, and bar codes shall be affixed to the fronts of STOP or YIELD signs, and the placement of these items shall be in the border of the sign. 05 No items other than official traffic control signs, inventory stickers, sign installation dates, anti- vandalism stickers, and bar codes shall be mounted on the backs of STOP or YIELD signs. 06 No items other than retroreflective strips (see Section 2A.21) or official traffic control signs shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports.

Milpitas Draft Final Citywide Travel Safety Plan
A-9

CITYWIDE TRAVEL SAFETY PLAN
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas | December 2023

APPENDIX E PROJECT SHEETS

PROJECT SHEETS

APPENDIX E

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Great Mall Pkwy & Montague Expy
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 35
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.69
E-mail: [email protected] 374
0 1
10 24
15 5
6 3
4 1
0 3
16 0
9 3

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $      536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 10 1.5 3.00 159,900 $          479,700$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 24 3.6 7.20 90,900 $            654,480$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.15 0.30 159,900 $          47,970$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.1 0.20 159,900 $          31,980$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.2 0.40 90,900 $            36,360$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.15 0.30 159,900 $          47,970$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 334,790 6000 SQFT Striping  $                 6  36,000$               2.8‐ Bike + Ped Implement green conflict zone striping for bike lanes
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% 102,510$
1,670,280$                            28 Backplates  $             750  21,000$               79.5 4 Crosswalks  $         2,000  16,000$               ‐

86.11,190$                 $                 7

0.3200,000$            $             100
170 SQFT of Striping
‐ Bike + Ped Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Crash Type
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Complaint of Pain
10 0.40 90%
Dark
$       45,600  9.045,600$              410,040$                                1 Lump Sum Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Wet
Impaired
Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped
Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI) to increase
pedestrian crossing time
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
S20PBInstall advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)Install advanced stop barBike + Ped‐ 90%0.8510 ‐ All Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
102,510$
20 0.90 65% 2000 LF68,340$                                 ‐ Bike + Ped Install pedestrian median
fencing on Northern approach
to address jaywalking
Install pedestrian median fencing on
approaches S13PB
‐ ‐15,000$               $         5,000 ‐‐‐ 3 Curb Ramps‐$                                            ‐‐ADA ramp upgradesBike + Ped

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: E Calaveras Blvd & N Milpitas Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 21
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.09
E-mail: [email protected] 330
0 1
5 14
7 2
5 0
3 0
2 2
12 2
8 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
OTHER VISIBLE 5 0.75 1.50 159,900 $          239,850$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 2.1 4.20 90,900 $            381,780$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.6 1.20 2,843,000 $      3,411,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.8 3.60 159,900 $          575,640$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $      536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.3 0.60 1,787,000 $      1,072,200$
OTHER VISIBLE 5 1.5 3.00 159,900 $          479,700$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 14 28.00 90,900 $            2,545,200$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 138,920 ‐ Bike + Ped ADA  ramp upgrades ‐‐  $         5,000  70,000$               ‐ 10 0.70 90%
90%S20PB 10 0.85
‐‐ ‐ ‐$                                             14 Curb Ramps Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement  LPI Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)  S21PB 10 0.40 90% 3,987,240$                            1 Lump Sum  $       45,600  45,600$               87.4

0.85 90%  $             750  12,000$               122.9 ‐ Bike + Ped Install advanced stop bar (all
approaches)
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)
4,097,100$                            1 Lump Sum  $       10,200  10,200$               401.7 160 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  1,120$                 607.2680,010$ Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
All
Install traffic signal ahead
flashing beacon on the EB
Calaveras approach to intx
Install flashing beacon as advance
warning (S.I.) S10
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
1,474,530$                            16 Backplates‐ All Install retroreflective
backplates on traffic signal
heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10
Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Pedestrian
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: W Calaveras Blvd & Serra Wy
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 19
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.07
E-mail: [email protected] 576
0 4
1 14
9 1
4 1
2 0
1 1
9 2
9 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 4 0.6 1.20 2,843,000 $       3,411,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.15 0.30 159,900 $          47,970$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 2.1 4.20 90,900 $            381,780$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $       2,144,400$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.6 1.20 90,900 $            109,080$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $       536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 90,900 $            27,270$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 4 0.4 0.80 1,787,000 $       1,429,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.1 0.20 159,900 $          31,980$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 1.4 2.80 90,900 $            254,520$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 4 1.2 2.40 1,787,000 $       4,288,800$
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 14 4.2 8.40 90,900 $            763,560$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $       ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.8 1.60 1,787,000 $       2,859,200$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 2.8 5.60 90,900 $            509,040$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
180 SQFT of Striping  $                      7  2,760$                 621.8‐ All Install pavement legends and
signage indicating which lanes
lead to NB/SB I‐880 to prevent
drivers needing to make late
lane changes
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 10 0.90 90% 1,716,100$ 19,500$              ‐ Dark Install additional safety lighting to Serra Approach Add intersection lighting  S01 20 0.60 90% 3,368,240$ 5,148,300$                             1 lump sum  $            45,600  45,600$               112.9 172.71 Luminaire  $            19,500
90%
‐
Includes the
cost of new
sign, signal
head
installation and
design.

All
Implement protected left turn
phase on Serra/Driveway
approaches
Provide protected left turn phase S07 20 0.70
‐‐ ‐ 5 Curb Ramps  $              5,000  25,000$              ‐ All Redesign curb ramps and crossings to be ADA compliant ‐‐ ‐
65 SQFT of Striping  $                      7  455$                     1,238.2‐ Bike + Ped Install advanced stop bar/yield Lines at crosswalk approaches
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% 563,370$
2,253,480$                             1 Lump Sum  $            45,600  45,600$               49.4 Includes cost of
controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90%
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
3,841,350$                             16 Signal Heads
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
$              8,750  140,000$             27.4‐ All
Install retroreflective backplates
on traffic signal heads. Upgrade
8'' heads to 12'' heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and number
S02 10 0.85 90%

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: W Calaveras Blvd & Serra Wy
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 19
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.07
E-mail: [email protected] 576
0 4
1 14
9 1
4 1
2 0
1 1
9 2
9 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COSTNUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 1,808,715 ‐ 1 Lump sum 1,528,000$        1,528,000$          ‐
‐ 180 SQFT  $                    10  1,800$                 ‐ Cost includes
materials and
soft costs, and
20%
contingency
All
Upgrade median islands to be
appropriate height, currently
too low.
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Bike + Ped
Update crosswalk striping per
MUTCD school zone striping
requirement.
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: E Calaveras Blvd & S Hillview Dr
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 17
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.13
E-mail: [email protected] 136
0 0
7 10
4 1
6 2
0 0
1 3
7 2
3 3

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 2.4 4.80 159,900 $          767,520$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 7 1.05 2.10 159,900 $          335,790$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 10 1.5 3.00 90,900 $            272,700$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 73,936 ‐

50.7608,490$                                16 Backplates  $             750  12,000$              ‐ All Install retroreflective border for signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02
‐ Bike + Ped Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
48 SQFT of Striping  $                 7

0.85 90%10
336$
‐$                                             4 Crosswalks  $         2,000  16,000$ 571.1‐ Bike + Ped Install advance stop bars (all
approaches)
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box) S20PB 10 0.85 90% 191,880$
767,520$                                1 Lump Sum  $       45,600  45,600$               16.8 Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90%
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: N Milpitas Blvd & N Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 14
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.01
E-mail: [email protected] 469
1 1
3 9
6 2
3 0
2 0
1 0
8 5
6 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 1.35 2.70 90,900 $            245,430$ FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 1.35 2.70 90,900 $            245,430$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.6 1.20 90,900 $            109,080$ FATAL 1 0.1 0.20 2,843,000 $      568,600$
SEVERE 1 0.1 0.20 2,843,000 $      568,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 0.9 1.80 90,900 $            163,620$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 90,900 $            27,270$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
1 Lump Sum  $         1,250  1,250$                 ‐‐ All Improve sight distance for
vehicles turning right from N
Abel St to N Milpitas Blvd by
trimming vegetation on the
South corner
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
130 LF of Striping
‐$

0.90 90% 1,396,760$

0.85 90% 27,270$
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
‐ All
Install retroreflective
backplates on traffic signal
heads. Install additional signal
head to through lanes on Abel
St/Jacklin Rd
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
All Add an overlap phase to the
westbound right‐turn
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)  S03 10 0.85 50%
90% 2,095,140$                            16 Backplates and 2 Signal Heads  Lump Sum  29,500$               71.0
2,095,140$                            1 Lump Sum  $                 7  14,400$               145.5 Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement  LPI Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)  S21PB 10 0.40 90% 109,080$ $                 3  390$
1 Lump Sum  $       45,600  45,600$               2.4
‐  ‐   ‐
3,581.4
12000 SQFT Striping  $                 6  72,000$               0.4 ‐ All
Install cat‐tracks for NBL lane
to guide vehicles through the
intersection
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 20
‐ Bike + Ped Implement green conflict zone
striping for bike lanes
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10
‐‐ Bike + Ped
Redesign the median to
provide a NACTO compliant
pedestrian refuge area, or
consider removal of pedestrian
push buttons
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: N Milpitas Blvd & N Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 14
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.01
E-mail: [email protected] 469
1 1
3 9
6 2
3 0
2 0
1 0
8 5
6 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 199,859 2 Signs and Pavement
Markings  Lump Sum  1,719$                 ‐‐ All
At the Northwest corner: Install
a R1‐5 sign at the pedestrian
crossing. Install a  W4‐2 sign
and merge pavement markings
on SB Abel St South of the
intersection.
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$
‐ Bike + Ped ADA  ramp upgrades ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$                                             7 Curb Ramps  $         5,000  35,000$               ‐

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Dixon Landing Rd & N Milpitas Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 13
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.08
E-mail: [email protected] 89
0 0
2 11
5 1
5 1
0 0
1 3
5 2
3 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.4 2.80 90,900 $            254,520$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.8 3.60 90,900 $            327,240$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 11 1.65 3.30 90,900 $            299,970$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 182,600 Lump Sum   $                3,000  ‐‐‐ ‐ ‐$                                             1 Lump Sum ‐ Bike + Ped
Re‐orient the pedestrian
countdown head on the West
leg of the intersection to face
South
‐‐
‐ Bike + Ped
Straighten out the crosswalk
across the North leg of the
intersection to provide more
distance between cars
travelling WB on Dixon Landing
Rd and pedestrians in the
crosswalk
‐‐
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
‐‐ ‐ ‐$                                             1 Lump Sum  Lump Sum  1,250$                 ‐ Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Crash Conditions
Dark
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive

4.620 0.55 90% 327,240$                                0.85 Mile NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)

3.50.65 72,450$              90% 254,520$
15,000$
$       84,000  71,400$
218,160$                                1 Luminaire  $       19,500  19,500$ ‐ Bike + Ped
Implement advance stop
bar
and green conflict zone striping
for bike lanes
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)  R32PB 20
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
Bike + Ped
Install buffered bike lanes and
standard pavement markings
on the Dixon Landing
intersection approaches
Install separated bike lanes R33PB
90% 395,910$
12075 SQFT Striping  $                 6
90% 11.2
‐ All Install retroreflective
backplates 26.4
‐ Dark Install additional safety lighting
to EB Dixon Landing Rd  Add intersection lighting S01 20

0.85 0.60
20 Backplates  $             750

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Serra Wy & S Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 13
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.25
E-mail: [email protected] 107
0 0
6 7
8 1
2 0
1 0
0 0
8 1
3 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 6 0.9 1.80 159,900 $          287,820$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 1.05 2.10 90,900 $            190,890$ Total Cost $ 15,000 Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
20 Backplates
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
10  $             750  15,000$               31.90.85 90% 478,710$                               ‐ All Install retroreflective backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: W Calaveras Blvd & I-880 Ramps
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 12
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.02
E-mail: [email protected] 267
0 1
2 9
4 1
7 0
0 0
0 1
10 0
2 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,843,000 $      852,900$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 1.35 2.70 90,900 $            245,430$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 90,900 $            63,630$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 90,900 $            63,630$ Total Cost $ 143,200 90% 1,194,270$                            11 Signal Heads  $         8,000  88,000$               13.6 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
‐ All Upgrade 8" signal heads to 12"
signal heads.

Improve signal hardware; lenses,
back plate with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 20 0.85
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

53.0 Severe Injury
Install/Upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65 90% 63,630$
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
200 SQFT of Striping
Dark
Wet

1.220 0.65 90% 63,630$                                  1 RRFB ‐ Bike + Ped
Install yield lines at pedestrian
crossing at I‐880 ramps and
stripe high visibility crossings
$       54,000  54,000$              ‐ Bike + Ped
Install RRFB at pedestrian
crossing across the EB
Calaveras to I‐880 On‐Ramp
Install rectangular rapid flashing
beacon (RRFB)  NS22PB
$                 6  1,200$

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Great Mall Pkwy & McCandless Dr
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 12
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.00
E-mail: [email protected] 92
0 0
4 8
4 0
3 4
1 0
0 0
2 3
3 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 98,500 $         2,000  16,000$               ‐‐‐ ‐ ‐$                                             4 Crosswalks‐ Bike + Ped Install APS (accessible pedestrian signals) ‐‐
‐$                                             900 LF  $               40  36,000$               ‐‐ All Remove Bott's Dotts and install
thermoplastic lane markings on
Great Mall Pkwy approaches
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐$                                             2000 LF  $               15  30,000$               ‐ NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped
Install advanced stop bars and
continental crosswalk across
the north leg of the
intersection (across Great Mall
Pkwy)
‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐ All Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
410,040$                                22 Backplates  $             750  16,500$               24.9

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: S Main St & Montague Expy
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 11
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.03
E-mail: [email protected] 86
0 0
4 7
2 0
8 0
0 0
0 0
7 2
3 3

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 1.05 2.10 90,900 $            190,890$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 1.05 2.10 90,900 $            190,890$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.4 0.80 159,900 $          127,920$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 0.7 1.40 90,900 $            127,260$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 7 1.05 2.10 90,900 $            190,890$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 422,369 Cost includes
materials and
soft costs, and
20%
contingency
All
Upgrade median islands to be
appropriate height, currently
too low.
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$                                             1 Lump Sum 850.6
Lump Sum  334,000$            ‐
1 Signs  $             450  450$

0.90 90% 255,180$                                1 Lump Sum  ‐  1,269$                All Install merge warning  sign
(MUTCD W4‐2) on SBR
movement, install merge
pavement markings
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 10
1 lump sum  $       14,400  14,400$
201.1

26.6 Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
All
Coordinate traffic signal with
the traffic signal at Montague
Expy and McCandless Dr/Trade
Zone Blvd
Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) S03 10 0.85 50% 382,770$ 382,770$                                23 Backplates  $             750  17,250$               22.2‐ All Install retroreflective backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
‐ ‐ 11 ADA Ramps  $         5,000  55,000$               ‐ NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike+Ped
ADA ramp upgrades (north and
south sidewalks, and at private
driveway splitter island)
‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐ All Install W3‐3 traffic signal ahead
sign on EB Montague Expy
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluoresent sheeting R22 10 0.85 90% 382,770$
Crash Conditions
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: S Main St & S Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 11
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.01
E-mail: [email protected] 245
0 1
4 6
1 0
0 4
4 1
0 0
5 7
10 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,461,000 $      738,300$
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 0.9 1.80 90,900 $            163,620$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.4 0.80 2,461,000 $      1,968,800$
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1.6 3.20 159,900 $          511,680$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 5 2 4.00 90,900 $            363,600$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.7 1.40 159,900 $          223,860$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 141,975 ‐$                                             ‐
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
Emergency
Vehicles
Install emergency vechicle pre‐
emption
Install emergency vehicle pre‐
emption systems S05 10
‐  ‐ ‐

2.7223,860$                                1 Lump Sum  $       84,000  84,000$              0.30 90%

47.5 SQFT of Striping  $               10  475$                    ‐ ‐ Dark
Study lighting levels to
determine if the existing lamp
poles provide sufficient
lighting, or if additional
luminaires are required
‐
Dark Install additional safety lighting
to the SB Main St approach
Add intersection lighting (Signalized
Intersection => S.I.)  S01 20 0.60 90% 2,844,080$
‐$                                            ‐ Bike+Ped Restripe limit lines to allow for 4‐feet of clearance ‐
90% 1,093,800$                            1 Lump Sum  ‐  18,500$               59.1 2 Luminaires  $       19,500  39,000$               72.9‐ NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All
Install additional SBL signal
head for better visibility. Add
retroreflective borders to all
signal heads.

Improve signal hardware: lenses,
backplates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number.

S02 10 0.85
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Calaveras Blvd & S Park Victoria Dr
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 11
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.08
E-mail: [email protected] 81
0 0
3 8
4 1
5 0
0 0
1 0
5 1
2 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.25 0.50 159,900 $          79,950$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 201,125 $                 3  750$                    ‐‐‐ ‐ ‐$                                             250 Feet‐‐ Restripe the receiving lanes on NB S Park Victoria ‐‐
90% 79,950$                                  1562.5 SQFT of Striping  $                 6  9,375$                 8.5 Dark
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped Install continental crosswalks
and advance stop bars Install pedestrian crossing S18PB 20 0.75 Install retroreflective
backplates and upgrade to 12''
signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
4 Crosswalks  $         2,000  16,000$               ‐
Severe Injury
362,070$                                20 Signal Heads  $         8,750  175,000$ Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Wet
Rear End
‐ All 2.1
‐‐ Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Escuela Pkwy & Jacklin Rd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 9
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.07
E-mail: [email protected] 169
0 1
0 8
1 4
2 1
1 0
0 0
4 2
3 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $      536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 212,000 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Based on the
School Safety
Assessment
Bike + Ped
Implement green conflict zone
striping for bike lanes on
Escuela Pkwy
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)  R32PB 20 0.65 90%
‐ All
Install retroreflective
backplates and upgrade to 12''
signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
‐  ‐   ‐ ‐
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
16 Signal Heads  $         8,750  140,000$            5.4 ‐‐
Redesign the median to
provide a NACTO compliant
pedestrian refuge area, or
consider removal of pedestrian
push buttons
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$
90% 754,260$
‐$                                             12000 SQFT Striping  $                 6  72,000$               0.0

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Weller Ln & N Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 7
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.01
E-mail: [email protected] 170
0 1
3 3
2 2
1 0
1 0
2 1
3 0
0 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $      536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.45 0.90 90,900 $            81,810$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 1,787,000 $      536,100$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL
0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE
1 0.1 0.20 1,787,000 $      357,400$
OTHER VISIBLE
3 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN
3 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.6 1.20 1,787,000 $      2,144,400$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 1.2 2.40 159,900 $          383,760$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.25 0.50 1,787,000 $      893,500$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 159,900 $          159,900$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $

32.21,053,400$                            6 Pedestrian Signal Heads  $         5,460  32,760$              0.75 90%
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design.

Bike + Ped Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads
Install pedestrian countdown signal
heads  S17PB 20
1 Lump Sum  $       45,600  45,600$               55.4
Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement  LPI Modify signal phasing to implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S21PB 10 0.40 90% 2,528,160$ 507,880$                                750 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  5,250$                 96.7‐ All Install thermoplastic pavement
marking as intersection
approaches. Additionally, stripe
a bike lane though the
intersetion on SB Abel St to
support bicyclist safety and
provide a buffer between SB
vehicles and the pedestrian
facilities.

Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 10 0.90 90%
90% 632,040$                                115 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  805$                    785.1 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped Install  advance stop bar. Install advance stop bar before crosswalk S20PB 10 0.85
‐ All
Install retroreflective
backplates and upgrade to 12''
signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
761,820$                                11 Signal Heads  $         8,750  96,250$               7.9 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Weller Ln & N Abel St
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 7
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.01
E-mail: [email protected] 170
0 1
3 3
2 2
1 0
1 0
2 1
3 0
0 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COSTNUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 188,665 ‐$                                             4 Push Buttons  $         2,000  8,000$                 ‐‐ Bike + Ped Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals) for
crosswalks across Abel St
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Washington Dr & N Milpitas Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 6
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.09
E-mail: [email protected] 50
0 0
3 3
2 0
4 0
0 0
0 2
3 0
2 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COSTNUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Washington Dr & N Milpitas Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 6
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.09
E-mail: [email protected] 50
0 0
3 3
2 0
4 0
0 0
0 2
3 0
2 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.4 0.80 159,900 $          127,920$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.4 0.80 90,900 $            72,720$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.45 0.90 90,900 $            81,810$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 3 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 1.2 2.40 159,900 $          383,760$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 1,787,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 159,900 $          159,900$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Dark
Install additional safety lighting
to Washington Dr receiving
lanes
Add intersection lighting  S01 20 0.60 90% 200,640$                                1 Luminaire  $       19,500  19,500$               10.3 ‐‐ Install APS (accessible
pedestrian signals) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$                                             8 Push Buttons  $         2,000  16,000$               ‐

8.4383,760$                                1 Lump Sum  $       45,600  45,600$ 159,900$                                8 Pedestrian Signal Heads  $         5,460  43,680$               3.7
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design.

Bike + Ped Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads
Install pedestrian countdown signal
heads  S17PB 20 0.75

0.40 90%
Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
Bike + Ped Implement  LPI Modify signal phasing to implement lead pedestrian interval (LPI) S21PB 10
90%
600 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  4,200$                 35.8‐ All Install thermoplastic pavement
marking at intersection
approaches.

Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 10 0.90 90% 150,480$ 95,940$                                  140 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  980$                    97.9‐ Bike + Ped Install advance stop bars on N Milpitas Blvd
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk S20PB 10 0.85 90%
90% 225,720$
5 Signal Heads and 16
Retroreflective
Backplates
$8,000 and
$250  44,000$               5.1
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All
Install retroreflective
backplates and upgrade to 12''
signal heads
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Washington Dr & N Milpitas Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 6
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde -0.09
E-mail: [email protected] 50
0 0
3 3
2 0
4 0
0 0
0 2
3 0
2 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COSTNUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 173,960 ‐  ‐   ‐ ‐‐ Bike + Ped
Redesign the median to
provide a NACTO compliant
pedestrian refuge area, or
consider removal of pedestrian
push buttons
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Butler St & W Calaveras Blvd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 14
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 2.10
E-mail: [email protected] 102
0 0
5 8
10 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
2 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 5 1.25 2.50 159,900 $          399,750$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 2 4.00 90,900 $            363,600$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 5 2 4.00 159,900 $          639,600$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 3.2 6.40 90,900 $            581,760$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 101,554 1,221,360$                            1 Lump Sum  $       60,000  60,000$              0.60 90% Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
All
Install splitter island on west
leg chanelling vehicles into
right turn with pedestrian
refuge (north leg)
Install splitter‐islands on minor road
approaches NS13 20 20.4
‐ All
Update pavement markings,
adding a pedestrian crosswalk
and advance stop bar
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings. NS07 10 0.75 90% 763,350$
‐ 2 Bulb Outs  $       10,000  20,000$               ‐‐‐ Install bulb outs (NW and SW corners) ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 4 ADA Ramps  $         5,000  20,000$               ‐ NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐‐ ADA ramp upgrades ‐‐ ‐ ‐
222 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  1,554$                 491.2 Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Washington Drive & Arizona Ave
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 6
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.43
E-mail: [email protected] 55
0 0
4 2
5 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
3 0
3 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 159,900 $          319,800$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.5 1.00 90,900 $            90,900$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 159,900 $          319,800$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.5 1.00 90,900 $            90,900$ FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cost $ 44,942 900$                    ‐‐ Install new road signs at the NW corner ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 Signs  $             450
293.4410,700$                                200 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  1,400$ ‐ 4 Bulb Outs  $       10,000  40,000$               ‐‐‐ Install bulb outs on all corners ‐‐ ‐ ‐

0.75 90%‐ All
Install centerline pavement
marker  (Caltrans Standard Plan
A20A, Detail 21)  on all
approaches
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings NS07 10
‐
106 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  742$                    553.5‐ All Install stop ahead pavement markings on Arizona Avenue
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings NS07 10 0.75 90% 410,700$
246,420$                                2 Signs  $             450  900$                    273.8‐ All Install stop ahead warning
signs ahead of intersection on
Arizona Avenue
Install/Upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90%
90% 246,420$                                4 Retroflective Strip  $             250  1,000$                 246.4 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All Install retroreflective strips on
stop sign posts
Install/Upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Altamont Drive & Escuela Pkwy
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 4
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.17
E-mail: [email protected] 42.9
0 0
4 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 3
1 0
0 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 159,900 $          319,800$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.75 1.50 159,900 $          239,850$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1 2.00 159,900 $          319,800$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.05 2.10 159,900 $          335,790$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SEVERE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
OTHER VISIBLE ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
$ 56,880 Upgrade intersection pavement
markings NS07 10 0.75 90% 319,800$                                820 SQFT of Striping  $                 7

57.1239,850$                                600 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  4,200$ 335,790$                                720 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  5,040$                 66.6 5,740$                 55.7
Bike + Ped
Add green bike lane pavement
marking in conflict areas
across Altamont Dr
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)  R32PB 20 0.65

0.75 90%‐ Bike + Ped Install school zone pedestrian
crossing across Escuela Pkwy
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (sign and
markings only)
NS20PB 10
90%
‐ All
Install stop bar on side street
and install school zone
pedestrian crossing striping
across Altamont Dr
‐
2 Retroflective Strip  $             250  500$                    383.8‐ All Install retroreflective strips on stop sign posts
Install/Upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS06 10 0.85 90% 191,880$
‐ 4 Bulb Outs  $       10,000  40,000$               ‐
‐
Pedestrian
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐‐ Install bulb outs on all corners ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
90% 319,800$                                200 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  1,400$                 228.40.7510NS07Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Install centerline pavement
marker  (Caltrans Standard Plan
A20A, Detail 21)  on all
approaches
All
Impaired
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Calaveras Rd & Evans Rd
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 4
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.00
E-mail: [email protected] 34
0 0
2 2
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
1 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.35 0.70 159,900 $          111,930$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 90,900 $            63,630$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.4 0.80 90,900 $            72,720$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 159,900 $          159,900$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.5 1.00 90,900 $            90,900$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 159,900 $          95,940$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.3 0.60 90,900 $            54,540$ Total Cost $ 170,700 $             250  1,000$                 150.510 0.85 90% 150,480$                                4‐ All Install retroreflective strips on stop sign posts
Install/Upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS06
250 LF  $             350  87,500$               2.9
Includes cost
of installation
and design
All Install raised median on EB
Calaveras Blvd approach Install raised median on approaches NS14 20 0.75 90% 250,800$ 72,720$                                  1 Lump Sum  $       43,200  43,200$               1.7 Includes unit
cost,
installation,
design and
photometric.

Night Install supplemental
intersection safety lighting Add intersection lighting NS01 20 0.60 90% 90% 175,560$                                6000 SQFT of Striping  $                 7  39,000$               4.5 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike+Ped
Install advance stop bars and
green conflict zone bike lane
treatment at intersection
approaches
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)  R32PB 20 0.65
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Kennedy Dr & N Park Victoria Dr
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 3
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.02
E-mail: [email protected] 2
1 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
3 0
0 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 2,461,000 $      738,300$
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.15 0.30 159,900 $          47,970$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 90,900 $            27,270$ FATAL 1 0.45 0.90 2,461,000 $      2,214,900$
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 1 0.45 0.90 2,461,000 $      2,214,900$
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
Total Cost $ 74,850 873.62,358,810$                            6 Signs  $             450  2,700$ 2,358,810$                            0.85 Mile  $       84,000  71,400$               33.020 0.55

0.55 90%‐ Bike + Ped
Install R1‐5b signs at advanced
stop bars and install R1‐6a
signs in the medians
on the Southbound and Northb
ound approaches.

Install/Upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20
90%
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
Bike + Ped
Install buffered bike lanes and
standard pavement markings
on N Park Victoria including the
intersection approaches
Install separated bike lanes R33PB
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
3 Signs  $             250  750$                    1,084.7‐ All Install reflective strips on stop sign posts
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluoresent sheeting R22 10 0.85 90% 813,540$
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Unsignalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: E Calaveras Blvd (btw N Milpitas Blvd and Hillview Dr) Agency Name: City of Milpitas 14
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.31
E-mail: [email protected] 113
0 0
6 8
3 0
7 0
0 0
1 3
9 2
3 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 6 0.9 1.80 159,900 $          287,820$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 6 0.9 1.80 159,900 $          287,820$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 8 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.35 2.70 159,900 $          431,730$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.45 0.90 90,900 $            81,810$ Total Cost $ 492,750

1.1513,540$                                1 Lump Sum  $     455,000  455,000$           0.55 90%‐ Bike + Ped Install buffered bike lane.

Install green bike lane striping
in conflict areas.

Install separated bike lanes R33PB 20
505,980$                                3 Intersections  $         8,250  24,750$               20.4 Includes cost
of controller
updates and
design
All
Coordinate the traffic signal at
Town Center Dr with the
signals at Milpitas Blvd and
Hillview Dr
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red, yellow,
or operation)
S03 10 0.85 50%
90% 505,980$                                13 Backplates  $         1,000  13,000$               38.9 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ All Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Impaired
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: E Calaveras Blvd (btw Abel St and N Milpitas Blvd) Agency Name: City of Milpitas 9
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.04
E-mail: [email protected] 232
0 1
4 4
0 0
6 0
1 0
1 0
7 1
1 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.35 0.70 159,900 $          111,930$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.15 0.30 2,461,000 $      738,300$
OTHER VISIBLE 4 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 90,900 $            109,080$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.35 0.70 159,900 $          111,930$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.45 0.90 2,461,000 $      2,214,900$
OTHER VISIBLE 4 1.8 3.60 159,900 $          575,640$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.8 3.60 90,900 $            327,240$ Total Cost $ 427,050 90%

2.1111,930$                                1 RRFB  $       54,000  54,000$ 3,117,780$                            2 Intersection
Approaches  $     186,000  372,000$            8.4
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
All
Install high friction surface
treatment on intersection
approaches
Improve pavement friction (high
friction surface treatments) NS12 10 0.55

0.65 90%
Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
Bike + Ped
Install RRFB at pedestrian
crossing at Calaveras off‐ramp
to Main Street
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)  NS22PB 20
‐ All Install W3‐3 traffic signal ahead
sign on EB Calaveras Blvd
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluoresent sheeting R22 10 0.85 90% 1,039,260$
111,930$                                100 SQFT of Striping  $                 6  600$                    186.6 1 Signs  $             450  450$                    2,309.5 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped
Install yield lines at pedestrian
crossing at Calaveras off‐ramp
to Main Street and stripe high
visibility crossing
Install/Upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
NS21PB 20 0.65 90%
Dark
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Severe Injury
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: S Main St (btw W Curtis Ave and Corning Ave)
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 8
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.71
E-mail: [email protected] 540
1 2
3 2
0 1
4 0
1 0
2 1
3 2
1 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.35 0.70 2,461,000 $      1,722,700$
SEVERE 1 0.35 0.70 2,461,000 $      1,722,700$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 90,900 $            63,630$ FATAL 1 0.2 0.40 2,461,000 $      984,400$
SEVERE 2 0.4 0.80 2,461,000 $      1,968,800$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.6 1.20 159,900 $          191,880$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.4 0.80 90,900 $            72,720$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 1 0.35 0.70 2,461,000 $      1,722,700$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
Total Cost $ 136,340 3,217,800$                            480 LF of Striping  $                 3  2,340$                 1,375.1‐ All Restrict parking at pedestrian
crossings to improve sight
distance
Improve sight distance to
intersection (clear sight triangles) NS11 10 0.80 90%
90% 3,509,030$                            2 Lump Sum  $       28,000  56,000$               62.7 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike + Ped Install pedestrian refuge island
and high‐visibility crosswalk
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced safety features)  R35PB 20 0.65
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Includes unit
cost,
installation,
design and
photometric.

Dark Install roadway lighting at the
pedestrian crossings Add segment lighting R01 20 0.65 90% 1,722,700$                            4 Luminaires  $       19,500  78,000$               22.1

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: S McCarthy Blvd (btw Dixon Landing Rd and Sprig Center Dwy) Agency Name: City of Milpitas 6
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 0.09
E-mail: [email protected] 355
0 2
0 4
1 0
0 0
4 1
0 0
4 1
4 2

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,843,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.3 0.60 2,843,000 $      1,705,800$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 90,900 $            109,080$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.6 1.20 2,461,000 $      2,953,200$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.2 2.40 90,900 $            218,160$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 1.1 2.20 2,461,000 $      5,414,200$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 2.2 4.40 90,900 $            399,960$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.7 1.40 2,461,000 $      3,445,400$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 2 0.7 1.40 90,900 $            127,260$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.8 1.60 2,461,000 $      3,937,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 1.6 3.20 90,900 $            290,880$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.3 0.60 2,461,000 $      1,476,600$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.6 1.20 90,900 $            109,080$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 2 0.2 0.40 2,461,000 $      984,400$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 159,900 $          ‐ $
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 4 0.4 0.80 90,900 $            72,720$ Total Cost $ 457,428 Lump Sum  26,500$               68.5‐ All
Install retroreflective
backplates on traffic signal
heads. Install additional signal
head for through lanes on N
McCarthy Blvd
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85 90%
‐ All
Refresh Intersection Striping
with high visibility
thermoplastic
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09 0.90 90%
‐ All Install edgeline rumble strips
on NB McCarthy Blvd Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes R31 10 0.85 90% 1,585,680$                            25.8 10  $                 7  26,250$

0.8 Miles  $       76,800  61,440$

40.31,057,120$                            3750 SQFT of Striping

91.63,572,660$                            2 Luminaires  $       19,500  39,000$ 4,228,480$                            3 Chevrons  $             450  1,350$                 3,132.2‐ All Install chevrons on NB McCarthy Blvd
Install chevron signs on horizontal
curves  R23 10 0.60

0.65 90%
Includes unit
cost,
installation,
design and
Dark Install roadway lighting at the
horizontal curves Add segment lighting R01 20
90%
10670 SQYD  $               26  280,088$            20.8 Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
All Install High Friction Surface
Treatment (HFST)
Improve pavement friction (High
Friction Surface Treatments)  R21 10 0.45 90% 5,814,160$ 3,171,360$                            1 Lump Sum  $       22,800  22,800$               139.1 Includes unit
cost,
installation
and design
All
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Install solar, radar speed
feedback sign at NB curve
Install dynamic/variable speed
warning signs R26 10 0.70 90%
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Impaired
1,814,880$                            12 Backplates and 2 Signal Heads
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Severe Injury
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object

City of Milpitas Citywide Travel Safety Plan
Location: Barber Ln (btw Bellew Dr and Alder Dr)
Agency Name: City of Milpitas 3
Contact Name: Nolen Ugalde 3.50
E-mail: [email protected] 28
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL
(LRSM) COUNTERMEASURE LRSM # Expected
Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2022 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
QUANTITY/ NUMBER
OF UNITS
UNIT COST
(2023 $)
COST ESTIMATE
(2023 $) BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.45 0.90 159,900 $          143,910$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.5 1.00 159,900 $          159,900$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.25 0.50 90,900 $            45,450$ FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.15 0.30 159,900 $          47,970$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 0 0 0.00 90,900 $            ‐ $
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
SEVERE 0 0 0.00 2,461,000 $      ‐ $
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.7 1.40 159,900 $          223,860$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.35 0.70 90,900 $            63,630$ Total Cost $ 1,199,170 $       42,000  42,000$               6.810 0.65 90% 287,490$                                1 Lump sum Assumes only
new striping is
required
All
Install Left‐turn lane on NB
Barber Lane at the intersection
with Bellew Dr
Install left‐turn lane (where no left‐
turn lane exists) NS18
1 Lump Sum  $       28,000  28,000$               1.7‐ All Install pedestrian refuge island at mid‐block crossing
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced safety features) R35PB 10 0.85 90% 47,970$ 205,350$                                3330 Feet  $             324  1,078,920$         0.2 Includes cost
of installation
and design
All
Install raised median along
Barber Ln with directional
median openings
Install raised median  R08 20 0.75 90%
90% 143,910$                                3350 Feet  $               15  50,250$               2.9 NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2017‐2021)
‐ Bike+Ped
Install buffered bike lane with
raised element EB & WB
(removing parking). Install
green bike lane striping in
conflict areas.

Install separated bike lanes  R33PB 20 0.55
Wet
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Impaired
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Crash Conditions
Dark
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Crash Type
Broadside
Sideswipe
Severe Injury
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal

Milpitas Draft Final Citywide Travel Safety Plan
A-10

CITYWIDE TRAVEL SAFETY PLAN
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas | December 2023

APPENDIX F POLICY UPDATE

POLICY UPDATE

APPENDIX F

Table 1: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Milpitas Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Complete Streets Policy
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) has a
Complete Streets Policy
(Resolution No. 4493: MTC’s
Complete Streets Policy). Santa
Clara County likewise adopted
2016 Measure B Complete
Streets reporting requirements.

It is recommended that the City of
Milpitas continue to support MTC
and VTA’s Complete Streets
policies, and consider adopting its
own policy.

Traffic Impact Fees City levies development impact
fees
Consider safety impacts and
potential projects that enhance
safety for future fee updates
Safe Routes to School
Funding
Milpitas directed Measure B
funds to SRTS project at two
elementary schools
Seek grant funding opportunities to
create a SRTS plan that includes the
remaining elementary schools in
Milpitas
Traffic Safety Education Included in SRTS program; No
active program
Work with education and PD to
develop traffic safety education
programs in public areas and
schools (including bicycle and
pedestrian components)
Program for Reviewing
Crash Activity
City has no active monitoring
program; MTC reviews crash
data in BayViz dashboard
Set up formal program for reviewing
crash activity at a fixed time interval
(1 or 2 years); Update database for
future LRSP analyses & updates
Crossroads Database
Updates
MTC does not use Crossroads
database
Continue cooperation with County
staff and MTC, and consider
implementing Crossroads database
so property damage only crashes
can be tracked
City Enforcement on
Bicycle Rules
Anyone under 18 is required to
wear a bike helmet C.V.C.
21212; Bicycles are regulated
by the PD and require licenses
to ride, Municipal Code V-100-
16 City transportation division should
engage with PD in enforcement and
education at strategic locations
based on collision patterns,
community events, and safety
priorities
Sobriety / Seatbelt Checks Conducted by City Police
Department
City transportation division should
engage with PD in planning and
implementing sobriety and & seatbelt
checks based on collision patterns,
community events, and safety
priorities
City Law Enforcement
Coordinate with Adjacent
Jurisdictions
No
PD coordinate with CHP and Santa
Clara County Sheriff’s departments
and look for opportunities for joint
educational and enforcement
campaigns

Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Speed Surveys Not posted online
Continue to implement regular
surveying as required by California
Vehicle Code; Review new guidance
from Assembly Bill 43
Speed Limits Not posted online
Continue to update as required by
California Vehicle Code; Exercise
context-based flexibility offered
under Assembly Bill 43
Traffic Calming Policies Milpitas Policy 1-7 Revision 1 Identify neighborhood cut-through
corridors and implement traffic
calming strategies as appropriate
Transit Vehicles
Accommodation of
Bicycles
Bikes are permitted on VTA
buses and light rail, and on
BART. Micromobility bikes are
not permitted on VTA/BART
vehicles.

Continue to accommodate bicycles
on transit to promote multi-modal
trips
Coordination of Transit
Providers and City Staff Yes
Continue coordination; Work to
identify areas for improvements
particularly with first and last mile
connections
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plans Yes
Continue tracking bike and
pedestrian crashes, and
implementing identified projects with
high need and high feasibility
General Plan Addresses
Multimodal Traffic Safety
Included in Circulation Element
of General Plan
Continue to implement
recommendations under General
Plan; Regularly assess progress and
areas for improvement; Avoid
projects that prioritize operational
improvements over multimodal
safety
Inventory of Bicycle,
Pedestrian, Parking, and
other facilities
No
Start inventory program of facilities;
Digitize inventory through GIS
database
Traffic Safety Audit
Program
Included in Circulation Element
of General Plan, but No formal
program
Implement a traffic safety audit
program to regularly identify traffic
safety issues citywide in coordination
with County LRSP update and
monitoring program
Coordination between
Emergency Response and
City Transportation
Planning
Yes, emergency vehicle
preemption has been
implemented at key corridors.

The Milpitas Traffic Safety
Project includes PD and FD
stakeholders
Continue engaging emergency
response in transportation planning
processes; Include membership in
project technical advisory
committees where appropriate

Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Coordination between
Local Health Agencies and
City Transportation
Planning
Not posted online
Continue engaging local health
agencies in transportation planning
processes; Include membership in
project technical advisory
committees where appropriate
Resident Feedback Yes, comment form available on
City website
Continue to seek out resident
feedback; Review comments for
trends and patterns that may
suggest opportunities for systemic
safety improvement
Maintenance of Roadway
Surfaces Yes
Continue regular maintenance of
roadway surfaces; integrate safety
improvements such as bike lanes
and advanced stop bars
Transportation Demand
Management
Policies/Programs
MTC and VTA have developed
Transportation Demand
Management Programs. The
C/CAG-VTA Countywide Travel
Demand Model was used in the
update to the general plan
Coordinate with VTA and review
MTC strategies to implement local
Transportation Demand
Management programs
Use of overlays, specific
plans, redevelopment
areas to encourage infill
development to reduce
VMT
City follows direction in SB 743 I
effort to reduce VMT.

Identify areas where infill
development will require safety
improvements; Coordinate with
County to ensure connectivity and
continuation of safety amenities with
other municipalities
Regular Collection of
Traffic / Bicycle /
Pedestrian Volumes
On a case-by-case basis
Require bicycle and pedestrian
counts as part of routine traffic
counting policies for the City when
traffic impact studies or
environmental documents are being
developed
Program for Installing
Wayfinding Signage Yes (On a project basis)
Utilize solar-powered digital bulletin
boards to advertise traffic safety best
practices or wayfinding. with County
to implement branded wayfinding
program; Identify key City
destinations and access routes
Warrants for Traffic
Control Devices Uses CA MUTCD.

Continue to use CA MUTCD
warrants; Where frequent citizen
requests are not covered by existing
warrants, consider developing local
warrants to facilitate decision making
School Zone Safety Enforced by PD.

Continue enforcement of road safety
in school zones; Seek grant funding
opportunities for additional personnel
in school zones