Modesto City Council
October 8, 2024

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) – In October 2019, the State of California announced a call for LRSP grant applications utilizing $10 million in State Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) funds. The call for applications was restricted to agencies with a current SSAR project.

Since efforts on the City’s SSAR were underway, the City of Modesto was eligible to apply for these funds. The City of Modesto was successful in receiving $67,500 in HSIP grant funding for the development of an LRSP.

Federal regulations require each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which is a statewide traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and all injuries on public roads. The SHSP addresses the 4E’s of Traffic Safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is a statewide approach to improving traffic safety, the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides local road owners, like the City of Modesto, the opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs while contributing to the success of the SHSP. Preparation of an LRSP report provides a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements within local jurisdictions.

Caltrans advised agencies that having an LRSP in place prior to submittal of an application for Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 10 grant funds in 2020 was recommended and would be a requirement for applications in all future HSIP grant cycles.

Non-Motorized Master Plan Update – The goal of the Non-Motorized Plan Update and Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide is to act as a guide for active mobility within and around the City of Modesto by identifying an integrated network of walkways and bikeways that connect the City of Modesto neighborhoods and communities to employment, education, commercial and recreational destinations.

The goals of the Non-Motorized Master Plan Update were achieved by assessing the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in the City of Modesto to identify local improvements and implementation strategies to encourage residents to use active modes of transportation for more of their daily trips and to identify methods for financing and implementation of the identified active transportation projects.

School Safety Program Study – The City of Modesto has 68 public schools in five (5) districts, consisting of 50 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and seven (7) high schools all with their own set of concerns and goals for student safety. The City first created a task force to establish school safety needs using Measure L Local Funding, however it quickly became apparent that there were many more needs than immediate resources available to address them. The School Safety Program Study was designed to inventory safety and traffic flow around schools and then evaluate and prioritize needs and create a fair and transparent system to utilize funding as it becomes available to make improvements within the public right-of-way around schools.

DISCUSSION:

Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) – The City of Modesto entered into a consultant Agreement with Fehr and Peers to produce an SSAR that analyzed collisions and near miss collision patterns throughout the City of Modesto based on roadway type and geometry. The #13..
- 189 -
City Council, October 8, 2024
Acceptance of Engineering and Planning Document Reports Related to Bicyclist, Pedestrian and School Zone Safety

finalized report provides this information along with a list of recommended proposed projects with high benefit/cost ratios that would potentially be eligible for HSIP and other grant funds.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) – The City of Modesto’s efforts on the SSAR were underway with Fehr and Peers when the LRSP grant was awarded. To receive the most benefit and utilize a majority of the collision pattern and analysis that had already been performed throughout the City, the existing contract with Fehr and Peers was amended to include the additional components of education and enforcement for the development of the LRSP. The finalized LRSP report meets all the program guideline requirements and meets the requirement allowing the City of Modesto to self-certify having an LRSP for all HSIP grant cycles.

Non-Motorized Master Plan Update – The City of Modesto entered into a consultant Agreement with Alta Planning and Design, Inc. to produce a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (Non-Motorized Plan Update). The completed Non-Motorized Plan Update identifies the existing integrated network of walkways and bikeways connecting City of Modesto neighborhoods and communities to employment, education, commercial and recreational destinations. The completed Plan also prioritizes a set of connected projects that, when fully implemented, will increase active transportation opportunities making walking and biking safer and more convenient in the City of Modesto. The completed plan with prioritization methods also positions the city with a framework to prepare and compete for various grant funding programs.

School Safety Program Study – The City of Modesto entered into a consultant Agreement with Alta Planning and Design, Inc. to produce a School Safety Program Study. The finalized Plan includes data collection and an Americans with Disabilities (ADA) access survey, assessment of needs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City of Modesto, provides prioritization criteria for future planned facilities, and makes recommendations for future projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) was funded by $225,000 in HSIP grant funds and $25,000 in Local Measure L funds.

The Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSP) was funded with $67,500 in State HSIP funds and $7,500 in Local Measure L funds.

The Non-Motorized Master Plan Update was funded with $300,000 in Local Measure L Funds.

The School Safety Program Study was funded with $250,000 in Local Measure L Funds.

CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:

Environmental review for each project will take place during the Preliminary Engineering phase.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

This project was presented to the Economic Development Committee on September 9, 2024, and the Committee recommended forwarding this item to Council for approval. #13..
- 190 -
City Council, October 8, 2024
Acceptance of Engineering and Planning Document Reports Related to Bicyclist, Pedestrian and School Zone Safety

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff Recommendation:

Resolution accepting Engineering and Planning Document Reports related to bicyclist, pedestrian, and school zone safety: Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), Non-Motorized Master Plan Update and School Safety Program Study.

Approved by:
_________________
Toby Wells, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR)

3. Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

4. Non-Motorized Master Plan Update and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide

5. School Safety Program Study
#13..
- 191 -
10/08/2024/ESD/M. Sacuskie 1 2024-

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DOCUMENT

REPORTS RELATED TO BICYCLIST, PEDESTRIAN, AND SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY: SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR), LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), NON-MOTORIZED MASTER PLAN

UPDATE AND SCHOOL SAFETY PROGRAM STUDY
WHEREAS, over the past several years City staff has taken a pro-active approach in evaluating roadway networks to identify potential improvements focused on enhancing pedestrian and bicyclist safety throughout the City of Modesto and particularly in school zones; and
WHEREAS, City staff applied for grant funds for the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) program, Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), and dedicated Local Measure L funds for the Non-Motorized Master Plan Update and the School Safety Program Study; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) is to utilize a defined set of criteria to proactively focus on evaluating roadway networks to identify potential improvements to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety; and WHEREAS, by performing a collision and roadway network analysis, this project had the goal of developing recommendations and systemic countermeasures that could be applied at similar intersections and roadway corridors throughout the City of Modesto; and
WHEREAS, Federal regulations require each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which is a statewide traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and all injuries on public roads; and
#13..
- 192 -
10/08/2024/ESD/M. Sacuskie 2 2024-
WHEREAS, the SHSP addresses the 4E’s of Traffic Safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, the SHSP is a statewide approach to improving traffic safety, the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides local road owners, like the City of Modesto, the opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs while contributing to the success of the SHSP; and
WHEREAS, preparation of an LRSP report provides a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements within local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans advised agencies that having an LRSP in place prior to submittal of an application for Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 10 grant funds in 2020 was recommended and would be a requirement for applications in all future HSIP grant cycles; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Non-Motorized Plan Update and Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide is to act as a guide for active mobility within and around the City of Modesto by identifying an integrated network of walkways and bikeways that connect the City of Modesto neighborhoods and communities to employment, education, commercial and recreational destinations; and
WHEREAS, the goals of the Non-Motorized Plan Update were achieved by assessing the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in the City of Modesto to identify local improvements and implementation strategies to encourage residents to use active modes of transportation for more of their daily trips and to identify methods for financing and implementation of the identified active transportation projects; and #13..
- 193 -
10/08/2024/ESD/M. Sacuskie 3 2024-
WHEREAS, the City first created a task force to establish school safety needs using Measure L Local Funding, however it quickly became apparent that there were many more needs than immediate resources available to address them; and WHEREAS, the School Safety Program Study was designed to inventory safety and traffic flow around schools and then evaluate and prioritize needs and create a fair and transparent system to utilize funding as it becomes available to make improvements within the public right-of-way around schools.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby accepts Engineering and Planning Document Reports related to bicyclist, pedestrian, and school zone safety: Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), Non-Motorized Master Plan Update and School Safety Program Study.
#13..
- 194 -
10/08/2024/ESD/M. Sacuskie 4 2024-
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 8th day of October, 2024, by Councilmember ?, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember ?, was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST: _____________________________

DIANE NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#13..
- 195 -
systemic
safety
analysis
report
FINAL | NOVEMBER 2020 prepared by
#13..
- 196 -
2 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
#13..
- 197 -
Table of Contents 3
table of contents
Front Matter
Engineer’s Seal 6
Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery 7
Acknowledgements 8
Executive Summary 10
Summary & Analysis
of Safety Data
Summary of Safety Data Collected 14
Analysis of Safety Data Collected 18
Contextual Data, Systemic Analysis, and Collision Profiles 30 Safety Guidance
Guide for Addressing Systemic Collision Profiles 36
Countermeasures Guidance 64
Project Guidance
Project Recommendations 68
Funding and Implementation Recommendations 92
Back Matter
Conclusion 98
Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox 100
Appendix B: Walking Audit Route Map 112
1 2
3 4
5 #13..
- 198 -
#13..
- 199 -
Front
Matter
1 • Engineer’s Seal
• Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery
• Acknowledgements
• Executive Summary
#13..
- 200 -
#13..
- 201 -
Front Matter 7
statement of
protection of data
from discovery
and admissions
SECTION 148 OF TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE

REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at the location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

Under 23 U.S. Code § 409 and 23 U.S. Code § 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

Considerations and Limitations of this Study
The analysis and recommendations in this report are conceptual in nature based upon limited information, and before implementing any changes, or using any of its information for design or construction, the City should conduct a more detailed analysis and prepare design drawings that reflect a subsequent review of field conditions.

This is a review based on a small sample size of collisions. Past trends do not necessarily indicate a current problem, and random fluctuations in crash locations/ frequency are expected.

The scope of this work, including study locations, time frame, and topics, was determined by the client. While it is possible that some locations or issues were not addressed in this report, nothing should be inferred by their omission. #13..
- 202 -
8 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
acknowledgements
The 2020 City of Modesto Systemic
Safety Analysis Report was funded
through a Systemic Safety Analysis
Report Program (SSARP) grant provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Input was sought from an advisory
group consisting of staff from the City
of Modesto. Fehr & Peers assisted the
City of Modesto in preparing the plan.

Caltrans SSARP Grant ID:

SSARPL 5059(225)
City of Modesto Project Management
Sandeep Sandhu
Cindy van Emple
James Ashby
Michael Sacuskie
Phillip Soares
Scott Collins
Advisory Group Members
Sgt. Lance Nicolai
Modesto Police Department
Bobby Moser
Stanislaus County Health Services Agency
Kyle Fliflet
Stanislaus County Health Services Agency
Fehr & Peers Team
Meghan Mitman
Ben Fuller
Ryan McClain
Ashlee Takushi
Terence Zhao
Catrina Meyer
O’Dell Team
Mike Persak
Vionna Adams
#13..
- 203 -
Front Matter 9
#13..
- 204 -
10 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
The City of Modesto, situated on the
Tuolumne River in the northern San
Joaquin Valley, is the largest city in
Stanislaus County. It is located in
the Central Valley, 68 miles south of
Sacramento, 90 miles north of Fresno,
and 92 miles east of San Francisco.

Much of Modesto is surrounded by
rich farmland and was once served by
one of the busiest rail corridors in the
country.

The purpose of the City of Modesto’s
Systemic Safety Analysis Report
(SSAR) is to identify opportunities
for the City to improve safety for all
modes of travel through roadway
design projects that are relevant to
the project locations, feasible for
implementation, and competitive for
grant funding.

This plan lays the groundwork and
provides the resources necessary for
the preparation of successful Highway
Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and other local and federally
funded grant applications by the
City. This study was funded through
the SSAR program grant provided
by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).

The SSAR program was initiated by
Caltrans to help local agencies take
a proactive approach to identifying
systemic and hot spot safety
improvement projects by completing
a system-wide, multi-year datadriven analysis of collisions. The SSAR includes collision and roadway
database development, review of local
collision data, a safety data analysis,
collision profile development, safety
countermeasure selection, and project
development.

Section 2 summarizes the safety
data used as part of the analysis
for this report. Five years of the
most current collision data (2011-
2015) were extracted from both the
Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS) and Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database. The most frequent collision
types were broadside collisions
involving motor vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians. In addition to collision
data, several pieces of contextual
geographic data were analyzed in
conjunction with collisions including
posted speed, number of travel lanes,
intersection control, signal phasing,
and more.

The collision analysis process – also
described in Section 2 – involved
mapping collisions by mode and
severity for the purpose of identifying
collision hot spots, and a systemic
safety analysis that involved
connecting contextual variables with
collision factors. For the systemic
analysis process, thirteen key crash
types were identified involving
vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian
collisions, mapped, and paired with
The purpose of the City of Modesto’s Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) is to identify opportunities for the City to improve safety for all modes of travel through roadway design projects that are relevant to the project locations, feasible for implementation, and competitive for grant funding.
executive
summary
#13..
- 205 -
Front Matter 11
potential safety countermeasures in
Section 3.

To address the safety patterns
identified in the collision analysis,
a safety Countermeasure Toolbox
is presented in the appendices.

The Toolbox includes a set of
infrastructure improvement projects
that can be used in HSIP funding
applications. Each countermeasure is
described along with key information
from the California Local Roadway
Safety Manual, including crash
reduction factors and opportunities
for systemic implementation. These
countermeasures are used in the
project lists in Section 4 and can
be a resource to the City for future
planning and safety improvements.

Section 4 includes a variety of
recommended priority projects at
intersections, mid-block locations,
and along roadway segments. The
locations of these projects represent
a variety of roadway contexts seen
throughout the City of Modesto. To
aid in the preparation of HSIP grant
applications, project cut sheets were
developed for ten projects, which
include cost estimates, benefit/cost
ratios, and planning graphics that
illustrate the proposed improvements.

The estimated total value of benefits
of these projects is $170 million.

This section also includes additional
funding sources that can be used to
finance safety projects around the
City; this list includes regional, state,
and federal funding programs, along
with a description of the program
purpose.
#13..
- 206 -
#13..
- 207 -
Summary &
Analysis of
Safety Data
2 • Summary of Safety Data Collected
• Analysis of Safety Data Collected
• Contextual Data and Systemic Analysis
#13..
- 208 -
14 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to “consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.” Both crash data and contextual data were collected and analyzed as part of this plan, as well as anecdotal input from City staff and community stakeholders. summary of
safety data
Data Source and
Overview
For this SSAR, five years of the
most current crash data available
(2011-2015) were extracted from the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) and Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
databases. The datasets included
extensive collision detail such as
collision location, type, severity,
parties involved, contributing factors,
etc.

The SWITRS collision dataset includes
collisions of all severity levels,
including property damage-only
collisions; however, these records
generally do not have coordinates
coded, which can be challenging
to analyze geospatially. The TIMS
collision dataset is a geocoded
version of the SWITRS database,
but only includes collision records
where an injury was recorded (it
does not include property damageonly collisions). Since the focus of this study is to address killed and
severely injured (KSI) collisions, the
collision analysis is largely focused on
the TIMS dataset, with supplemental
information from the SWITRS dataset.

Killed or Severely
Injured (KSI) in a
Collision
Severe injuries resulting from
a traffic crash can result in a
number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability,
lost productivity and wages, and
ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or
abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when
taken from the collision scene
Throughout this Plan, the
acronym KSI is used to denote
crashes where someone was
killed or seriously injured.
#13..
- 209 -
Safety Data 15
#13..
- 210 -
16 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
During this five year period, 479
collisions (5%) involved a bicyclist
and 439 collisions (5%) involved a
pedestrian. Of the KSI collisions, 38
collisions (13%) involved a bicyclist
and 76 collisions (26%) involved a
pedestrian.

Collision Landscape
Summary
Between 2011 and 2015, 9,116
collisions were reported in the City of
Modesto. Of these, 4,300 resulted in
injuries or fatalities, the geographic
distribution of which is shown on
the map on the facing page. Of
these collisions, there were 295 KSI
collisions, 53 of which were fatalities.
#13..
- 211 -
Safety Data 17
All Collisions Resulting in Injuries or Fatalities, 2011-2015 ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Sutter Ave
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
N:\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\All_Collisions_Map.mxd All Collisions (2011-2015)
Collision Density: All Collisions
High - 162
Low - 1
¬ Schools
Railroad
Park
Water Figure 1
¬
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
See Inset
Inset
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Sutter Ave
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
N:\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\All_Collisions_Map.mxd All Collisions (2011-2015)
Collision Density: All Collisions
High - 162
Low - 1
¬ Schools
Railroad
Park
Water Figure 1
¬
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
See Inset
Inset
#13..
- 212 -
18 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Although there was a dip in ranking
in 2014 for Total Fatal and Injury
collisions as well as Alcohol Involved
collisions, the larger trend is that
Modesto ranks high compared to
similarly-sized cities in the following
collision categories:
• Total Fatal and Injury
• Alcohol Involved
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
Collisions by OTS Categories, 2011-2015
analysis of
safety data
OTS Rankings
The California Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) produces rankings so
jurisdictions can compare their traffic
safety statistics to other jurisdictions
with similar-sized populations. There
are approximately 56 similar-sized
cities as Modesto in which the OTS
rankings are compared to.

OTS Rankings by Year, 2011-2015
#13..
- 213 -
Safety Data 19
Collisions by Severity, 2011-2015
Collisions by Mode, 2011-2015
Annual Collision
Trends
Annual collision trends show a rise in
collisions since 2011. The total number
of collisions rose from 1,685 in 2011 to
2,080 in 2015, with a notable spike in
2015. KSI collisions dipped in 2013 and
2014, but show an upward trajectory.

Fatal collisions increased to 15 in 2015,
up from 10 to 11 per year.

Broken down by mode, collisions
trend up for vehicles, and are flat
for bicyclists and pedestrians. Motor
vehicle collisions rose from 1,495 in
2011 to 1,886 in 2015, with a notable
spike in 2015. Bicycle collisions were
relatively constant, averaging about
96 per year. The number of pedestrian
collisions decreased from 101 in 2011
to 71 in 2013, but then crept back up
to 98 in 2015.

Pedestrians and bicycles together
account for 39 percent of all KSI
collisions, and those KSI collisions
account for only 1% of total collisions
in Modesto between 2011 and 2015.
#13..
- 214 -
20 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
KSI Collisions, 2011-2015
Fatal Collisions, 2011-2015
KSI Collision Trends
Motor vehicle KSI collisions remained
relatively constant, averaging about
36 per year. By comparison, bicycle
KSI collisions fluctuated between 4 to
12 per year, but appear to be trending
down. Pedestrian KSI collisions follow
a similar trend to pedestrian collisions
overall: down in 2013, but back up by
2015.

Fatal Collision Trends
Looking at fatal collisions by year,
pedestrian fatalities, despite being on
the decline through 2014, spiked in
2015 (at 8 fatalities), surpassing the
number of motorist fatalities. Motor
vehicle fatalities rose through 2014, but
fell back down in 2015. Bicycle fatalities
fluctuated between 0 and 2 per year.
#13..
- 215 -
Safety Data 21
Collision Severity
Vulnerable road users, including
bicyclists and pedestrians, are more
susceptible to fatal or severe injury
collisions.

Broken down by collision severity,
KSI collisions made up 2% of motorist
collisions, 8% of bike collisions, and
17% of pedestrian collisions, while
fatal collisions made up less than
1% of motorist collisions, 1% of bike
collisions, and 4% of pedestrian
collisions.

Broken down by collision mode.
motor vehicle collisions were 90% of
all collisions but accounted for only
60% of fatal collisions. By contrast,
pedestrian collisions made up 5% of
all collisions but 33% of fatal collisions.

Bicycle collisions made up 5% of all
collisions, 7% of fatal collisions.

Collision Severity by Mode
Mode Share by Collision Severity
#13..
- 216 -
22 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Collision Location
Most collisions occurred at
intersections, across all modes; nearly
80% of all collisions either occurred
at intersections or were intersectionrelated. However, a slightly higher share of KSI collisions occurred along
roadway segments or midblock.

Pedestrian Location
The largest share of pedestrian
collisions were of pedestrians crossing
in a crosswalk at an intersection (47%
of all pedestrian collisions). However,
pedestrian collisions in a crosswalk
at an intersection were only 37% of
pedestrian KSI collisions and 15% of
pedestrian fatal collisions.The largest
share of pedestrian KSI and fatal
collisions were pedestrians crossing
not at a crosswalk (44% and 55%,
respectively).

Collisions by Location
Pedestrian Collisions by Pedestrian Location
Intersection Collision Roadway Segment Collision
#13..
- 217 -
Safety Data 23
Lighting
The lighting at the time of a collision
influences visibility of conflicting
modes. A significant share of
collisions occur at night, especially
pedestrian-involved collisions.

AT INTERSECTIONS
46% of KSI vehicle collisions occurred
when dark, as did 35% of KSI bicycle
collisions, and 70% of KSI pedestrian
collisions. Across all modes, 4% of
all KSI collisions occurred when
streetlights were out or not present
altogether.

ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS
On roadway segments, a higher
percentage of collisions occurred
during evening hours at locations
without streetlights (dark gray
color-coding on the charts) than at
intersections. This is true across all
modes, but especially for bicycles.
58% of KSI vehicle collisions occurred
when dark, as did 44% of KSI bicycle
collisions, and 69% of KSI pedestrian
collisions. Across all modes, 13%
of all KSI collisions occurred when
streetlights were out or not present
altogether.

Intersection Collisions by Prevailing Lighting
Roadway Segment Collisions by Prevailing Lighting
#13..
- 218 -
24 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Primary Collision
Factors
The primary collision factor (PCF) is
the primary action or behavior for
why a given collision occurred, as
understood by the reporting officer.

It is not uncommon for multiple
factors to contribute to the cause of
a collision.

AT INTERSECTIONS
The collision factors contributing to the
largest share of KSI vehicle collisions
included DUI (28%), Vehicle Right-ofWay, (21%), and Improper Turning (17%).

The collision factors contributing to the
largest share of KSI bicycle collisions
also included Vehicle Right-of-Way
(24%), as well as Wrong Side of Road
(21%) and Traffic Signals & Signs
violations (21%).

The collision factors contributing to
the largest share of KSI pedestrian
collisions included Pedestrian Violation
(60%) and Pedestrian Right-of-Way
(18%).

Intersection Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
#13..
- 219 -
Safety Data 25

ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS
As with intersection collisions, the
collision factors contributing to the
largest share of KSI vehicle collisions
included DUI (29%), Improper Turning
(27%), and Vehicle Right-of-Way
(15%).

The collision factors contributing
to the largest share of KSI bicycle
collisions included Vehicle Right-ofWay (44%), Wrong Side of Road (11%), and Improper Turning (11%).

The collision factors contributing to
the largest share of KSI pedestrian
collisions included Pedestrian
Violation (63%).

Roadway Segment Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
#13..
- 220 -
26 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Collision Types

AT INTERSECTIONS
While various types of collisions occur
at intersections, broadside collisions
were the highest occurring type
for both motor vehicle and bicycle
modes.

The largest share of KSI vehicle
collisions included Broadside (46%),
Head-On (17%), and Hit Object (15%),
and the largest share of KSI bicycle
collisions included Broadside (66%).

ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS
There is greater variety in collision
types along roadways. For motor
vehicle KSI collisions, there was a
higher rate of hit object collisions and
a lesser rate of broadside collisions
than at intersections. Similarly, bicycle
KSI collisions experienced a lesser
share of broadside collisions.

The largest share of KSI vehicle
collisions included Hit Object (36%),
Broadside (24%), and Head-On (15%);
and the largest share of KSI bicycle
collisions included Rear End (33%),
Broadside (22%), and Sideswipe
(22%).

Roadway Segment Collisions by Collision Type
Intersection Collisions by Collision Type
#13..
- 221 -
Safety Data 27
Hot Spot Analysis
Following the conventional collision
mapping processes, we identified
the top intersections and corridors
that account for a disproportionate
share of severe and fatal pedestrian
collisions. The Hot Spot analysis
identified the intersections and
corridors that account for a
disproportionate share of severe or
total motor vehicle, pedestrian, and
bicycle collisions.

There are six intersections in the City
that have between 26 to 30 collisions
in the analysis period. • W Briggsmore Avenue/
N Carpenter Road and Sisk
Road/W Orangeburg Avenue
• W Briggsmore Avenue and
Carver Road
• W Briggsmore Avenue and
McHenry Avenue
• I Street and 6th Street • H Street and 6th Street • Scenic Drive and Bodem Street In addition, there were five roadway
segments within the City that have
between 31 and 70 collisions per
segment. • McHenry Avenue between Stan
-
diford Avenue/Sylvan Avenue and
Woodrow Avenue
• W Briggsmore Avenue between
Prescott Road and Carver Road
• W Orangeburg Avenue between
W Briggsmore Avenue and Martin
Avenue
• Scenic Drive between Bodem
Street and Coffee Road
• E Briggsmore Avenue between
Coffee Road and Rose Avenue
The following pages map the results
of the Hot Spot analysis.
#13..
- 222 -
28 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Collisions per Intersection, 2011-2015
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
! ! ! ! !! !!
! ! ! !
!! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !! !! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! !!
!! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! !!
! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! !!
! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !!
! !! ! ! ! ! !!
! !
!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! ! !! ! !!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
!!!! !! !! !
! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ·219
·108
·132
·99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
Maze Bl v
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W O rangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Sutter Ave
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W B riggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E Briggsmore Ave
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Formatted_Basemap_HotSpots.mxd ¬
! !! ! !
! !!! !
!! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ·108
·132 ·99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
See Inset
Inset
Collisions per Intersection
! 1 - 2 (647 ints.)
! 3 - 5 (174 ints.)
! 6 - 10 (83 ints.)
! 11 - 16 (36 ints.)
! 17 - 23 (15 ints.)
! 24 - 39 (6 ints.)
¬ Schools
Railroad
Park
Water
Collisions per Intersection (2011 – 2015)
Figure 1
#13..
- 223 -
Safety Data 29
Collisions on Roadway Segments, 2011-2015
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Sutter Ave
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Formatted_Basemap_HotSpots.mxd ¬
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
See Inset
Inset
Collisions per Roadway Segment
1 - 5 (1,201 segments)
6 - 10 (126 segments)
11 - 15 (45 segments)
16 - 25 (32 segments)
26 - 30 (1 segments)
31 - 70 (5 segments)
¬ Schools
Railroad
Park
Water
Collisions on Roadway Segments (2011-2015)
#13..
- 224 -
30 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Contextual Data
To understand more about collision
patterns in Modesto, several
contextual factors were analyzed
along with the characteristics of each
collision. Assembled contextual data
included:
• Roadway travel lanes
• Roadway functional classification
• Posted speed limit
• Shoulder type
• Center turn lane
• Intersections
• Intersection control
• Highway interchanges
• Left-turn protection for signalized
intersections
• Midblock crosswalks
• Railroad crossings
• Roundabouts
• Location of schools
• Location of transit stops
• Location of parks
• Existing bicycle facilities
• Planned bicycle facilities
• Low income communities
In addition to the quantitative and
geographic data collected and
analyzed as part of this project,
outreach to stakeholders and the public
was also performed to collect information
on and understand local safety issues
from a qualitative perspective. This is
important because of the significance
of under-reporting and near misses
that exist, especially for pedestrian and
bicycle conditions.

A stakeholder meeting was performed as
part of a two-day walking audit on Tuesday,
May 14, 2019 and Wednesday, May 15, 2019.

Participants included representatives of City
staff from the Transportation Engineering
and Design (TED) and Planning Division of
the Community and Economic Development
Department, the Traffic Engineering and
Operations Division of the Public Works
Department, Stanislaus County Health
Services Agency, the City of Modesto
Police Department, and staff members at
a number of schools. Stakeholders helped
substantiate the safety issues identified in
the data and provided valuable feedback
on other areas of concern. The project team
also set up a booth at the City’s Public
Works Day on May 12, 2018, where feedback
from the public was solicited to understand
their transportation safety concerns.
contextual data and
systemic analysis
#13..
- 225 -
Safety Data 31
Photos from Outreach
#13..
- 226 -
32 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Systemic Analysis
Systemic analysis is a proactive safety
approach that focuses on evaluating
an entire roadway network, focusing
not only on the history of crash
data, but also on the contextual
characteristics surrounding crashes,
and how those characteristics create
risk in locations with and without
a history of crashes. By merging
adjacent road, intersection, and land
use features with collision data, we
can uncover relationships between
contextual factors and correlate the
risk of frequent and severe crashes.

To understand the relationship
between contextual characteristics
and collision characteristics, we
developed a series of systemic
matrices that illustrate the number
of crashes at the intersection based
on a collision characteristic and a
contextual characteristic. Systemic
matrices were developed for each
mode, with separate matrices for all
injury collisions and for KSI collisions,
and further separated by intersection
collisions and roadway collisions.

From the systemic matrices, 13
collision profiles were identified to
highlight the most common and
severe collision patterns in Modesto.

Modesto SSAR Systemic Collisions Analysis
Along Roadway Segments
25-30 35-45 50-65 25-30 35-45 50-65 25-30 35-45 50-65 25-30 35-45 50-65 25-30 35-45 50-65 Driving Under Influence 39 8 1 0 0 1 10 39 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 Unsafe Speed 42 24 4 3 1 1 31 165 8 0 0 0 19 17 0
Following Too Closely 8 3 2 0 0 0 2 33 3 0 0 0 4 6 0
Wrong Side of Road 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Improper Passing 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsafe Lane Change 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Improper Turning 48 15 3 2 0 0 12 62 5 0 0 0 2 12 0
Auto Right-of-Way Violation 31 7 2 1 0 2 16 115 1 0 0 0 6 29 0 Traˆc Signs and Signals 1 3 0 1 0 2 4 13 0 0 0 0 8 4 0
Other Hazardous Movement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 Unsafe Starting or Backing 9 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Other Violation or Not Stated 7 2 1 1 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 194 68 13 9 1 6 89 462 20 0 1 0 45 76 0
552.1 24.9 7.7 4.0 1.7 0.1 8.8 58.3 7.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 7.6 0.0

0.35 2.73 1.69 2.26 0.60 112.12 10.13 7.92 2.63 0.00 5.75 0.00 32.96 9.96 0.00 1.46 Total Collisions
Roadway Miles
Collisions per Mile
Segment
Total
106
315
61 14
2 24
161
210
36 Number of Lanes
Posted Speed
13 22
Two-Lane Three-Lane Four-Lane Five-Lane
984
674.6
0 20
Six+ Lane
Violation
Sample Collision Matrix (motor vehicle collisions along roadway segments) #13..
- 227 -
Safety Data 33
Collision Profile Lanes Speed
(MPH) Mode
Profile
Collisions
KSI Profile
Collisions
# % of
total # % of total
1 Broadside Vehicular Collisions
at Signalized Intersections with
Permissive Lefts
4-5 35-45 Vehicle 159 6.6% 6 2.1%
2 Broadside Vehicular Collisions at
Intersections Caused by Signal
Violations
4-5 35-45 Vehicle 193 8.0% 9 3.2%
3 Broadside Vehicular Collisions on
High-Speed Roadways 4 35-45 Vehicle 134 5.5% 12 4.3%
4 Driving Under the Influence All All Vehicle 202 8.4% 22 7.8% 5 Vehicular Collisions on 6-Lane
Roadways 6 All Vehicle 480 19.9% 16 5.7%
6 Broadside Collisions at Large,
Signalized Intersections Involving
Bicycles
4-5 35-45 Bicycle 52 2.2% 5 1.8%
7 Broadside Collisions at
Unsignalized Intersections
Involving Bicycles
≤3 25-30 Bicycle 49 2.0% 5 1.8%
8 Broadside Collisions on HighSpeed Roadways Involving Bicycles
4 35-45 Bicycle 28 1.2% 2 0.7%
9 Bicycle Collisions Involving
Wrong-Way Riding 4 35-45 Bicycle 41 1.7% 3 1.1%
10 Pedestrian Collisions at Crosswalks
at Large Signalized Intersections
with Permissive Lefts
4-5 35-45 Pedestrian 59 2.4% 7 2.5%
11 Pedestrian Right-Of-Way Collisions
at Uncontrolled Crosswalks at
Large Intersections
4-5 35-45 Pedestrian 48 2.0% 9 3.2%
12 Pedestrian Right-Of-Way Collisions
at Uncontrolled Crosswalks at
Small Intersections
≤3 25-30 Pedestrian 55 2.3% 10 3.6%
13 Pedestrian Violation Collisions
on Large Roadways Not at
Crosswalks
≥4 All Pedestrian 35 1.4% 14 5.0%
List of Collision Profiles
#13..
- 228 -
#13..
- 229 -
Safety
Guidance
3 • Guide for Addressing Systemic Collision Profiles
• Countermeasure Guidance
#13..
- 230 -
36 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
This section provides an overview
of each collision profile, including
a description of the profile, a map
of the collisions, and identification
of applicable countermeasures
for feasibility and implementation
consideration. The purpose
of this guide is to support the
City in identifying future safety
improvements beyond those
described in this report and to
document the process that was used
to identify top systemic projects that
are included in the Prioritized Project
List.

A detailed description of all
countermeasures named in the
next section is presented in the
Countermeasure Toolbox in Appendix
A, which can be used as a reference.
guide for
addressing
systemic
collision
profiles
#13..
- 231 -
Section Name Collision Profiles 3737
#13..
- 232 -
38 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 1
Potential Countermeasures
Left-turning movements are
generally acknowledged to be
the highest-risk movements at
intersections. The FHWA states
that vehicles making permissive
left turn movements encounter
potential conflicts from multiple
sources including opposing
through traffic, through traffic
in the same direction, and
crossing vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. This profile suggests the
examination of signal operations
such as converting permissive
left turns to protected phasing,
including a flashing yellow arrow
and extending the yellow and allred time. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
provides more information on
the standards and applications
of the permissive and protected
phasing.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
159

SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

6.6%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4-5

SPEED (MPH)
35-45

BROADSIDE VEHICULAR COLLISIONS

AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

WITH PERMISSIVE LEFTS
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Permissive
Lefts to
Protected
Road Diet
Signal Head
Improvement
Roundabout
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Extend
Yellow and
All-Red
Time
+
1 #13..
- 233 -
Collision Profiles 39
Profile 1 Broadside Vehicular Collisions at Signalized Intersections with Permissive Lefts - Collision Locations
KSI Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (6)
Other Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (153)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 234 -
40 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 2
Potential Countermeasures
This profile focuses on broadside
collisions caused by signal
violations, which typically refers
to red light running, where a
driver enters an intersection
when the traffic signal is solid
red. This profile suggests an
evaluation to examine ways to
avoid potential collisions, such
as signal timing adjustments.

Providing adequate clearance
time or coordinating signal
operations with nearby
intersections can also help to
reduce crashes.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
193

SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

8.0%

BROADSIDE VEHICULAR

COLLISIONS AT INTERSECTIONS

CAUSED BY SIGNAL VIOLATIONS
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4-5

SPEED (MPH)
35-45
Additional
Signal
Heads
+
Reduce
Cycle
Lengths
- Coordinated
Signal
Operation
Extend
Yellow and
All-Red
Time
+
Signal Head
Improvement
Roundabout
Programmable
Signals
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
2 #13..
- 235 -
Collision Profiles 41
Profile 2 Broadside Vehicular Collisions at Intersections Caused by Signal Violations - Collision Locations
KSI Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (9)
Other Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (184)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 236 -
42 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 3
Potential Countermeasures
This profile focuses on
broadside collisions along 4
lane roadway segments where
a collision occurred resulting
from a motorist turning out of
or into a driveway. On highspeed roadways, this profile suggests an evaluation of
appropriate countermeasures
to better accommodate turning
traffic mid-block. Potential
countermeasures for this profile
include raised median, road diet,
access management, roadway
lighting, and removal of sight
obstructions.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
134

SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

5.5%

BROADSIDE VEHICULAR
COLLISIONS ON HIGHSPEED ROADWAYS
Raised
Median
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4 SPEED (MPH)
35-45
Road Diet Access
Management
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
3 #13..
- 237 -
Collision Profiles 43
Profile 3 Broadside Vehicular Collisions on High-Speed Roadways - Collision Locations
KSI Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (12)
Other Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (122)
#13..
- 238 -
44 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 4
The City of Modesto is
consistently ranked by the
California Office of Traffic
Safety in the highest quartile
among similar-sized cities for
alcohol-related collisions. This
profile highlights alcohol-related
collisions throughout the City.

A total of 22 collisions were
documented as KSI collisions
during the analysis period. Nonengineering interventions will be needed to address challenges
associated with this profile.

These will be documented and
included in the forthcoming
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP).

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
202

SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

8.4%

DRIVING

UNDER THE

INFLUENCE
4 #13..
- 239 -
Collision Profiles 45
Profile 4 Driving Under the Influence - Collision Locations KSI Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (22)
Other Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (180)
#13..
- 240 -
46 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 5
Potential Countermeasures
Collisions occur more frequently
on multi-lane roadways where
motorists are traveling at higher
speeds, and this typology can
result in higher rates of KSI
collisions. The City of Modesto
has several 6-lane roadways.

This profile points towards
countermeasures such as lane
narrowing, road diets, edge line
and center line rumble strips, and
access management to minimize
the number of conflict points along
the roadway.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
480

SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

19.9%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
6 VEHICULAR

COLLISIONS ON
6-LANE ROADWAYS
Raised
Median
Lane
Narrowing
Road Diet Widen
Shoulder
Edge Line/
Center Line
Rumble
Strips
Access
Management
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
5 #13..
- 241 -
Collision Profiles 47
Profile 5 Vehicular Collisions on 6-Lane Roadways - Collision Locations KSI Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (16)
Other Vehicle Collisions meeting the profile (464)
#13..
- 242 -
48 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 6
Potential Countermeasures
This profile focuses on broadside
collisions involving bicyclists at
signalized intersections. On larger
roadways with motorists traveling
at high speeds, this profile suggests
an evaluation of appropriate
countermeasures to improve
visibility, provide dedicated space,
and adjust signal timings to
accommodate bicyclists. Common
countermeasures for consideration
include implementing additional
signal heads, increasing green time
for bicyclists, and installing green
paint at conflict areas.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
52 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

2.2%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4-5

SPEED (MPH)
35-45

BROADSIDE COLLISIONS AT LARGE,

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

INVOLVING BICYCLES
Protected
Intersection
Bicycle
Signal
Prohibit
Right-TurnOn-Red
ON RED
Road Diet
Bike
Detection
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Roundabout
Bike Box
Signal Head
Improvement
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
Bicycle
Crossing
(Green
Solid Paint)
Reduce
Curb Radius
Additional
Signal
Heads
+
Reduce
Cycle
Lengths
- Extend
Green Time
for Bikes
+ Extend
Yellow and
All-Red
Time
+ Coordinated
Signal
Operation
6 #13..
- 243 -
Collision Profiles 49
Profile 6 Broadside Collisions at Large, Signalized Intersections Involving Bicycles - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (5)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (47)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 244 -
50 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 7
Potential Countermeasures
This profile focuses on
broadside collisions where
bicyclists were hit by drivers at
an unsignalized intersection.

Many factors contribute to these
collisions including sight-line
obstructions, failure to yield
right of way, and disregard
of traffic control. Potential
countermeasures include
converting the intersection
to an all-way stop control (if
warranted), installing additional
intersection-scale lighting, and
installing a traffic circle.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
49 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

2.0%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
≤3

SPEED (MPH)
25-30

BROADSIDE COLLISIONS AT

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

INVOLVING BICYCLES
Raised
Intersection
Convert to
All-Way
Stop
STOP

ALL WAY
Lane
Narrowing
Roundabout Tra
c Circle
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
7 #13..
- 245 -
Collision Profiles 51
Profile 7 Broadside Collisions at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Bicycles - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (5)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (44)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 246 -
52 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 8
Potential Countermeasures
On high speed roadways, the
severity of bicycle and motor
vehicle collisions increases. This
profile focuses on these higherspeed broadside collisions. In this high-speed, high-stress
context, physical separation
of bicyclists from vehicles
is important. In this respect,
Class I bike paths and Class IV
separated bike lanes, featuring
dedicated space separated
from other traffic, are the most
comfortable for bicyclists. Other
countermeasures to evaluate and
consider including green paint to
signify conflict zones, removing
sight obstructions, and installing
additional lighting to increase the
visibility of bicyclists. In addition,
access management can be
considered to reduce the number
of conflicts between bicyclists
and motorists.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
28 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

1.2%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4 SPEED (MPH)
35-45

BROADSIDE COLLISIONS

ON HIGH-SPEED ROADWAYS

INVOLVING BICYCLES
Road Diet Class I
Bike Path
Class IV
Bike Facility
Green Bike
Lane
Conflict
Zone
Marking
Access
Management
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
8 Remove
Sight
Obstructions
#13..
- 247 -
Collision Profiles 53
Profile 8 Broadside Collisions on High-Speed Roadways Involving Bicycles - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (2)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (26)
#13..
- 248 -
54 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 9
Potential Countermeasures
The California Vehicle Code
specifies where and how
bicyclists must operate. Bicyclists,
for the most part, have the
same rights and responsibilities
as motor vehicle drivers; with
few exceptions, bicyclists are
generally required to travel on
the right side of roadways in the
direction of traffic. This profile
focuses on corridors with traffic
moving at higher speeds, and
focuses on countermeasures that
increase visibility of bicyclists
and compliance of motorists
and bicyclists alike. Some of
these countermeasures include
installing separated bike paths,
installing bicycle wrong way
signs, and removing sight
obstructions. Education and
enforcement are important
complements to this profile, but
should not be used in lieu of
engineering interventions that
can promote accessibility and
safety.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
41 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

1.7%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4 SPEED (MPH)
35-45

BICYCLE COLLISIONS

INVOLVING

WRONG-WAY RIDING
Class I
Bike Path
Bicycle
Wrong
Way
Signs
Access
Management
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
9 #13..
- 249 -
Collision Profiles 55
Profile 9 Bicycle Collisions Involving Wrong-Way Riding - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (3)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (38)
#13..
- 250 -
56 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 10
Potential Countermeasures
On high-speed, 4-5 lane roadways
in the City, 59 pedestrian collisions
occurred when vehicles were making
a permissive left turn. On wider
roadways, motorists must pay attention
to multiple sources of conflict, including
opposing through traffic and crossing
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This
profile suggests countermeasures to
ideally separate users and remove the
conflict via protected turn phases,
leading pedestrian intervals, and
pedestrian scrambles. Where that is not
possible, additional countermeasures to
consider include painting high visibility
crosswalks, extending pedestrian
crossing time, and shortening the
crossing distance for pedestrians with
curb extensions.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
59 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

2.5%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4-5

SPEED (MPH)
35-45

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS AT

CROSSWALKS AT LARGE SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS WITH PERMISSIVE LEFTS
Additional
Signal
Heads
+
Permissive
Lefts to
Protected
Close
Slip Lane
High
Visibility
Crosswalk
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing
Time
+
Pedestrian
Scramble
Road Diet
Reduce
Curb Radius
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Reduce
Cycle
Lengths
-
Signal Head
Improvement
Advance
Stop
STOP
Markings
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Install
Pedestrian
Countdown
Timer
Prohibit
Right-TurnOn-Red
ON RED
Pedestrian
Phase Recall
Extend
Yellow and
All-Red
Time
+
Curb
Extensions
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
10#13..
- 251 -
Collision Profiles 57
Profile 10 Collision Locations Pedestrian Collisions at Crosswalks at Large Signalized Intersections with Permissive Lefts - Collision Locations KSI Pedestrian Collisions meeting the profile (9)
Other Pedestrian Collisions meeting the profile (50)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 252 -
58 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 11
Potential Countermeasures
The FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations provides
guidance on the installation of
countermeasures at uncontrolled
pedestrian crossing locations. On
larger roadways with motorists
traveling at higher speeds, this
profile suggests an evaluation
of appropriate crossing
improvements to improve
pedestrian visibility and driver
compliance. Common elements
considered include RRFBs,
PHBs, pedestrian refuge islands,
and enhanced signage and
pavement markings.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
48 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

2.0%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
4-5

SPEED (MPH)
35-45

PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY COLLISIONS

AT UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS AT

LARGE INTERSECTIONS
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Pedestrian
Signage
Road Diet
Pedestrian
Refuge
Island
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Curb
Extensions
Reduce
Curb Radius
High
Visibility
Crosswalk
Advance
Yield
Markings
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
11#13..
- 253 -
Collision Profiles 59
Profile 11 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Collisions at Uncontrolled Crosswalks at Large Intersections
KSI Pedestrian Collisions meeting the profile (9)
Other Pedestrian Collisions meeting the profile (39)
Location that met the profile, but a collision did
not occur
#13..
- 254 -
60 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 12
Potential Countermeasures
The FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations provides
guidance on the installation of
countermeasures at uncontrolled
pedestrian crossing locations. On
smaller, uncontrolled streets, this
profile suggests an evaluation
to examine appropriate crossing
improvements to improve
pedestrian visibility and driver
compliance. Common elements
considered include curb
extensions and enhanced signage
and pavement markings, but may
also call for RRFBs and PHBs.

Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
55 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

2.3%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
≤3

SPEED (MPH)
25-30

PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY COLLISIONS

AT UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS AT

SMALL INTERSECTIONS
Pedestrian
Signage
Raised
Intersection
Raised
Crosswalk
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Roundabout
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Reduce
Curb Radius
Advance
Yield
Markings
Remove
Sight
Obstructions
Convert to
All-Way
Stop
STOP

ALL WAY
Tra
c Circle Curb
Extensions
High
Visibility
Crosswalk
12#13..
- 255 -
Collision Profiles 61
Profile 12 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Collisions at Uncontrolled Crosswalks at Small Intersections - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (10)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (45)
Systemic Matches (3,756)
#13..
- 256 -
62 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROFILE 13
Potential Countermeasures
Profile Statistics

COLLISIONS FIT

THIS PROFILE
35 SHARE OF

TOTAL CRASHES

1.5%
Profile Characteristics
LANES
≥4

PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION

COLLISIONS ON LARGE

ROADWAYS NOT AT CROSSWALKS
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Pedestrian
Median
Barrier
Install
Sidewalk
Curb
Extensions
High
Visibility
Crosswalk
Rectangular
Rapid
Flashing
Beacon
Pedestrian
Signage
Advance
Yield
Markings
Intersection,
Street-Scale
Lighting
Road Diet
Pedestrian
Refuge
Island
On wide, multi-lane roadways,
pedestrian violations occur because
of long crossing distances and
infrequent marked crossings. Out
of the 35 collisions that meet this
profile, 14 were KSI collisions. This
profile suggests an evaluation
to assess pedestrian desire lines
and to increase the visibility of
pedestrians along roadways.

Common elements to consider
include installing sidewalks,
installing new, enhanced pedestrian
crossings to meet pedestrian desire
lines, or restricting/discouraging
pedestrians from crossing at midblock locations.
13#13..
- 257 -
Collision Profiles 63
Profile 13 Pedestrian Violation Collisions on Large Roadways Not at Crosswalks - Collision Locations
KSI Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (14)
Other Bicycle Collisions meeting the profile (21)
Systemic Matches
#13..
- 258 -
64 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Countermeasure
Profiles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING
Additional Signal Heads x x x
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time x
Flashing Yellow Arrow x x
Leading Pedestrian Interval x
Pedestrian Phase Recall x
Permissive Lefts to Protected x x
Pedestrian Scramble x
Reduce Cycle Lengths x x x
Coordinated Signal Operation x x
Extend Green Time for Bikes x x
Extend Yellow and All-Red Time x x x x
B. INTERSECTION & ROADWAY DESIGN
Close Slip Lanes x
Raised Intersection x x
Convert Two-Way Stop to All-Way Stop x x
Install Sidewalks x
Protected Intersection x
Raised Median x x
Lane Narrowing x x x x
Road Diet x x x x x x x x
Widen Shoulder x
Roundabout x x x x x x
Signal Head Improvements x x x x
Traffic Circle x x
Programmable Signals, Visors, or Louvers x
Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips x
countermeasure
guidance
The following charts provide guidance on appropriate countermeasures for specific location contexts identified in the collision profiles. Appendix A includes an in-depth countermeasure toolbox that highlights countermeasures included in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) and can be advantageous for use in Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding applications. Many of the countermeasures included in this chapter helped to shape the 10 Priority Project Location Recommendations included in this report.
#13..
- 259 -
Countermeasures Guidance 65
Countermeasure
Profiles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
C. BIKEWAY DESIGN
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) x
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase x
Bike Detection x
Bike Box x
Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed-Use Trail x x
Class II Bike Lane x
Class IV Separated Bikeway x
Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings x
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box x
D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer x
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) x x
Curb Extensions x x x x
High-Visibility Crosswalk x x x x
Pedestrian Median Barrier x
Raised Crosswalk x
Pedestrian Refuge Island x x
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) x x x
Reduce Curb Radius x x x x
E. SIGNS AND MARKINGS
Advanced Stop Markings x
Advanced Yield Markings x x x
Prohibit Right-Turn-On-Red x x
Bicycle Wrong Way Signs x
Pedestrian Signage x x x
E. OTHER
Access Management x x x x
Intersection and Street-Scale Lighting x x x x x x x x x x x x Remove Obstructions for Sightlines x x x x x x x
#13..
- 260 -
#13..
- 261 -
Project
Guidance
4 • Project Recommendations
• Funding and Implementation Recommendations
#13..
- 262 -
68 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Potential project locations were
initially identified in consideration
of the 13 collision profiles identified
along with identification of top
hot spot locations. From this initial
premise, several processes were
undertaken to identify a prioritized
project list recommended for
implementation.

First, the SSAR Project Team
and Stakeholder Advisory Group
completed a two-day walking audit
around the City on Tuesday, May
14 and Wednesday, May 15, 2019,
the map for which may be found
in Appendix B. This walking audit
provided first-hand insight into
the challenges roadway users face
throughout the City.

This walking audit guided the project
team to identify 20 priority projects.

These 20 projects were presented
to the public to facilitate feedback
regarding project prioritization
through both an evening community
meeting on September 11, 2019 as well
as through a published survey. The
resulting list of 20 projects and the
respective community prioritization
are shown on the following pages.

For each of the 20 projects, project
cost estimates and the resulting
benefit/cost ratios (developed using
the Cycle 9 HSIP Analyzer) are also
shown in the project list. Following
the project list are project cutsheets
for ten selected projects chosen from
this list.. These ten projects were
chosen as projects that may compete
well for grant funding, align with City
priorities, and account for community
priority ranking.

Twenty Priority Projects are summarized in this chapter, with ten Projects highlighted with cutsheets to support applications for HSIP funding and other key safety grant funding opportunities. project
recommendations
#13..
- 263 -
Project Recommendations 69
Project
Overall
BCR
Community
Priority
Cost
Estimate

1. Pedestrian improvements at intersection of Chapman Rd and Pelandale Ave
Update signal timings, extend median to create pedestrian refuge, and tighten curb radii

6.53 Low
$85,100
(22% HSIP
eligible)

2. Pelandale Ave access improvements: Blue Bird Dr to Dale Rd Install a new traffic signal at Blue Bird Dr and Pelandale Ave, and install raised median to restrict access to right-in/right-out (except allowing lefts onto Honey Creek Rd from Pelandale Ave).

2.55 Low
$1,456,000
(90% HSIP
eligible)

3. Standiford Ave/Sylvan Ave PHBs:

Longbridge Dr to Northampton Ln
Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons across Standiford Ave at Longbridge Dr and across Sylvan Ave at Bridgeford Ln and at Northampton Ln. Longbridge Dr crossing to be installed across the east leg with a refuge island, and restrict lefts out from Longbridge Dr onto Standiford Ave.

16.94 Medium
$1,192,100
(90% HSIP
eligible)

4. Bus access improvements at the intersection of Standiford Ave and McHenry Ave
Redesign the driveway along Standiford Ave into the Promenade Shopping Center, west of McHenry Ave, to a standard driveway curb-cut. Move westbound bus stop to the east side of the driveway and install a bus turn out. Install a curb extension on the southeast corner of the intersection. Relocate bus stops closer to the intersection. Reduce the eastbound right turn lane width to accommodate a bike lane, and install green conflict striping for the eastbound approach, and through the intersection in both the eastbound and westbound directions.

42.06 Medium
$481,500
(1% HSIP
eligible)

5. Protected left turn improvements at the intersections of Orangeburg Ave and Carver Rd; Coldwell Ave and Tully Rd; Coffee Rd and Floyd Ave; and Coffee Rd and Rumble Rd
Protected left turns will be installed at these locations.

8.64 Medium
$1,747,200
(100% HSIP
eligible)

6. Intersection improvements at Tully Rd and Rumble Rd
Install advanced stop bars, high visibility crosswalk striping, curb extensions, blank-out no right turn sign facing westbound traffic to be activated during northbound pedestrian phase, protected left turns on all approaches, and leading pedestrian intervals. Restripe eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate exclusive left turn lanes.

8.18 High
$998,000
(75% HSIP
eligible)

7. Briggsmore Ave corridor study
Conduct a corridor study for Briggsmore Ave to identify multimodal safety improvements.

Low
Potential Project List
#13..
- 264 -
70 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Project
Overall
BCR
Community
Priority
Cost
Estimate

8. Rumble Rd pedestrian improvements: Conant Ave to Keller St Enhance school crossings along Rumble Rd in this stretch with crosswalk improvements (e.g., high visibility crosswalk striping, instreet pedestrian crossing signs, refuge islands, curb extensions) and traffic calming (e.g., speed cushions, traffic circles).

1.02 Low
$2,687,600
(50% HSIP
eligible)

9. Oakdale Rd improvements (phase 1): Celeste Dr to Lancey Dr Redesign the intersection of Oakdale Rd and Merle Ave, which includes moving northern crosswalk south of 1823 Oakdale Road driveway, reducing the driveway curb cut, installing protected left turns for the westbound approach, and signalizing driveway crossing on west side. Implement leading pedestrian intervals at the intersections of Oakdale Rd with Merle Ave and Lancey Dr.

Install blank-out no right turn signs on all approaches. Install raised median along Oakdale Rd from Merle Ave to Celeste Dr and restrict lefts out from Celeste Dr onto Oakdale Rd. Install a new pedestrian crossing on the north leg of Celeste Dr and Oakdale Rd with a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon and median refuge. Install new signal interconnect from Oakdale Rd to Merle Ave.

16.63 Medium
$1,105,900
(75% HSIP
eligible)

10. Oakdale Rd improvements (phase 2): Sylvan Ave to Celeste Dr and Lancey Dr to Scenic Dr
Install raised medians to restrict mid-block access to primarily right-in/right-out (with left-in permitted at defined locations).

Project to include improvements at the intersection of Scenic Dr and Oakdale Rd, which include removal of a southbound left turn lane, installation of pedestrian refuge, and tightening curb radii.

40.28 High
$1,702,000
(88% HSIP
eligible)

11. Pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Claus Rd and Creekwood Dr
Implement an at-grade crosswalk on the south approach with median refuge and curb extensions, protected-only left turn phasing, and leading pedestrian intervals with blank-out no right turn signs.

0.93 Low
$780,600
(88% HSIP
eligible)

12. Coffee Rd enhanced crossings: Morris Ave to Multnomah Dr Install a traffic signal at Chadwick Ct and PHBs at Morris Ave and at Multnomah Dr. Enhance signalized crossings at Lucern Ave and at Fairmont Ave with high visibility crosswalk striping and protected left turns. Align bus stops to be adjacent to the far side of the enhanced crossings.

4.85 Medium
$2,521,800
(88% HSIP
eligible)

13. Coffee Rd bicycle improvements: Sylvan Ave to Scenic Dr Complete gaps in Class II facilities, including conflict zone green paint. Identify driveways and side streets with deficient sight distance and remove obstructions. Install raised medians to restrict access at select locations.

32.35 Medium
$2,200,400
(90% HSIP
eligible)
#13..
- 265 -
Project Recommendations 71
Project
Overall
BCR
Community
Priority
Cost
Estimate

14. Protected intersections at Coffee Rd and Scenic Dr
Redesign the Coffee Road/Scenic Road intersection as a protected intersection to facilitate northbound/southbound bicycle travel through the intersection. Relocate the west crosswalk to the east side of the intersection.

17.15 Medium
$711,800
(34% HSIP
eligible)

15. Improvements at intersection of Paradise Rd, Sutter Ave, MLK Dr, and Tuolumne Blvd
Redesign intersection to enhance multi-modal safety. Consider single lane roundabout alternative.

4.62 High
$3,307,000
(100% HSIP
eligible)

16. Tuolumne Boulevard Complete Streets: Paradise Rd to SR-99 Implement a road diet on Tuolumne Blvd and provide enhanced crosswalks (high visibility striping, curb extensions, and RRFB's), protected left turns at Roselawn Ave, and buffered bike lanes.

13.62 High
$1,788,800
(68% HSIP
eligible)

17. Sutter Ave Complete Streets: Paradise Rd to Robertson Rd Implement a complete streets project to include Class II bike lanes, sidewalk in missing locations, and curb extensions at Elsie Street and at South Avenue. Project to include removal of on-street parking on one side of Sutter Avenue.

20.23 Medium
$977,800
(90% HSIP
eligible)

18. Intersection improvements at Bodem St and Scenic Dr Remove southbound right turn lane, reduce the curb radius of the northeast corner, install a raised crosswalk for the crossing of the channelized turn, realign crosswalks with high visibility striping, implement protected-only phasing on all approaches, and reduce design walking speed to 2.8 fps for senior center.

13.54 High
$735,300
(56% HSIP
eligible)

19. Downtown Complete Streets study
Conduct a complete streets study to identify potential crossdowntown bicycle facilities. Improvements to consider include removing travel lanes along G Street and/or H Street to implement Class IV facilities, implementing a bicycle connection from the Virginia Avenue Corridor Trail to G Street/H Street, and redesigning the Burney Street/G Street/18th Street intersections.

Intersection redesign to consider a roundabout at Burney Street/G Street and closing 18th Street between G Street and Burney Street.

Study to evaluate two-way versus one-way cycle tracks, and to identify crossing improvements.

High

20. Intersection improvements at 9th St and O St
Install bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Low
#13..
- 266 -
72 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 3
This stretch of Standiford Avenue/Sylvan
Avenue connects residential areas to retail
areas along the corridor. This stretch of
roadway has experienced several pedestrian
collisions, including a fatal collision. At
the intersection of Standiford Avenue and
Longbridge Drive, there is a residential
trail connection area with transit stops and
retailers near this location, creating a high
desire line for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Bridgeford Lane serves residential
neighborhoods and has existing crosswalks.

This project aims to install PHBs at these
locations to enhance pedestrian accessibility
and motor vehicle yielding behavior.

STANDIFORD AVENUESYLVAN AVENUE PHBs

INTERSECTIONS OF STANDIFORD AVENUE AND LONGBRIDGE

DRIVE AND SYLVANE AVENUE AND BRIDGEFORD LANE
Install raised median with
directional opening and
pedestrian refuge
Contingency and nonconstruction costs
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
(with intersection improvements)
$100,000
$555,000
$537,100
Total $1,192,200
Cost
Project Recommendations
• Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons across
Standiford Avenue at Longbridge Drive and
across Sylvan Avenue at Bridgeford Lane
• Install Longbridge Drive crossing across the
east leg with a refuge island
• Restrict lefts out from Longbridge Drive onto
Standiford Avenue.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 90% ($1,072,980) HSIP-FUNDED
$1,192,200
KSIs, 2011-2015
2 TOTAL BENEFITS
$14,211,513

B/C RATIO

11.92 TARGET MODES
3 ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 267 -
Project Cutsheets 73
·108
Floyd Ave
E Rumble Rd
Standiford Ave
Sunrise Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Tully Rd
Carver Rd Carver Rd
CollegeAve
Sylvan Ave
Tully Rd
W Rumble Rd
Clara�na Ave
Pelandale Ave
Pelandale Ave
Longbridge Dr
Bridgeford Ln
Add PHBs at the intersections of
Longbridge Dr and Standiford Ave
and Bridgeford Ln and Sylvan Ave
1 2
N:\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Formatted_Basemap_for_Cutsheet.mxd Inset
¬ Schools
Railroad
Park
Water
Top 25 Intersection Hot Spots (2011 – 2015)
Figure 3
Standiford Ave
Longbridge Dr
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
Directional median and median refuge
opening to restrict
lefts from Longbridge
Dr to Standiford Ave
Add PHBs
1 Standiford/Longbridge 2 Sylvan/Bridgeford
#13..
- 268 -
74 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 5

PROTECTED LEFT TURN

IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTIONS OF ORANGEBURG AVENUE AND CARVER

ROAD, COLDWELL AVENUE AND TULLY ROAD, COFFEE ROAD

AND FLOYD AVENUE, COFFEE ROAD AND RUMBLE ROAD
5 The intersections listed in Project 5 are currently
operating with permissive left turn phasing (where
left turning traffic must yield to on-coming through
traffic and pedestrians). Permissive left turns
can often result in broadside collisions between
vehicles due to misjudgment of gaps in through
traffic, getting stuck in the intersection at the end
of a phase, and mistaking the permissive phase as
a protected phase. Permissive left turns can also be
detrimental to pedestrians and bicyclists as drivers
can be focused on finding a gap in traffic and less
attentive to conflict pedestrians and bicyclists.

A protected left turn phase provides a green
arrow for left turning vehicles, thereby eliminating
conflict points between on-coming through traffic,
bicyclist, and pedestrians.

Install new signal heads
and protected left turns $960,000
$787,200 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $1,747,200
Cost
Project Recommendations
Install protected left turns at the following
intersections:
• Orangeburg Ave/Carver Rd
• Coldwell Ave/Tully Rd
• Coffee Rd/Floyd Ave
• Coffee Rd/Rumble Rd
Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 100% HSIP-FUNDED
$1,747,200
KSIs, 2011-2015
5 TOTAL BENEFITS
$15,095,808

B/C RATIO

8.64 TARGET MODES
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 269 -
Project Cutsheets 75
·108
·132
·99
Paradise Ave
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
Standiford Ave
BlueGumAve
H St
Tuolumne Blv
Su�er Ave
Mc Henry Ave
S Carpenter Rd
S 7Th St
Tully Rd
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
Paradise Rd
Maze Blv
S 9Th St
Rose Ave
5Th St
L St
E Briggsmore Ave
Carver Rd
E Rumble Rd
Kansas Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
Bodem St
College Ave
E Roseburg Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Coffee Rd
K St
J St
E Orangeburg Ave
D St
Sunrise Ave
Woodland Ave
Oakdale Rd
9Th St
W Rumble Rd
Yosemite Blv
College Ave
Scenic Dr
Presco� Rd
Coffee Rd
Sylvan Ave
W Briggsmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Standiford Ave
Sisk Rd
N 9th St
Coldwell Ave
N:\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Formatted_Basemap_for_Cutsheet.mxd Inset
Railroad
Park
Water
Install
Protected
Left Turns
Implementation
Locations (4)
#13..
- 270 -
76 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 6

INTERSECTION

IMPROVEMENTS AT TULLY

ROAD AND RUMBLE ROAD

INTERSECTION OF TULLY ROAD AND RUMBLE ROAD
6 Tully Road and Rumble Road are both
among the most heavily used roadways
in Modesto. This particular intersection
is in a school zone, and is signalized
with permissive left turns. Although the
crosswalks are painted yellow to indicate
the intersection is near a school, the paint
on these crosswalks are fading due to wear
and tear and do not qualify as being highvisibility. This intersection has experienced a number of both pedestrian and bicycle
collisions and is a relatively high-stress
facility for these users, especially during the
morning and afternoon hours when children
are heading to or from school. This project
aims to improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety by enhancing pedestrian visibility and
reducing conflict points between roadway
users.

Install new signal heads
and protect left turns $483,000
$470,000 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $998,000
Cost
Project Recommendations
• Install advanced stop bars, high visibility
crosswalk striping, and curb extensions.
• Add blank-out no right turn sign on
all approaches.
• Reconfigure signals to add leading pedestrian
intervals and protected left turns on all
approaches
• Restripe eastbound and westbound approaches
to accommodate exclusive left turn lanes.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 90% ($898,200) HSIP-FUNDED
$998,000
KSIs, 2011-2015
1 TOTAL BENEFITS
$6,792,052

B/C RATIO

6.81 TARGET MODES Install pedestrian signage p ql
m
High visibility crosswalks
(with existing striping removal)
$15,000
$9,000
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Blank-out no right turn signs
$4,000
$5,000
Curb extensions at crosswalks $12,000
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 271 -
Project Cutsheets 77
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Protected left turns
Blank-out no right turn
signs on all approaches Add LPI
High-visibility
crosswalks with
curb extensions Tully Rd
Rumble Rd
#13..
- 272 -
78 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 8

RUMBLE ROAD PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS

CONANT AVENUE TO KELLER STREET
8 This stretch of Rumble Road connects
residential areas to several elementary,
middle, and high schools and parks
along the corridor, and has experienced
multiple pedestrian collisions. The high
volumes along Rumble Road make this
roadway a relatively high-stress facility for
pedestrians. The existing infrastructure
has deteriorated due to wear and tear,
and crossings are not as prominent to
drivers. This project aims to enhance
school pedestrian safety by implementing
pedestrian crossing improvements and
traffic calming measures.

Project Recommendations
• Enchance school crossing along Rumble Road
with crosswalk improvements at Conant Ave,
Park Pl, Holiday Ln, Pembroke Dr, York Way,
Wales St, Napier Dr, College Ave, Edward Ave,
Hampshire Ln, Claremont Ave, Highgate Rd,
Warwick Ln, and Bay Ln.
• Enhancements include crosswalk improvements
(e.g., high visibility crosswalk striping, in-street
pedestrian crossing signs, refuge islands, curb
extensions) and traffic calming (e.g., speed
cushions, traffic circles).

Existing Conditions
Install pedestrian signage
p qlm
High visibility crosswalks
(with existing striping removal)
Curb extensions at crosswalks
$24,000
$33,000
$1,365,000
$1,265,600 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $2,687,600
Cost
TOTAL COST, 100% HSIP-FUNDED
$2,687,600
KSIs, 2011-2015
1 TOTAL BENEFITS
$1,388,807

B/C RATIO

0.52 TARGET MODES
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 273 -
Project Cutsheets 79
·108
·132
·99
Paradise Ave
Needham St
Su�er Ave
G St
Downey Ave
Standiford Ave
S Carpenter Rd
H St
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
S 7Th St
S 9Th St
Yosemite Blv
Tully Rd
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
Paradise Rd
Maze Blv
Rose Ave
5Th St
L St
E Briggsmore Ave
Carver Rd
E Rumble Rd
Kansas Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
Bodem St
College Ave
E Roseburg Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
K St
J St
E Orangeburg Ave
D St
Coffee Rd
Sunrise Ave
Woodland Ave
9Th St
W Rumble Rd
CollegeAve
Blue Gum Ave
Presco� Rd
Coffee Rd
Sylvan Ave
Sisk Rd
Scenic Dr
W BriggsmoreAve
Standiford Ave
Needham Opas
N 9Th St
W Rumble Rd
N:\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Formatted_Basemap_for_Cutsheet.mxd Inset
Railroad
Park
Water
Top 25 Intersection Hot Spots (2011 – 2015)
Figure 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Project Overview
High-visibility
crosswalks with
curb extensions
and add school
crossing signs
High-visibility
crosswalks with
curb extensions
and add school
crossing signs
Rumble Rd
Rumble Rd
Conant Ave
Park Dr
1 Rumble / Conant 2 Rumble / Park
#13..
- 274 -
80 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 9
Oakdale Road from Celeste Drive to Lancey
Drive connects residential areas to a number
of pedestrian generators, including Orchard
Elementary, Saint Joseph’s Church, and
nearby commercial. This stretch of Oakdale
Road has experienced a number of pedestrian
collisions and is a relatively high-stress facility
for pedestrians. The intersection of Celeste
Drive and Merle Avenue is complex and
right-of-way may not be clear. The northern
crossing at this intersection is pushed north
such that pedestrians may not be easily
visible to westbound traffic. The residential
accesses create numerous conflict points
along the corridor. This project aims to
improve pedestrian safety by simplifying
potential conflict points along the corridor,
enhancing pedestrian visibility, and improving
accessibility.

OAKDALE ROAD: PHASE 1

CELESTE DRIVE TO LANCEY DRIVE
Protected left turn phase
(where left turns already exist)
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
p qlmUpgrade pedestrian crossings
(crosswalks, ADA ramps, signage)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Install raised median with
directional opening and
pedestrian refuge
Cost
Project Recommendations
• Redesign Oakdale Road/Merle Avenue
intersection. Includes moving northern crosswalk
south of 1823 Oakdale Road driveway, reducing
driveway curb cut, installing protected left turns
for the westbound approach, and signalize
driveway crossing on west side.
• Implement leading pedestrian intervals at the
Oakdale Road intersections with Merle Avenue
and Lancey Drive.
• Install blank-out no right turn signs on all
approaches at Merle Avenue and Oakdale Road,
and at Lancey Drive and Oakdale Road.
• Install raised median along Oakdale Road from
Merle Avenue to Celeste Drive and restrict lefts
out from Celeste Drive onto Oakdale Road.
• Install a new pedestrian crossing on the north
leg of Celeste Drive and Oakdale Road with a
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon and median refuge.
• Install new signal interconnect from Oakdale
Road to Merle Ave.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 90% ($802,260) HSIP-FUNDED
$891,022
KSIs, 2011-2015
4 TOTAL BENEFITS
$16,955,242

B/C RATIO

19.02 TARGET MODES
$80,000
$8,000
$80,000
$50,440
$150,000
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Signal timing improvements
Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $891,022
$103,000
$419,582
#13..
- 275 -
Project Cutsheets 81
Merle Ave
Celeste Dr
Lancey Dr
Signalize pedestrian
crossing of driveway
Blank-out no right turn
signs on all approaches
Protected left turns from
Merle Ave to Oakdale Rd
Median on Oakdale
Rd between Merle
Ave and Celeste Dr
Relocate crosswalk
to south of driveway
and reduce curb cut
Add LPI
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
and median refuge
Directional median
opening to restrict
lefts from Celeste
Dr onto Oakdale Rd
Add LPI
Blank-out no right turn
signs on all approaches,
including the driveway
Interconnect signals at
Merle Ave and Lancey Dr
Oakdale Rd
Add ADA ramps on
southbound approach
#13..
- 276 -
82 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 11

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

AT CLAUS ROAD AND

CREEKWOOD DRIVE
11 INTERSECTION OF CLAUS ROAD AND CREEKWOOD DRIVE
The intersection of Claus Road and
Creekwood Drive is the main intersection
serving Peter Johansen High School. Claus
Road in the project vicinity is a six-lane
roadway, with motorists traveling at high
speeds. Despite there being a pedestrian
bridge to facilitate safe crossings, students
were observed to cross Claus Road atgrade on the south leg, which is particularly concerning as there is no crosswalk, no
pedestrian actuation for the signal phase,
and the signal is not timed to provide
adequate time to cross. This project
focuses on enhancing pedestrian safety
by constructing an at-grade crossing on
the south approach that includes a median
refuge and curb extensions to reduce
the crossing distance, as well as signal
enhancements.

Cost
Project Recommendations
Implement an at-grade crosswalk on the
south approach with median refuge and curb
extensions, protected-only left turn phasing, and
leading pedestrian intervals with blank-out no
right turn signs.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 90% ($702,720) HSIP-FUNDED
$780,600
KSIs, 2011-2015
0 TOTAL BENEFITS
$1,027,141

B/C RATIO

1.32 TARGET MODES
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $4,000
$60,000
Convert signals to
protected left turns $320,000
$367,600 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $780,600
Blank-out no right turn signs $20,000
Curb extensions at crosswalks $4,500
p qlmHigh visibility crosswalks
(with existing striping removal) $4,500
Install pedestrian refuge islands
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 277 -
Project Cutsheets 83
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Protected left turns
Blank-out no right turn
signs on all approaches Add LPI
Add new crosswalk
with median refuge
and curb extensions
Creekwood Dr
Claus Rd
#13..
- 278 -
84 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 12

COFFEE ROAD

ENHANCED CROSSINGS

EAST MORRIS AVENUE TO MULTNOMAH DRIVE
12 This stretch of Coffee Road serves a
variety of retail, residential, medical, and
institutional land uses, including Thomas
Downey High School and John Muir
Elementary School. It has experienced
several pedestrian and bicycle collisions,
with 3 KSI collisions during the study
period. It is a higher-stress facility for
pedestrians and bicyclists given the multilane cross-section and higher speeds. Given the limited crossing facilities along the
corridor, the project aims to provide new,
enhanced crossings to improve accessibility
and to further improve existing crossings.

Cost
Project Recommendations
• Install a traffic signal at Chadwick Court and
PHBs at East Morris Avenue and at Multnomah
Drive.
• Enhance signalized crossings at Lucern Avenue
and at East Fairmont Avenue with high visibility
crosswalk striping and protected left turns.
• Align bus stops to be adjacent to the far side of
the enhanced crossings.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 100% HSIP-FUNDED
$2,521,800
KSIs, 2011-2015
3 TOTAL BENEFITS
$10,773,702

B/C RATIO

4.27 TARGET MODES
Install new signal
(with intersection improvements)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
(with intersection improvements)
Convert signals to
protected left turns
$400,000
$400,000
$560,000
$1,136,200 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $2,521,800
p qlm
High visibility crosswalks $15,600
Relocate bus stop $10,000
+
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 279 -
Project Cutsheets 85
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
1 4
Relocate
bus stop
Protected
left turns
Protected
left turns
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
High-Visibility
Crossings
High-Visibility
Crossings
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USD USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Commun
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
1 4
Relocate
bus stop
Protected
left turns
Protected
left turns
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
High-Visibility
Crossings
High-Visibility
Crossings
SDA,
unity
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
SDA,
unity
SDA,
unity
2 5
Protected
left turns
High-Visibility
Crossings
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
3 1
Relocate
bus stop
+
Signalize
Intersection
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Sourc
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
1 4
Relocate
bus stop
Protected
left turns
Add new pedestrian
crossing with PHBs
High-Visibility
Crossings
E Orangeburg Ave
Rose Ave
E Briggsmore Ave
Bodem St
E Roseburg Ave
E Orangeburg Ave
Sunrise Ave
CoffeeRd
Sunrise Ave
Coffee Rd
Scenic Dr
E Briggsmore Ave
Inset
Railroad
Park
Water
Top 25 Intersection Hot Spots (2011 – 2015)
Figure 3
1 2
3 4
5 1 Coffee / Multnomah
2 Coffee / Fairmont 3 Coffee / Chadwick
4 Coffee / Lucern 5 Coffee / Morris
Project Overview
Multnomah Dr
Fairmont Ave Chadwick Ct
Lucern Ave
Morris Ave
#13..
- 280 -
86 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 13

COFFEE ROAD BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENTS

SYLVAN AVENUE TO SCENIC DRIVE
13 Coffee Road from Sylvan Avenue to
Scenic Drive spans most of the City from
the north to south. This stretch serves
most land uses that exist in the City –
residential, retail, medical and institutional
services. There have been 11 KSI collisions
along the corridor during the study period.

This project focuses on improving bicycle
safety by closing the gaps in the Class II
bicycle facilities, and by installing medians
where appropriate to reduce the number
of conflict points between motorists
and bicyclists. This project also includes
implementing conflict green paint, as well
as identifying driveways and side streets
with deficient sight distance and removing
any sight obstructions, all aiming to
enhance visibility of bicyclists to motorists.

Cost
Project Recommendations
• Complete gaps in Class II facilities, including
conflict zone green paint.
• Identify driveways and side streets with
deficient sight distance and remove
obstructions.
• Install raised medians to restrict access at select
locations.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 90% ($1,980,360) HSIP-FUNDED
$2,200,400
KSIs, 2011-2015
11 TOTAL BENEFITS
$71,182,940

B/C RATIO

32.35 TARGET MODES
Install Class II bike lanes $52,000
Bike lane conflict zone
green marking $290,000
$991,400 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $2,200,400
p qlm
Roadway re-striping
(with existing striping removal) $247,000
Install raised median $560,000
Clear sight triangles $60,000
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 281 -
Project Cutsheets 87
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Co Conflict zone
marking at
driveways
Install Class II
bike lane to fill
the gap north
of intersection
Median on
Coee Rd
Median on
Coee Rd
Merle Ave
El Vista Ave
Rose Ave
Floyd Ave
Rose Ave
ore Ave
E Rumble Rd Sunrise Ave
E Orangeburg Ave
Bodem St
g Ave
La Loma Ave
E Orangeburg Ave
Sunrise Ave
Scenic Dr
Oakdale Rd
Coffee Rd
Sylvan Ave
Floyd Ave
Coffee Rd Coffee Rd
Oakdale Rd
Sylvan Ave
E Briggsmore Ave
Sylvan Ave
Inset
Project Overview Inset
See
Inset
#13..
- 282 -
88 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 14

COFFEE ROAD AND

SCENIC DRIVE PROTECTED

INTERSECTION

INTERSECTION OF COFFEE ROAD AND SCENIC DRIVE
14 The intersection of Coffee Road and Scenic
Drive is large, being up to seven lanes wide
on the west approach. The intersection
serves an office park and public trail to the
south, and multiple retailers to the north.

There have been two KSI collisions at this
intersection during the study period, and
this project aims to create a safer space
for all users. A protected intersection,
identified as an at-grade intersections
where cyclists and pedestrians are
separated from cars, will help facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle travel through the
intersection, which includes relocating
the west crosswalk to the east leg to
reduce conflict points and eliminate the
double threat between southbound right
turning traffic and pedestrians crossing
Scenic Drive.

Implement protected intersection
(with signal modifcations) $600,000
$557,700 Contigency and
non-construction costs
Total $1,184,300
Cost
Project Recommendations
• Redesign the Coffee Road/Scenic Road
intersection as a protected intersection to
facilitate northbound/southbound bicycle travel
through the intersection.
• Relocate the west crosswalk to the east side of
the intersection.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 100% HSIP-FUNDED
$1,184,300
KSIs, 2011-2015
2 TOTAL BENEFITS
$4,105,466

B/C RATIO

3.47 TARGET MODES
Install green bike lanes on
northern leg intersection
p qlm
High visibility crosswalks
(with existing striping removal)
$16,600
$6,000
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $4,000
ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 283 -
Project Cutsheets 89
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Implement
protected
intersection
Relocate crosswalk to
east side of intersetion
Add Class II bike
lane to north leg
of intersection
#13..
- 284 -
90 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
PROJECT 15

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

AT PARADISE ROAD, SUTTER

AVENUE, MLK DRIVE, AND

TUOLUMNE BOULEVARD
15 INTERSECTION OF PARADISE ROAD, SUTTER AVENUE,

MLK DRIVE, AND TUOLUMNE BOULEVARD
This five-leg intersection has multiple conflict points and long crossing distances for pedestrians and
bicyclists. This project is focused on simplifying the
number of conflict points and enhancing the pedestrian
environment. The City is currently pursuing a road
diet of Paradise Road, and Project 16 would install a
road diet on Tuolumne Boulevard; these two projects
would present an opportunity to consider a single lane
roundabout at this location. The project assumes a
single lane roundabout would be feasible at this location.

If it is determined that a roundabout would not be
feasible, alternative safety countermeasures should be
considered to achieve the goals of this project, such
as curb extensions, protected left turns, high visibility striping, etc.

Install roundabout $2,000,000
Cost
Project Recommendations
• Redesign intersection to enhance
multi-modal safety.
• Consider single lane roundabout
alternative.

Existing Conditions
TOTAL COST, 100% HSIP-FUNDED
$3,307,000
KSIs, 2011-2015
1 TOTAL BENEFITS
$15,266,040
TARGET MODES $1,307,000 Contigency and nonconstruction costs Total $3,307,000

B/C RATIO

4.62 ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC PROFILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 #13..
- 285 -
Project Cutsheets 91
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Consider
single-lane
roundabout
Tuolumne Ave
Paradise Rd
MLK Dr Sutter Ave
Sample Implementation
#13..
- 286 -
92 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Developer Fees
California law allows local
governments to establish and
charge a fee on residential and nonresidential development in order to fund the need for public facilities
and to service population growth.

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

BUILD Grant
The U.S. Department of Transportation
provides an opportunity to invest in
road, rail, transit and port projects
through the Better Utilizing Invested
to Leverage Development (BUILD)
Grant, previously known as the TIGER
Grant. Congress has dedicated nearly
$7.1 billion for ten rounds of National
Infrastructure Investment to fund
projects that have a significant local
or regional impact. In each round,
DOT examines and judges projects on
their merit to produce high benefits
for the community it serves, and
to explore ways to deliver projects
that have difficulty being supported
through traditional DOT programs.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities
Program (AHSC)
The AHSC Program, administered
by the Strategic Growth Council and
implemented by the Department of
Housing and Community Development
(HCD), funds land-use, housing,
transportation, and land preservation
projects to support infill and
compact development that reduces
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This program will assist project areas
by providing grants and/or loans, or
any combination thereof, that will
achieve GHG emission reductions and
benefit Disadvantaged Communities,
Low-Income Communities, and
Low-Income Households through
increased accessibility of affordable
housing, employment centers, and
key destinations via low-carbon
transportation. This results in fewer
vehicle miles traveled through
shortened or reduced trip lengths or
mode shifts from Single Occupancy
Vehicles to use of transit, bicycling, or
walking. The project areas this funding
is geared toward are transit oriented
development (TOD) Project Areas,
Integrated Connectivity Project (ICP)
Project Areas, or Rural Innovation
Project Areas (RIPA).

Although many countermeasures identified in this report are wellsuited for HSIP grant funding, Modesto is encouraged to continue exploring diverse funding sources for implementation of safety projects. The following pages summarize potential local, state, and federal funding sources related to transportation safety. funding and
implementation
#13..
- 287 -
Funding and Implementation 93
SB1 Funding
The U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Senate Bill 1 (SB
1), also known as the Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017, is a
landmark transportation investment
to rebuild California by fixing
neighborhood streets, freeways,
and bridges in communities across
California and targeting funding
toward transit and congested trade
and commute corridor improvements.

The largest portion of SB 1 funding
goes to California’s state-maintained
transportation infrastructure. With
this funding, Caltrans has a goal of
repairing or replacing 17,000 miles
of pavement in 10 years, spending
$250 million annually for congestion
solutions, over $700 million for better
transit commutes and supporting
freight improvements. The other
portion of SB 1 funding will go to local
roads, transit agencies, and expanding
the state’s pedestrian and cycle
routes. SB 1 funds various grants,
which can be found below.

Local Streets and
Roads Program
(LSRP)
California State Senate Bill 1 has
dedicated approximately $1.5 billion
per year appointed by the State
Controller (Controller) to cities and
counties for basic road maintenance,
rehabilitation, and critical safety
projects on the local streets and
roads system. Cities and counties
must submit a proposed project
list adopted at a regular meeting
by their board or council that is
then submitted to the California
Transportation Commission
(Commission). Once reviewed and
adopted by the Commission, eligible
cities and counties receive funding
from the Controller and an Annual
Project Expenditure Report is sent
to the Commission to be transparent
with program funding received
and expended.

Local Partnership
Program (LPP)
The Local Partnership Program’s
purpose is to provide local and
regional transportation agencies
that have passed sales tax measures,
developer fees, or other imposed
transportation fees with a funding
of $200 million annually from the
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account to fund aging infrastructure,
road conditions, active transportation,
and health and safety benefits
projects. LPP funds are distributed
through a 50% statewide competitive
component and a 50% formulaic
component. Both programs are
eligible to jurisdictions with voter
approved taxes, tolls, and fees
dedicated solely to transportation and
the competitive program
ATP Funding
The Active Transportation Program
was created by Senate Bill 99 to
encourage increased use of active
modes of transportation such as
walking and biking. The goals of the
ATP include, but are not limited to,
#13..
- 288 -
94 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
increasing the proportion of trips
accomplished by walking and biking,
increasing the safety and mobility
of non-motorized users, advancing
efforts of regional agencies to
achieve greenhouse gas reduction
goals, enhancing public health,
and providing a broad spectrum
of projects to benefit many types
of users, including disadvantaged
communities. SB 1 directs $100 million
annually from SB 1 to the ATP, with
more than 400 of the funded projects
being Safe Routes to School projects
and programs that encourage a
healthy and active lifestyle throughout
students’ lives.

Caltrans Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grant
The Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants include two parts:

Sustainable Communities Grants and
Strategic Partnerships Grants. The
Sustainable Communities Grants have
$29.5 million set aside to encourage
local and regional planning goals and
best practices cited in the Regional
Transportation Plan Guidelines. The
Strategic Partnerships Grants set
aside $4.5 million to identify and
address statewide, interregional, or
regional transportation deficiencies
on the state highway system in
partnership with Caltrans. These
grants were released for Fiscal
Year 2020-21 and applications
were due October 17, 2019. Grant
announcements are anticipated in
spring 2020. There may be another
grant on the horizon, but Caltrans has
not released any new information yet.
#13..
- 289 -
Funding and Implementation 95
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
Funding
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is
a program promoting walking
and bicycling to school through
infrastructure improvements, tools,
safety education, and incentives to
encourage these modes of travel.

Nationally, 10 to 14 percent of car trips
during the morning rush hour are for
school travel.

SRTS can be implemented at the
state, community, or local school
district level. Competitive federal
funding is available through the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act). Depending on the
existing infrastructure, SRTS may
require that education, transportation,
public safety, and city planning
agencies coordinate their effort.

Valley Air District
The Valley Air District develops and
administers incentive programs
targeted at reducing harmful
emissions throughout the Valley. The
District is consistently working to
ensure the Valley receives available
federal, state, and local funding for
these projects and has invested more
than $2 billion through a combined
public-private partnership.

The District has set money aside
for bicycle infrastructure projects,
including Class I, Class II, or Class
III bike routes. The program
provides funding to assist with the
development or expansion of a
comprehensive bicycle-transportation
network which will provide a viable
transportation option for travel to
school, work, and commercial sites.

Measure L
Measure L is a 25-year ½ cent sales
tax approved by Stanislaus County
voters in November 2016. This
funding is for local transportation
improvements including, but not
limited to, fixing potholes and
maintaining streets; improving
emergency response; providing bike
and pedestrian improvements for local
connectivity between communities,
local schools, trails. and recreation
facilities; providing point-to-point
shuttle services for seniors, veterans,
and persons with disabilities; funding
for transit operations, maintenance,
and infrastructure improvements; and
improving safety and reducing traffic
congestion on Highway 99 and major
streets. The passage of Measure L
designates Stanislaus County as a
“Self-Help” County, making it more
successful in competing for funding
and leveraging a share of state and
federal funding.

Modesto gets the largest allocation
of Measure L funding at $21,640,434
(35.8%) for Stanislaus County. TRIP, a
national research group, stated that
the Modesto-Metro Area currently has
the 20th worst roads in the United
States. The City has broken down the
allocations by expenditure category
to be 83.4% funded for local streets
and roads, 9.1% going to traffic
management, and 7.5% going to bike
and pedestrian improvements.
#13..
- 290 -
#13..
- 291 -
Back
Matter
5 • Conclusion
• Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox
• Appendix B: Walking Audit Schedule
#13..
- 292 -
98 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
The Modesto SSAR lays the
groundwork and provides the
resources necessary for the
preparation of successful Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
grant applications by the City of
Modesto. By taking a more proactive
approach in identifying safety
improvement projects, this report
completes a system-wide, datadriven analysis of collisions across all modes of travel. Over the next several
months, City Engineers will continue
to identify specific hotspot locations,
match them with appropriate
Countermeasures, and identify further
sources of funding to complete the
project identified in the report.

In January 2020, Caltrans awarded
the City of Modesto a Local Roadway
Safety Program (LRSP) grant.

The next step of this Plan will be
to incorporate the objectives of
the LRSP into this Plan by looking
beyond engineering projects to
incorporate the other “Es” of safety,
including education, enforcement, and
emergency services, and focusing on
equitable community engagement
and investment.
conclusion
#13..
- 293 -
Conclusion 99
#13..
- 294 -
100 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
This toolbox presents a collection
of 56 potential roadway safety
countermeasures that may be
applicable in various contexts
around Modesto. Many of these
countermeasures are recommended
for addressing the 13 systemic profiles
identified in this report, as well as for
the ten priority projects.

As noted in the figure below, for each
countermeasure, a description and the
recommended treatment locations are
noted. A full list of countermeasures is
presented on the facing page.
appendix A
countermeasure
toolbox

COUNTERMEASURE
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
+ Prolongs the green phase when pedestrians
are present to provide additional time for
pedestrians to clear the intersection. Can
occur automatically in the signal phasing or
when prompted with pedestrian detection.

Topography should be considered in
clearance time.

Countermeasure title
Countermeasure icon
Treatment locations
Countermeasure
description
What You’ll See
in This Toolbox:

Locations: Signalized intersections
#13..
- 295 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 101
Summary of Countermeasures
A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING
Additional Signal Heads
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
Flashing Yellow Arrow
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Pedestrian Phase Recall
Permissive Lefts To Protected
Pedestrian Scramble
Reduce Cycle Lengths
Coordinated Signal Operation
Extend Green Time for Bikes
Extend Yellow and All-Red Time
F. OTHER
Access Management/Close Driveway
Intersection, Street-Scale Lighting
Remove Obstructions for SIghtlines
C. BIKEWAY DESIGN
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bike Detection
Bike Box
Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed-Use Trail
Class II Bike Lane
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Curb Extensions
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Median Barrier
Raised Crosswalk
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Reduce Curb Radius
B. INTERSECTION &

ROADWAY DESIGN
Close Slip Lane
Raised Intersection
Convert Two-Way Stop to All-Way Stop
Install Sidewalk
Protected Intersection
Raised Median
Lane Narrowing
Road Diet
Widen Shoulder
Roundabout
Signal Head Improvements
Traffic Circle
Programmable Signals, Visors, or Louvers
Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips
E. SIGNS & MARKINGS
Advance Stop Markings
Advance Yield Markings
Prohibit Right-Turn-On-Red
Bicycle Wrong Way Signs
Pedestrian Signage
#13..
- 296 -
102 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING

COUNTERMEASURE
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
Increases time for pedestrian walk phases,
especially to accommodate vulnerable
populations, such as children and the elderly.

COUNTERMEASURE
Additional Signal Heads
+
Additional signal heads allow drivers to
anticipate signal changes farther away from
intersections, decreasing the likelihood of
driver error resulting in a collision with a
pedestrian.

COUNTERMEASURE
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Gives people walking a head start, making
them more visible to drivers turning right or
left. “WALK” signal comes on a few seconds
before the cars get their green light. May be
used in combination with No Right Turn on
Red restrictions.

COUNTERMEASURE
Flashing Yellow Arrow
Flashing yellow arrows can be used to replace
permissive left green ball indicators for signal
heads over left turn lanes. The flashing yellow
arrow has shown to be more effective in
warning motorists to yield right-of-way to oncoming motorists. With protected-permissive phasing, the use of a flashing yellow arrow
presents an opportunity to not allow the
permissive left if an opposing pedestrian call
is placed.

COUNTERMEASURE
Reduce Cycle Lengths
Long traffic signal cycles (e.g., 120 seconds or
greater) result in higher levels of pedestrian
delay. When delay is significant, pedestrians
are more inclined to ignore signal indications.

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Scramble
-
A form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a
signalized intersection in which all vehicular
traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians
to safely cross through the intersection in any
direction, including diagonally.

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Phase Recall
Signals can be put in “recall” full time or
for key time periods of day such as peak
business hours or school drop-off/pick-up
times. During these periods the “WALK” signal
would be displayed every signal cycle without
prompting by a pedestrian push button.

Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized
Intersections
Locations: Signalized intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Permissive Lefts to Protected
Provides a protected green arrow phase
for left turning vehicles while showing a red
light for both on-coming traffic and parallel
pedestrian crossings. Eliminates conflicts
between pedestrians and left-turning vehicles.
+
#13..
- 297 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 103

COUNTERMEASURE
Coordinated Signal Operation
Interconnected signal systems provide
coordination between adjacent signals to
better facilitate travel through a corridor. When
implemented, the number of stops is reduced,
and therefore the opportunity to run red lights
is also reduced.

Locations: Signalized Intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Prolongs the green phase when bicyclists
are present to provide additional time for
bicyclists to clear the intersection. Can occur
automatically in the signal phasing or when
prompted with bicycle detection. Topography
should be considered in clearance time.

COUNTERMEASURE
Extend Yellow and All Red Time
Extending yellow and all red time allows
drivers and bicyclists to safely cross through
a signalized intersection before conflicting
traffic movements are permitted to enter the
intersection.

Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections
+
+
#13..
- 298 -
104 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report

COUNTERMEASURE
Raised Intersection
Elevates the intersection to bring vehicles to
the sidewalk level and increases the visibility
of pedestrians. Serves as a traffic calming
measure by extending the sidewalk context
across the road.

COUNTERMEASURE
Raised Median
A concrete or landscaped area between the
two directions of travel. Increases safety by
reducing vehicular speeding and reducing
pedestrian crossing distance.

COUNTERMEASURE
Convert Two-Way Stop to All-Way Stop
STOP

ALL WAY
Converting two-way stops to all-way stops
prevents motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
from having to cross free-flowing lanes
of traffic at a side-street stop-controlled
intersection and reduces the risk of collision.

Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings

COUNTERMEASURE
Close Slip Lane
Modifies the corner of an intersection to
remove the sweeping right turn lane for
vehicles. Results in shorter crossings for
pedestrians, reduced speed for turning
vehicles, better sight lines, and space for
landscaping and other amenities.

COUNTERMEASURE
Install Sidewalk
Sidewalks and walkways are “pedestrian
lanes” that provide people with space to travel
within the public right-of-way that is separated
from roadway vehicles. They are associated
with reduced crashes where pedestrians were
walking along the roadway.

COUNTERMEASURE
Protected Intersection
Protected intersections use corner islands,
curb extensions, and colored paint to
delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements
across an intersection. Slower driving speeds
and shorter crossing distance increase safety
for pedestrians. Separates bicycles from
pedestrians.

COUNTERMEASURE
Road Diet
Depending on the street, road diets may change
the number of lanes, turn lanes, center turn lanes,
bike lanes, parking lanes, and/or sidewalks. Road
diets optimize street space to benefit all users by
improving the safety and comfort of pedestrians
and bicyclists, and reducing vehicle speeds and
the potential for rear end collisions.

Locations: Along the Road Locations: Along the Road
Locations: Signalized Intersections Locations: Signalized Intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Lane Narrowing
A reduction in lane width produces a traffic
calming effect by encouraging motorists to
travel at slower speeds, lowering the risk of
collision with bicyclists, pedestrians, and other
motorists.

Locations: Along the Road
B. INTERSECTION & ROADWAY DESIGN
x
#13..
- 299 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 105

COUNTERMEASURE
Signal Head Improvements
Improving signal head visibility reduces the
likelihood of crashes caused by traffic signal
violations. Installing backplates, increasing
the size of signal displays, and installing LED
lenses should all be considered as potential
countermeasures.

Locations: Signalized Intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Widen Shoulder
Widened shoulders create greater separation
between vehicles and pedestrians and also
provide motor vehicle safety benefits, such as
space for inoperable vehicles to pull out of the
travel lane.

COUNTERMEASURE
Roundabout
Roundabouts are circular intersections designed
to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to travel
in a counter-clockwise direction and exit to the
right. Installed to manage vehicular speeds,
reduce pedestrian exposure, improve safety at
intersections through eliminating angle collisions,
and help traffic flow more efficiently.

Locations: Signalized Intersections, Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
Locations: Along the Road

COUNTERMEASURE
Programmable Signals/Visors/Louvers
These may be installed at traffic signals to limit
the field of view of a particular signal head.

They are applicable in cases when where the
road user could be misdirected, particularly
at skewed or closely-spaced intersections
when the road user sees the signal indications
intended for other approaches before seeing
the signal indications for their own approach.

Locations: Signalized Intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips
Rumble strips can be installed along the edge line
or center line to address roadway departure and
head-on crashes caused by distracted, drowsy, or
otherwise inattentive drivers who drift from their
lane.

Locations: Along the Road

COUNTERMEASURE
Traffic Circles
Installed at stop-controlled intersections to facilitate a circular flow at an intersection, which result in
slower speeds through the intersection.

Locations: Along the Road, Unsignalized Intersections
#13..
- 300 -
106 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
C. BIKEWAY DESIGN

COUNTERMEASURE
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Solid green paint across an intersection that
signifies the path of the bicycle crossing.

Increases visibility and safety of bicyclists
traveling through an intersection.

COUNTERMEASURE

COUNTERMEASURE
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bike Box
A traffic signal directing bicycle traffic across
an intersection. Separates bicycle movements
from conflicting motor vehicle, streetcar,
light rail, or pedestrian movements. May be
applicable for Class IV facilities when the
bikeway is brought up to the intersection.

A designated area at the head of a traffic
lane at a signalized intersection that provides
bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get
ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal
phase.

COUNTERMEASURE
Bike Detection
Bike detection is used at signalized intersections,
either through use of push-buttons, in-pavement
loops, or by video or infrared cameras, to call a
green light for bicyclists and reduce delay for
bicycle travel. Discourages red light running
by bicyclists and increases convenience of
bicycling.

COUNTERMEASURE
Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed Use Trail
Provides a completely separate right of
way that is designated for the exclusive use
of people riding bicycles and walking with
minimal cross-flow traffic. Paths and trails
offer opportunities for the lowest stress
bicycle travel.

COUNTERMEASURE
Class II Bike Lane
Using designated lane markings, pavement
legends, and signage, bike lanes provide
dedicated street space for bicyclists,
typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel
lane.

COUNTERMEASURE
Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings
Green pavement within a bicycle lane to increase
visibility of bicyclists and to reinforce bicycle
priority. The green pavement can be either as a
corridor treatment or as a spot treatment in conflict
areas such as frequently used driveways.

COUNTERMEASURE
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Space on the roadway set aside for the exclusive
use of bicycles and physically separated from
vehicle traffic. Types of separation may include,
but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible
posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.

Locations: Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Signalized Intersections Locations: Along the Road Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Along the Road
Locations: Along the Road
Locations: Along the Road
#13..
- 301 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 107

COUNTERMEASURE
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists with a
means of safely making a left turn at a multi-lane
signalized intersection from a bike lane or cycle
track on the far right side of the roadway. In this
way, bicyclists are protected from the flow of traffic
while waiting to turn. Usage could be mirrored for
right-turns from a one-way street with a left-side
bikeway.

Locations: Signalized Intersections
#13..
- 302 -
108 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report

COUNTERMEASURE
Curb Extensions
Widens the sidewalk at intersections or
midblock crossings to shorten the pedestrian
crossing distance, to make pedestrians more
visible to vehicles, and to reduce the speed of
turning vehicles.

COUNTERMEASURE
High-Visibility Crosswalk
A crosswalk that is designed to be more visible
to approaching drivers. Crosswalks should be
designed with continental markings and use
high-visibility material, such as inlay tape or
thermoplastic tape instead of paint.

COUNTERMEASURE
Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Displays “countdown” of seconds remaining
on the pedestrian signal. Countdown
indications improve safety for all road users,
and are required for all newly installed traffic
signals where pedestrian signals are installed.

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Pedestrian-activated beacon used at mid-block
crosswalks and side-street stop-controlled
intersections to notify oncoming motorists to
stop with a series of red and yellow lights. Also
known as a High-Intensity Activated crossWalK
(HAWK) beacon
Locations: Signalized Intersections
Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
Locations: Signalized Intersections, Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Intersection Geometry, Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Along the Road

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Pedestrian refuge islands provide a protected
area for pedestrians at the center of the
roadway. They reduce the exposure time for
pedestrians crossing the intersection. They
simplify crossings by allowing pedestrians to
focus on one direction of traffic at a time.

COUNTERMEASURE
Raised Crosswalk
The crosswalk is elevated to match the
sidewalk to make pedestrians more visible
to approaching vehicles. Typically located
at midblock crossings or across free right
turns, they encourage motorists to yield to
pedestrians and reduce vehicle speed. An
entire intersection may be raised similarly.

COUNTERMEASURE
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Pedestrian-activated flashing lights and
additional signage enhance the visibility of
marked crosswalks and alert motorists to
pedestrian crossings.

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Median Barrier
Pedestrian median barriers restrict pedestrians
from crossing the median at locations where
nearby crossings are available and midblock
crossings may have poor sight distance or
insufficient crossing enhancements for the
conditions.

Locations: Signalized Intersections, Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
#13..
- 303 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 109

COUNTERMEASURE
Reduce Curb Radius
Decreasing curb radii can improve safety
for bicyclists and pedestrians by requiring
motorists to reduce vehicle speeds by
marking sharper turns. Smaller radii provide
larger pedestrian waiting areas at corners,
improve sight distances, and shorten crossing
distances.

Locations: Intersection Geometry, Unsignalized Street Crossings #13..
- 304 -
110 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report

COUNTERMEASURE
Advance Yield Markings
Yield lines are placed 20 to 50 feet in advance
of multi-lane pedestrian crossings to increase
visibility of pedestrians. Used in conjunction
with Yield to Pedestrian signage. Can reduce
the likelihood of a multiple-threat crash.

COUNTERMEASURE
Advance Stop Markings STOP
A stop bar placed ahead of the crosswalk at
stop signs and signals reduces conflict with
pedestrians from vehicles encroaching on the
crosswalk.

COUNTERMEASURE
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
ON RED
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements should
be considered at skewed intersections, or where
exclusive pedestrian “WALK” phases, Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), sight distance issues,
or high bike/ped volumes are present. Can help
prevent crashes between vehicles turning right on
red from one street and through vehicles on the
cross street, and crashes involving bicyclists and
pedestrians.

Locations: Signalized Intersections, Unsignalized Street Crossings Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings
Locations: Signalized Intersections

COUNTERMEASURE
Bicycle Wrong Way SIgns
Bicycle "Wrong Way" signs can be installed
on sidewalks or the left side of the roadway to
discourage bicyclists from traveling the wrong way
in the road or on the crosswalk.

Locations: Along the Road

COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Signage
Pedestrian signage uses bright color and
reflective properties to attract the attention of
motorists. It provides advance warning of the
potential of pedestrians in the roadway and
alerts them to modify their speed.

Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings
E. SIGNS & MARKINGS
#13..
- 305 -
Countermeasure Toolbox 111

COUNTERMEASURE
Access Management
Vehicles entering and exiting driveways may
conflict with pedestrians and with vehicles
on the main road, especially at driveways
within 250 feet of intersections. Consolidating
driveways near intersections with high crash
rates related to driveways may reduce potential
conflicts.

COUNTERMEASURE
Intersection & Street-Scale Lighting
Street and intersection lighting helps make
pedestrians and other road users or hazards
more visible to motorists at night, improving driver
perception and reaction time and reducing the
risk of collision.

Locations: Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
Locations: Along the Road

COUNTERMEASURE
Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear sightline.

May include installing red curb at intersection
approaches to remove parked vehicles (also
called “daylighting”), trimming or removing
landscaping, or removing or relocating large
signs.

Locations: Along the Road, Signalized Intersections,
Unsignalized Street Crossings, Roundabouts
F. OTHER
#13..
- 306 -
112 Modesto Systemic Safety Analysis Report
appendix B
walking audit map
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
4 3
3 1
1 4
2 5
2 City Hall
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\WalkAudit.mxd ¬
!
!
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
1 City Hall
See Inset
Inset
Walking Audit Intersections
Day, Order
! Day 1
! Day 2
! Start and End of Both Days
! School Location
Prioirty Corridor
Profile Mode
Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Railroad
Park
Water
Modesto SSAR Walking Audit Plan
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
4 3
3 1
1 4
2 5
2 City Hall
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\WalkAudit.mxd ¬
!
!
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yo
La
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
S
1 City Hall
See Inset
Walking Audit Intersections
Day, Order
! Day 1
! Day 2
! Start and End of Both Days
! School Location
Prioirty Corridor
Profile Mode
Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Railroad
Park
Water
Modesto SSAR Walking Au
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
4 3
3 1
1 4
2 5
2 City Hall
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\WalkAudit.mxd ¬
!
!
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
1 City Hall
See Inset
Inset
Walking Audit Intersections
Day, Order
! Day 1
! Day 2
! Start and End of Both Days
! School Location
Prioirty Corridor
Profile Mode
Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Railroad
Park
Water
Modesto SSAR Walking Audit Plan
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
·219
·108
·132
∙99
Needham St
G St
E Orangeburg Ave
Finch Rd
Tuolumne Blv
Mc Henry Ave
Yosemite Blv
S 7Th St
La Loma Ave
Floyd Ave
Mable Ave
S 9Th St
MazeBlv
Rose Ave
Merle Ave
5Th St
Woodland Ave
Sylvan Ave
E Rumble Rd
El Vista Ave
Tully Rd
N Carpenter Rd
College Ave
W Orangeburg Ave
W Roseburg Ave
Paradise Rd
J St
Sunrise Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Dale Rd
Scenic Dr
9Th St
W Whitmore Ave
W Rumble Rd
Carver Rd W Hatch Rd
Kiernan Ave
Coffee Rd
Blue Gum Ave
Prescott Rd
Coffee Rd
Lakewood Ave
Claribel Rd
E Hatch Rd
Sylvan Ave
Kansas Ave
Floyd Ave
S Carpenter Rd
Mitchell Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Tully Rd
Pelandale Ave
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave
Oakdale Rd
Claus Rd Garner Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Terminal Ave
N 9Th St
Sisk Rd
Claratina Ave
E BriggsmoreAve
4 3
3 1
1 4
2 5
2 City Hall
\\Fpwc03.fpainc.local\wc-data\PROJECTS\_WC18\WC18-3497.00_Modesto_SSAR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\WalkAudit.mxd ¬
!
!
·108
·132 ∙99
Needham St
G St
Downey Ave
H St
Yosemite Blv
La Loma Ave
5Th St
L St
K St
J St
D St
9Th St
Scenic Dr
1 City Hall
See Inset
Inse
Walking Audit Intersections
Day, Order
! Day 1
! Day 2
! Start and End of Both Days
! School Location
Prioirty Corridor
Profile Mode
Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Railroad
Park
Water
Modesto SSAR Walking Audit P
#13..
- 307 -
Walking Audit 113
#13..
- 308 -
#13..
- 309 -
local
roadway
safety
plan
FINAL | SEPTEMBER 2022 prepared by
#13..
- 310 -
2 Modesto LRSP
Contents
front matter
introduction
vision and goals
safety partners
existing efforts
collision history, risk factors, and trends
countermeasures
Safe Road Users
Safe Speeds
Post-Crash Care
Equity Considerations
Emerging Technology
dui strategies and considerations
evaluation and implementation
3 4
8 9
10 12
17 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
#13..
- 311 -
3 Front Matter
statement of protection of data
from discovery and admissions
Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code
Reports discovery and admission into evidence of certain reports, surveys, and information—notwithstanding any other provisions of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data, compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or state court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at the location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, or other data.

Under 23 U.S. Code § 409 and 23 U.S. Code § 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or state court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

This study applies a systemic safety approach that identifies certain features on select roadways that are correlated with specific collision types and frequencies. This broad approach is necessitated by the inherent nature of covering an entire agency’s facilities in one study and the limited scope/budget available to prepare Local Roadway Safety Plans. Limited time is available to perform field observations throughout the study area to contextualize the data, and therefore, it is beyond the scope of work to perform indepth “hot spot” evaluations at all locations. acknowledgements
The 2020 City of Modesto Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) was funded through an LRSP grant provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Input was sought from an advisory group consisting of staff from the City of Modesto.

Fehr & Peers assisted the City of Modesto in preparing the plan.

Caltrans LRSP Grant ID: LRSP142
Advisory Group
Members
Sgt. Lance Nicolai
Modesto Police Department
Bobby Moser
Stanislaus County Health Services Agency
Kyle Fliflet
Stanislaus County Health Services Agency
Fehr & Peers
Project Team
Meghan Mitman
Ryan McClain
Ashlee Takushi
Terence Zhao
Lee Reis
Susie Hufstader
City of Modesto
Project Managment
Sandeep Sandhu
Cindy van Empel
James Ashby
Michael Sacuskie
Phillip Soares
Scott Collins
#13..
- 312 -
4 Modesto LRSP
The City of Modesto is committed
to prioritizing safety and decreasing
traffic‑related deaths and serious
injuries on city streets. This Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon the
work of the Systemic Safety Analysis
Report (SSAR) to proactively evaluate
hot spots and systemic risk factors
throughout the city and identify
proven countermeasures that can be
implemented through the current and
future Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
as well as key partnerships with safety
stakeholders. This section defines the
Safe System approach, the philosophy
underpinning this LRSP, and provides
background on safety work in Modesto.

Introduction
the safe system
approach
Each day, people are killed and
seriously injured on roads in the US
and California. On average, a collision
resulting in someone being killed
or severely injured (KSI) occurs in
Modesto once every six days. Crashes
can irreversibly change the course of
human lives, touching victims, their
families and loved ones, and society
as a whole. The City of Modesto
believes all KSIs are unacceptable and
is adopting a Safe System approach to
improve safety in the city.

Figure 1 The Safe System Approach
Source: Fehr & Peers for FHWA
#13..
- 313 -
5 Through collective action on the part
of all roadway system stakeholders—
from system operators and vehicle
manufacturers to law enforcement
and everyday users—a Safe System
approach anticipates human mistakes
with the goal of eliminating fatal and
serious injuries for all road users.1
A Safe System approach acknowledges
the vulnerability of the human body,
in terms of the amount of kinetic
energy transfer a body can withstand,
when designing and operating a
transportation network.

According to the World Health
Organization, the goal of a Safe System
is to ensure that if crashes occur, they
“do not result in serious human injury.”2
A Safe System approach addresses the
five elements of a safe transportation
system—safe road users, safe vehicles,
safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash
care—in an integrated manner, through
a wide range of interventions (see
Figure 1).

The Safe System approach to road
safety started internationally as part of
the Vision Zero proclamation that, from
an ethical standpoint, no one should be
killed or seriously injured on the road
system.3 Countries that have adopted
the Safe System approach have had
significant success reducing highway
fatalities, with reductions in fatalities
between 50 and 70%.4
traditional approach
Prevent crashes
Improve human behavior
Control speeding
Individuals are responsible
React based on crash history
safe system approach
Prevent deaths and serious injuries
Design for human mistakes/limitations
Reduce system kinetic energy
Share responsibility
Proactively identify and address risks
1 Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E.
(2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy
innovation. International Journal of Injury
Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.
2 World Health Organization (2011).

Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-
2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_
en.pdf, pg. 9.
3 Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero -
Implementing a policy for traffic safety.

Safety Science, 47, 826-831; and Tingvall, C.,
& Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach
to Safety and Mobility. Paper presented
at the 6th ITE International Conference
Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7
September 1999, Melbourne, Australia.
4 World Resources Institute (2018).

Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and
Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved
from https://www.wri.org/publication/
sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidancezero-road-deaths. #13..
- 314 -
6 Modesto LRSP
#13..
- 315 -
7 The Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) and the Road to Zero
Coalition’s Safe System Explanation
and Framework articulate that in order
to anticipate human mistakes, a Safe
System seeks the following:
• Separate users in a physical
space (e.g., sidewalks, dedicated
bicycle facilities)
• Separate users in time (e.g.,
pedestrian scramble, dedicated
turn phases)
• Alert users to potential hazards
• Accommodate human injury
tolerance through interventions that
reduce speed or impact force
The recommendations in this LRSP
have been organized to follow the
Safe System approach elements, and
to reflect the shared responsibility of
system planners, designers, and users in
support of the city’s safety goals.
background
The City of Modesto recently
developed a Systemic Safety Analysis
Report (SSAR). The report identified
opportunities for the city to improve
safety for all modes of travel through
roadway design projects that are
relevant to project locations, feasible
for implementation, and competitive
for grant funding. The Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon the
infrastructure‑focused work of the
SSAR to provide a comprehensive
safety strategy for Modesto that
includes engineering as well as
education, enforcement, and
emergency services.
about modesto
The City of Modesto, situated on
the Tuolumne River in the northern
San Joaquin Valley, is home to
approximately 212,600 people and is
the largest city in Stanislaus County.

It is located in the Central Valley, 68
miles south of Sacramento, 90 miles
north of Fresno, and 92 miles east of
San Francisco. Much of Modesto is
surrounded by rich farmland and was
once served by one of the busiest rail
corridors in the country.

A majority of the existing roadway
network was built with wide travel
lanes and high posted speed limits,
with a focus on motor vehicles. Owing
to the suburban land-use patterns in
much of Modesto, a major freeway
and arterials dividing the city, and
development pressures on the urban
edge, multimodal traffic safety is a
growing concern. To that end, this
report identifies projects for future
implementation.
#13..
- 316 -
8 Modesto LRSP
Vision
and Goals
Modesto Safety Vision Statement
Proactively implement multimodal transportation safety improvements to eliminate fatal and severe injuries throughout the City of Modesto Discourage motorists from driving under the influence through educational and enforcement programs, and decrease the severity of DUI collisions 6 through roadway infrastructure improvements.

Increase multi-jurisdictional collaboration through enhanced technology (such as shared databases) among city agencies, health care, and 5 enforcement on post-crash care.

Encourage people to drive at lower speeds with roadway design 4 improvements and signage.

Increase the number of roadway and intersection improvements that promote safe turning movements of motorists at intersections and along 3 high-speed roadways.

Implement roadway and intersection improvements that increase the 1 visibility of road users, especially for people walking and biking.

Enhance roadway crossings, especially near schools and other high pedestrian activity areas, to promote and support safe travel for people 2 walking and biking.

The Modesto Safety Vision Statement was developed based on work completed through the SSAR, including stakeholder feedback and input from city staff. The city’s vision statement sets a concise yet comprehensive framework to guide the city’s investments in multimodal safety, education, emergency services, and enforcement.
#13..
- 317 -
9 Safety Partners
The city is excited to have engaged
stakeholders representing engineering,
law enforcement, and education to
cover key perspectives of the Safe
System elements and bring a multidisciplinary set of safety strategies and implementation resources. The
Technical Advisory Committee for the
LRSP included representatives from
the City of Modesto along with the
following local and regional partners:
• Stanislaus County Health Services
Agency Because traffic safety
is fundamentally a public health
issue, the Public Health Division
of the Stanislaus County Health
Services Agency (HSA) plays a
key role in Modesto’s traffic safety
strategy. The HSA implements safety
education and training programs
aimed at helping parents and
caretakers make sure their child
is riding safely in a vehicle or on a
bicycle, as well as pedestrian safety
education programs.
• Modesto Police Department
Traffic Division Police officers
provide valuable insight into
observed behavior on the roads,
and are important partners in safety
conversations so that jurisdictions
can focus enforcement time on
behaviors most closely associated
with injuries and fatalities. Modesto
Police officers also lead and
participate in traffic safety education
programs.

Additional safety partners in
Modesto include Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, Safe Kids Stanislaus,
Modesto City Schools, the California
Highway Patrol, and the League of
American Bicyclists. On October
27, 2020, the Technical Advisory
Committee met to discuss
non‑engineering emphasis areas
from the SSAR. The committee was
interested in prioritizing efforts that
address driving under the influence,
red-light running, speeding, and
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
#13..
- 318 -
10 Modesto LRSP
Existing Efforts
In recent years, efforts to improve
transportation safety in Modesto
have included a thorough analysis of
collisions and applicable engineering
countermeasures through the Systemic
Safety Analysis Report, and grants
from the California Office of Traffic
Safety for enforcement, education, and
outreach programs.
modesto systemic
safety analysis report
Completed in 2020, the City of
Modesto’s Systemic Safety Analysis
Report (SSAR) lays the groundwork
and provides the resources necessary
for the preparation of successful
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and other local and federally
funded grant applications by the city.

The study was largely funded through
the SSAR program grant provided
by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).

The SSAR program was initiated by
Caltrans to help local agencies take
a strategic approach identifying
systemic and hot spot safety
improvement projects by completing
a system-wide, multi-year data-driven
analysis of collisions. With a focus
on engineering interventions, the
SSAR includes collision and roadway
database development, review of
local collision data, a safety data
analysis, collision profile development,
safety countermeasure selection, and
project development.
#13..
- 319 -
11 office of traffic
safety grants
The California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) takes a leadership role in efforts
to make California roadways safe
for all users. Through grant funding
provided by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
OTS supports California jurisdictions
and organizations in implementing
enforcement, education, and public
information programs in ten priority
program areas. In Modesto, OTS grants
support existing efforts, such as
• Modesto Police Department
Enforcement OTS funding
supports DUI saturation patrols and
check points. Saturation patrols
are targeted at areas where DUI
collisions have occurred, paired with
social media campaigns and press
releases to reduce and prevent
driving under the influence. Officers
from Modesto Police Department
noted that while DUI enforcement
has increased with grant funding,
DUIs are still up since the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
• Modesto Police Department Bicycle
and Pedestrian Safety Grant
funding supports free helmets and
safety gear for the community, police
participation in Walk and Bike to
School Day, and safety videos and
messaging in partnership with Safe
Kids Stanislaus.
• Health Services Agency Countywide
Programs OTS grants for the HSA
focus on family engagement and
safety equipment distribution,
including child seat safety checks
and educational classes. The HSA
also provides bicycle education
programs, and has new funding to
build out local Bike Closets to reduce
traffic in neighborhoods and increase
outdoor activity. Bike Closets are
a bicycle lending library program
where area residents can check
out bicycles for use and receive
bicycle maintenance education.

With the installation of Bike Closets
around the city, education programs
and safe routes of travel are
increasingly necessary.
other existing efforts
The Technical Advisory Committee
discussed these additional existing
efforts:
• The police department, along with
Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
promote DUI education campaigns
and enforcement stops.
• Speed feedback trailers are installed
at various hotspot locations and
the Modesto Police Department
has increased speed enforcement
throughout the city.
#13..
- 320 -
12 Modesto LRSP
For the SSAR, five years of the most
current crash data available at the
time (2011-2015) was extracted from
the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) and
Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS) databases. The datasets include
extensive collision detail such as collision
location, type, severity, parties involved,
contributing factors, and more. The
SSAR provides an in-depth analysis
of this crash history data, identifying
collision trends, location types, and hot
spots for crashes resulting in a death
or serious injury. For demographic
context, Modesto’s population is 44%
non-Latino white, 40% Latino, 7% Asian,
4% Black, 3% two or more races, and
Collision
History,
Risk Factors,
and Trends
2% non-Latino Native American. Thirtyseven percent of residents speak a language other than English at home.

Approximately 15% of Modesto residents
are living in poverty, with a citywide
median income of $59,300.
annual collision trends
Annual collision trends show a rise in
collisions since 2011. The total number
of collisions across all modes of
transportation rose from 1,685 in 2011
to 2,080 in 2015. Fatal and severe injury
(KSI) collisions dipped in 2013 and
2014, but show an upward trajectory.

Fatal collisions increased to 15 in 2015,
up from 10 to 11 per year in prior years.

Figure 2 KSI Collisions, 2011-2015
#13..
- 321 -
13 Motor vehicle KSI collisions remained
relatively constant, averaging about
36 per year. By comparison, bicycle
KSI collisions fluctuated between 4 to
12 per year, but appear to be trending
down. Pedestrian KSI collisions follow
a similar trend to pedestrian collisions
overall: down in 2013, but on the rise
by 2015.
collision severity
Vulnerable road users, including
bicyclists and pedestrians, are more
susceptible to fatal or severe injury
collisions. Broken down by mode,
motor vehicle collisions accounted for
90% of all collisions but only 60% of
fatal collisions. By contrast, pedestrianinvolved collisions made up 5% of all collisions but 33% of fatal collisions.

Bicycle collisions made up 5% of all
collisions and 7% of fatal collisions.
collision location
Across all modes, most collisions
occurred at intersections; nearly 80%
of all collisions either occurred at
intersections or were intersectionrelated. However, a slightly higher share of KSI collisions occurred along
roadway segments or midblock.

The largest share of pedestrian
collisions occurred with pedestrians
crossing in a crosswalk at an
intersection (47% of all pedestrian
collisions). However, pedestrian
collisions in a crosswalk at an
intersection comprised only 37% of
pedestrian KSI collisions and 15% of
pedestrian fatal collisions. The largest
share of pedestrian KSI and fatal
collisions involved pedestrians crossing
at an unmarked location (44% and 55%,
respectively).

Figure 3 Collision Mode Share
by Severity, 2011-2015
Figure 4 Pedestrian Collisions by
Severity and Pedestrian
Location, 2011-2015
#13..
- 322 -
14 Modesto LRSP
1 2
3 4
5 6
contextual data and
systemic analysis
The systemic analysis in the SSAR
combined crash history with contextual
data on roadway characteristics as
well as input from local stakeholders to
produce a set of 13 collision profiles to
highlight the most common and severe
collision patterns in Modesto:

Broadside vehicular
collisions at signalized
intersections with
permissive left turns
Broadside vehicular
collisions at intersections
caused by signal violations
Broadside vehicular
collisions on high-speed
roadways
Driving under the influence
Vehicular collisions on
six‑lane roadways
Broadside collisions at large,
signalized intersections
involving bicycles
Broadside collisions at
unsignalized intersections
involving bicycles
Broadside collisions on
high‑speed roadways
involving bicycles
Bicycle collisions involving
wrong-way riding
Pedestrian collisions
at crosswalks at large
signalized intersections with
permissive left turns
Pedestrian right-of-way
collisions at uncontrolled
crosswalks at large
intersections
Pedestrian right-of-way
collisions at uncontrolled
crosswalks at small
intersections
Pedestrian violation
collisions on large roadways
not at crosswalks
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 #13..
- 323 -
15 #13..
- 324 -
16 Modesto LRSP
project development
The 13 collision profiles provide a
blueprint for Modesto to prioritize
countermeasures to reduce KSI
crashes. Chapter 3 of the SSAR
provides an overview of each collision
profile including a description of
the profile, a map of the collisions,
and identification of applicable
countermeasures for feasibility and
implementation consideration. Potential
priority projects were identified in
consideration of the 13 collision profiles
along with identification of top hot spot
locations. The SSAR Project Team and
Stakeholder Advisory Group completed
a two-day walking audit around the city
on Tuesday, May 14 and Wednesday,
May 15, 2019.

The walking audit provided first-hand
insight into the challenges roadway
users face throughout the city. This
project team identified 20 priority
projects through the walking audit.

These projects were then presented
to the public though an evening
community meeting on September
11, 2019 and a published survey to
solicit feedback regarding project
prioritization.

The two projects listed below were
among those identified as projects that
may compete well for grant funding,
align with city priorities, and were
ranked as a priority by the community:
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
installation at the intersections of
Standiford Avenue and Longbridge
Drive and of Sylvan Avenue and
Northamption Lane, as well as
the addition of median pedestrian
refuges.
• PHB and crosswalk installation
at Oakdale Road and Celeste
Drive, as well as a redesign of
Oakdale Road from Celeste Drive
south to Lancey Drive including
intersection improvements and signal
modifications.

As part of Caltrans’ Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle
10 funding, applications for the two
projects were submitted for grant
funding, and both projects received
funding.

PHOTO
PLACEHOLDER
#13..
- 325 -
17 The Modesto SSAR provides an
in-depth guide on engineering
countermeasures for each collision
profile, including decision‑making
frameworks for safety improvements,
detailed descriptions of
countermeasures with cost estimates,
and feasibility and implementation
considerations for each engineering
countermeasure. The detailed
information can be found in Chapter 3
of the SSAR. This section presents
additional safety countermeasures to
include Road Users and Post Crash
Care, supplementing the SSAR’s
engineering focused countermeasures
on roadway design and speed
reductions. Vehicle design does
not fall within the city’s current
purview, though they acknowledge
opportunities to consider autonomous
vehicle planning and ITS technologies
with future safety efforts.

Countermeasures
Safe Road Users
Safe Speeds
Post-Crash Care
Emerging
Technology
Equity
Considerations
#13..
- 326 -
18 Modesto LRSP
Safe Road Users
Transportation safety education plays an important role in shaping and shifting behavior. Many cities, such as Seattle, Oakland, and Los Angeles, are including community engagement and education to make streets safer for all. For example, the Los Angeles Vision Zero Dignity-Infused Community Engagement (DICE) approach includes partnerships with local nonprofits, paid outreach work for those experiencing barriers to employment, and both large- and small-scale community engagement events.
public education
media campaign
A public education media campaign
focused on discouraging drinking and
driving and/or speeding, along with
encouraging increased awareness of
pedestrians and bicyclists at night and
appropriate crosswalk behaviors, could
complement engineering interventions
targeting these risk factors in the city.

Targeted education can be directed at
vulnerable populations, with the help of
local partners, and at certain behaviors
of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists
to deter specific collision types.

Specific locations on the high‑injury
network may also be appropriate for
concentrated education messages,
such as on bus shelters or billboards.

Modesto can develop educational
outreach campaigns that focus on
common violations leading to fatalities
and severe injuries in Modesto, based
on the collision profiles identified in
the SSAR.

Education and outreach campaigns
could include the following:
• Reducing driving under the influence,
as 8% of KSI collisions involved drugs
or alcohol
• Emphasizing that speeding is deadly,
as 18.7% of collisions were caused
by unsafe speeding and 67% of KSI
collisions were on roadways with
speed limits of 35 mph or more.
• Reinforcing which road user has the
right-of-way, including awareness of
pedestrians in marked and unmarked
crosswalks, as 28% of KSI collisions
involved a vehicle right-of-way or
pedestrian right-of-way violation.
• Encouraging pedestrians to cross
in crosswalks, to complement
engineering countermeasures
addressing the need for safer
crossings, as 51.6% of pedestrian
KSIs occurred while a pedestrian was
crossing outside of a crosswalk or a
crosswalk was not present.
#13..
- 327 -
19 educational
materials on new
roadway design
changes
Temporary demonstrations, like pop-up
installations, can physically showcase
proposed safety infrastructure and
emergency response to the public in
a tangible way. Preparing materials
and videos focused on new types of
roadway designs and Modesto’s major
violation issues can direct community
conversations for meaningful outcomes.
partner with
local schools on
transportation
safety
Local schools can be partners in
promoting safe driver behavior.

Education campaigns can involve
students promoting safer driving to their
parents by holding signs during pick-ups
and drop-offs. Expanding existing youth
programs led by the County Health
Services Agency present an opportunity
to provide ongoing Safe Routes to
School education to all students each
year. OTS grants also offer a variety of
education programs that include Every
15 Minutes, Sober Graduation, and DUI
mock trials in high schools intended to
teach students about the dangers of
alcohol and driving.
partner with
local experts
Local partners can serve as community
liaisons between the City and the
public. Working with community
partners and public institutions that
have relationships with residents,
such as the Stanislaus County Public
Library, strengthens the engagement
process by building trust and engaging
an established base of stakeholders.

Local partners can help tailor the
engagement process or incorporate
engagement into existing programs
and resources to educate people more
effectively about roadway safety.
#13..
- 328 -
20 Modesto LRSP
Safe Speeds
Roadway networks within the city should address safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, roll, drive, and ride transit. Roadway design and management should encourage safe speeds and manipulate appropriate crash angles to ensure that collisions do not result in a fatality or serious injury. The SSAR provides engineering design recommendations to this effect, but these improvements should be complemented with enforcement tacics.
high visibility
enforcement
High visibility enforcement is a
multi‑faceted approach to enforcement
that involves garnering public attention
to traffic safety laws through highly
visible patrols such as checkpoints,
saturation patrols, or message boards.

The goal of high visibility enforcement
is to promote voluntary compliance
with traffic laws and is one of the
most effective enforcement strategies
for safety outcomes, according to
NHTSA research.5
5 Richard, C. M., Magee, K., BaconAbdelmoteleb, P., & Brown, J. L. (2018).

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway
Safety Countermeasure Guide For State
Highway Safety Offices, 2017 (No. DOT
HS 812 478). United States. Department
of Transportation. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/
documents/812478_countermeasures-thatwork-a-highway-safety-countermeasuresguide-.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2021. automated
enforcement
Automated enforcement, such as
red-light cameras or speed safety
cameras, target the specific drivers who
are behaving dangerously. A strictly
data-driven approach to automated
enforcement might place red-light or
speed cameras in locations with the
highest number of collisions. However,
speed safety cameras are not currently
allowed in California. The City should
monitor potential changes to state
legislation for future use of this critical
tool, should it become available.

During the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting, red-light
running was identified as a high
priority. Discussion centered around
the opportunity to install red-light
cameras and signal technology to
both enforce and mitigate the safety
impact of red‑light running should it
be considered again for Modesto in the
future.
#13..
- 329 -
21 cross-sector
partnerships
Alternatives to law enforcement involve
investing in cross-sector partnerships
to promote transportation safety.

Alternatives include the following:
• Community partners can be hired
as Street Safety Ambassadors and
canvas corridors with severe traffic
fatalities or where communities
are experiencing the most traffic
stops or tickets for traffic violations.

Hiring community members as
Street Safety Ambassadors also
serves as an opportunity to build
trust between government agencies
and the public since community
partners typically have pre-existing
relationships in the community.
• Hiring social workers, mental health
counselors, addiction specialists,
and other unarmed specially
trained professionals can serve as a
supplement to traffic enforcement.

Partnering with local departments of
mental health and public health may
de-escalate traffic enforcement by
treating traffic safety violations as a
public safety issue.
#13..
- 330 -
22 Modesto LRSP
Post-Crash Care
Victims involved in a collision have a higher chance of survival if they can quickly receive medical care. In many cases, law enforcement officers and fire department staff are the first responders to arrive at a collision location. In addition to equipping all first responders with the appropriate training, improving response times for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) will help improve collision victims’ chances of survival. Additionally, collisions on their own can also put first responders’ and other road users’ lives at risk due to increased congestion during the crash response, which may lead to secondary crashes.

The City of Modesto should work with EMS to improve response times and ensuring safety in arriving at the scene, and while EMS is attending to patients at the scene. Strategies include designing emergency vehicles to be highly visible (e.g., retroreflective striping and chevrons, high-visibility paint, and built-in passive light) and implementing emergency vehicle signal preemption, which allows emergency vehicles to break a normal signal cycle and proceed through an intersection. trauma
care
Effective emergency trauma care
can increase crash survival rates by
as much as 25%, and an effective
citywide trauma care coordination
system can reduce fatalities by
50%.6 The city should work with
EMS and identify funding sources
to provide the highest care for
victims. Recommended strategies
to improve trauma care include
providing funding for appropriate first
responder equipment (e.g., hydraulic
and pneumatic extrication tools),
research and adoption of technology
aimed at reducing triage time (e.g.,
automatic vehicle reporting of severe
crashes to EMS, EMS vehicle collision
avoidance systems, and geolocation of
nearest EMS vehicles), and promotion
of federal- and state-certified
training programs.
6 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) (2020). California Highway Safety Plan 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/2020/02/HSP-Final-back-2-4.pdf, pg. 106. fatal crash
response team
In the event of a traffic fatality, analysis
and evaluation are crucial in addressing
the burden of traffic mortality and
tracking progress toward eliminating
fatalities on Modesto’s roadways.

One strategy is to establish a crossagency fatal crash team of EMS, police, transportation, public health, and
city officials to convene at the crash
site after a fatal crash. This would
assist with accurate investigation and
documentation of potentially relevant
infrastructural and environmental
crash factors, while identifying other
additional factors that may have
contributed to the fatal crash outcome.

It can also expedite interventions
to improve the crash location/
circumstances and address similar risk
factor locations and situations.
#13..
- 331 -
23 post-crash
care
When a person is injured in a collision,
they rely on emergency first responders
to quickly locate them, stabilitize their
injury, and transport them to medical
facilities. Post-crash care also includes
forensic analysis at the crash site
and traffic incident management so
that traffic flow may be restored as
safely and quickly as possible. Policy
action through the justice system and
appropriate design of roadways to
lessen the risk of future crashes can
also help inform our safety programs.

To ensure a crash survivor receives the
care needed to recover and restore
their bodies and mines to an active life
within society, medical rehabilitation
with specialists can range from
orthopedics, neurosurgery, physical
and occupations therapy, prosthetics,
psychology, and neuropsychology.

Crash reporting practices, such
as complete data collection and
documentation of road user behavior
and infrastructure, and sharing data
across agencies or organizations
(e.g., among police departments,
transportation officials, and
hospitals) can help lead to a greater
understanding of the holistic safety
landscape, and thus lead to improved
investments in safety.
6 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) (2020).

California Highway Safety Plan 2020.

Retrieved from https://www.ots.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/67/2020/02/HSPFinal-back-2-4.pdf, pg. 106. #13..
- 332 -
24 Modesto LRSP
Equity Considerations
Creating an equitable framework for all modes of transportation in the city and removing transportation barriers for historically marginalized communities, especially communities of color, should ensure safe and fair transportation options and ensure all road users have a safe route and access to basic community services. The city must proactively work to address the inequities built into the current transportation system to keep vulnerable members of the community safe.7 traffic
enforcement
Enforcement of traffic laws is a
common strategy to increase street
safety, but historical enforcement
techniques and strategies have raised
concerns about racial profiling, police
violence, and the impacts of policing
on communities of color. According to
the US Department of Justice, Black
and Hispanic people are more likely
than white people to experience use of
force when they are stopped by police.

To address these concerns, some cities
have shifted to equity-based strategies
that target specific reckless behaviors
posing the highest safety risk while
working to mitigate potential inequities
in enforcement. Other cities are looking
for opportunities for non-sworn officers
to be engaged in transportation
enforcement activities, as appropriate.

Equity can also be considered in a
range of enforcement strategies,
including progressive fine structures,
analysis of demographic data in traffic
citations, community-based alternatives
to police enforcement, and investment
in social programs that alleviate
enforcement burdens.

Equity considerations in enforcement
strategies, include the following:
• Progressive traffic fine structures,
such as a sliding scale for traffic
fines based on a driver’s income,
developing payment plans, or giving
first offenders the opportunity to
take a safety class focusing on driver
behavior changes.
• Analyzing available demographic
data and the location of traffic
citations can help the city
understand if traffic enforcement
is being implemented universally
or if specific communities
are experiencing disparities
in enforcement.
• Enforcement practices, like traffic
stops, require the discretion of police
offices. Implicit bias can affect how
and to whom officers issue traffic
citations. Assessing traffic citation
demographic and geographic
data can help uncover inequities
in policing and the enforcement of
traffic safety.
#13..
- 333 -
25 funding
and project
prioritization
As mentioned previously in the report,
20 priority projects were identified and
prioritized based on their perceived
competitiveness for grant funding,
alignment with city priorities, and were
ranked as a priority by the community.

Many grant funding opportunities, such
as California’s Active Transportation
Program (ATP), prioritizes projects
that increase safety and travel options
for people walking and bicycling,
and ensure that disadvantaged
communities fully benefit from the
ATP. CalEnviroScreen scores show
much of Modesto within the 25% most
disadvantaged areas, making the
city a priority area for state and local
funding opportunities.
culturally
relevant
engagement
Community engagement is not a
one-size-fits-all model as different
communities have different needs.

By developing culturally relevant
engagement strategies, all participants
are invited into conversations about
safety. Culturally relevant engagement
strategies can help education and
programming around traffic safety
reach a larger audience and be more
impactful. For example, including
cultural markers of a local community,
such as contracting with popular local
food vendors to cater engagement
activities, can be a creative and
welcoming way of engaging residents.

Meeting people “where they are” to
gather input on safety issues at local
parks can more effectively engage
parents and children rather than
expecting families to attend a meeting
at a government building.
7 FHWA (2018). Integrating the Safe
System Approach with the Highway Safety
Improvement Program. https://safety.
fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf.

Accessed May 3, 2021.
#13..
- 334 -
26 Modesto LRSP
crash risk
indicators
Surrogate safety measures such as
“near miss” collisions, communityreported hazards, and high stress facilities, can provide for a fuller
understanding of the safety landscape
and enable proactive interventions.
“Near misses” have historically been
difficult to study in practical safety
applications due to an overall lack of
reported information. In the absence
of sufficient crash data, near miss data
is an important indicator for guiding
crash prevention. A couple examples
of surrogate safety measures that are
helping to close the gap and provide
key safety insights regarding near
misses include the following:

Emerging Technology
Recent advancements in transportation technology have not only introduced new transportation modes and travel patterns, but have also presented opportunities to better understand travel behavior and encourage safe behavior. Safe vehicles is an element of the Safe System approach. Leveraging connected and automated vehicle (CAV) technology and identifying accident avoidance systems with vehicle manufacturers is key in ensuring vehicles are safe for all road users in the future.

It is not currently within the city’s purview to design vehicles, but considerations to vehicle technology can be made in the future regarding policy and design of city roadways.
• Video Data Video machine learning
is an effective means of classifying
collisions and collecting near miss
data. The city should consider
investing in these technologies
(e.g., along key roadways and
intersections) to better understand
and monitor risk scenarios.
• Public Crowdsourcing Online
web crowdsourcing platforms, like
UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC Street
Story tool (available in English
and Spanish), allow anyone to
anecdotally report incidents of
near misses. These data points
are available publicly for analysis
and contain important contextual
information based on geographic
location (e.g., road conditions, street
lighting, and travel mode). Using a
platform like Street Story could also
advance community education and
engagement around road safety
by providing an outlet and way for
people to connect around each
other’s stories.
#13..
- 335 -
27 data collection,
inventory, and
management
Up to date data on transportation
infrastructure, including roadway
characteristics, intersection
characteristics, and signs are valuable
for planning and implementing future
improvements. An updated inventory
can also allow for the identification of
project synergies, such as including a
safety countermeasure with a repaving
project. Examples of service providers
who can assist with this work include
the following:
• Mapillary uses crowdsourced or
privately provided street level
imagery to extract and map signs,
streetlamps, sidewalks, signals, and
other objects: https://www.mapillary.
com/
• Ecopia uses satellite imagery to
extract features such as road
centerlines, roadway cross-sections,
sidewalks, and more: https://www.
ecopiatech.com/
connected
systems and
vehicles
As part of its strategy to bolster
road safety, the city could explore
the feasibility of deploying smart
signal technology on its roadways.

Smart signal technology enables
cities to collect data at multiple
intersections, providing a high-resolution
understanding of how people are using
the roadway in real time. Connected
vehicles are another part of this
system. They wirelessly communicate
with other vehicles and infrastructure
(like signals) to provide data for
instantaneous decision-making (e.g.,
reporting driver speed or collisions).

Data from signals in combination with
data from vehicles can allow for real
time speed-related signal operations,
allowing for enhanced safety through
adaptable systems.
#13..
- 336 -
28 Modesto LRSP
The Collision History, Risk Factors,
and Trends chapter of this report
includes the 13 collision profiles
from the SSAR that highlight the
most common and severe collision
patterns in Modesto. Education and
enforcement strategies focusing on
speeding prevention, right-of-way and
red-light compliance, and bicycle and
pedestrian safety can complement
engineering countermeasures for all 13
emphasis areas.

One profile, driving under the influence
(DUI), is a major factor in fatal and
severe collisions in Modesto. With
limited opportunities for engineering
countermeasures, DUI collisions require
special attention for non-infrastructure
prevention programs. The policy
instruments to reduce rates of driving
under the influence generally fall under
three categories:

1. Deterrence policies focus on
raising the actual and perceived risk
of detection of driving under the
influence. These policies should be
highly visible to increase awareness
of the risks of driving under the
influence. Publicized sobriety
checkpoints, saturation patrol,
and other forms of high-visibility
enforcement are effective for
safety outcomes.

DUI
Strategies and
Considerations

2. Prevention and education
policies focus on mobilizing and
educating the community, and
intervening before driving under the
influence takes place. According to
NHTSA research, alcohol problem
assessment and treatment programs,
as well as alcohol intervention in
settings such as a doctor’s office,
are highly effective strategies for
improving safety outcomes.9

3. Limited access policies focus on
making underage access to alcohol
and drugs more difficult and limiting
excessive alcohol consumption.

Modesto has received funding for
deterrence programs such as DUI
saturation patrols and check points
paired with social media campaigns.

Increasing funding for efforts that focus
on prevention and education, such
as alcohol problem assessment and
treatment programs, would support
less-punitive measures to reduce
DUI collisions.
9 National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine (2005). A
Guide for Reducing Alcohol-Related
Collisions. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.17226/23419. pg. 106.
#13..
- 337 -
29 #13..
- 338 -
30 Modesto LRSP
implementation
considerations
To successfully implement programs
and projects outlined in this LRSP,
partnerships, trust, funding, and
coordination need to be proactively
managed. Successful implementation
requires sustained and coordinated
support from key stakeholders, elected
officials, and city staff. Some strategies
include the following:
• Oversight, Accountability, and
Partnerships To ensure effective
delivery of safety projects and
programs, establishing a committee
or Task Force with key officials and
stakeholders (inside and outside
of the city) that meets biannually
or quarterly is recommended.

Having appointed leadership will
be a crucial part of maintaining
buy-in and support for the LRSP
from not only officials, but the
community as well. Leadership
could additionally include members
from identified project partners
(Modesto Police Department,
Stanislaus County Health Services).

Routine collaboration between
stakeholders and partners will
ensure that city-led engineering
Evaluation and
Implementation
countermeasures are supported by
coordinated enforcement, education,
and engagement programs led
by local and regional partners.

Strategies for mutual accountability
could include conducting briefings
and presentations at board and
agency meetings, collecting and
sharing information on a regular
basis, and updating a public-facing
database (or scorecard) on LRSP
goal progress.
• Communication Having continued
communication and transparency
with stakeholders and community
members can allow for greater
trust and support of the LRSP’s
goals. Some strategies include
communication across diverse
channels (e.g., updated webpage,
news, and social media), actively
addressing community concerns,
publishing updated factsheets on
plan progress, and regular public
meetings using effective community
engagement techniques. An
oversight committee or Task Force
(as proposed above) can aid with
leading efforts on communication
and trust-building.
#13..
- 339 -
31 evaluation strategies
Evaluation is an essential component
of a robust safety plan; it provides
an opportunity to re-prioritize as
new areas of concern arise and
take advantage of additional tools,
knowledge, and stakeholders
that become available over
time. Recommendations include
the following:
• Identify Target Metrics and Measure
Goal Performance To understand
progress and safety conditions,
several metrics should be used
in LRSP evaluation. Examples of
measuring goal performance include
the following:
• monitoring KSIs, specific to the
goals outlined in this plan and
the SSAR
• monitoring the number of safety
infrastructure improvements
installed from the SSAR
• monitoring public engagement
and response to non-infrastructure
countermeasures
Additionally, regular measurement
of goal progress in priority areas
should be performed each year (e.g.,
with a safety scorecard). Safety
scorecards that are released annually
can be a powerful tool for measuring
effectiveness, highlighting areas that
need further attention and resources,
and identifying tasks and deadlines
for responsible stakeholder parties.
• Continued Community Engagement
Modesto should consider conducting
pre- and post-surveys with
community members to measure
how their actions and views have
shifted after engagement around
traffic safety. Local partners can
be tasked with disseminating the
pre- and post-surveys to residents.

Surveys should evaluate whether
respondents express a shift in
behavior and attitude after having
participated in traffic safety
programming. The metrics for
evaluation can also be developed in
partnership with local partners to
ensure accessibility for the public.
#13..
- 340 -
32 Modesto LRSP
funding
The SSAR includes local, state,
and federal funding sources
related to transportation safety as
listed below. • SB1 Funding The U.S.

Department of Transportation’s
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), also known
as the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017,
is a landmark transportation
investment to rebuild California
by fixing neighborhood
streets, freeways, and bridges
in communities across
California and target funding
toward transit and congested
trade and commute corridor
improvements. The largest
portion of SB 1 funding goes
to California’s state-maintained
transportation infrastructure.

With this funding, Caltrans has
a goal of repairing or replacing
17,000 miles of pavement in ten
years, spending $250 million
annually for congestion solutions,
over $700 million for better
transit commutes and supporting
freight improvements. The other
portion of SB 1 funding will go to
local roads, transit agencies, and
expanding the state’s pedestrian
and cycle routes. SB 1 funds
various grants, which can be
found below.

Local Streets and Roads
Program (LSRP) California
State Senate Bill 1 has dedicated
approximately $1.5 billion per
year appointed by the State
Controller (Controller) to cities
and counties for basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation, and
critical safety projects on the
local streets and roads system.

Cities and counties must submit
a proposed project list adopted
at a regular meeting by their
board or council that is then
submitted to the California
Transportation Commission
(Commission). Once reviewed
and adopted by the Commission,
eligible cities and counties
receive funding from the
Controller. An Annual Project
Expenditure Report is sent to
the Commission to maintain
transparency regarding program
funding received and expended.

Local Partnership Program (LPP)
The Local Partnership Program’s
purpose is to provide local and
regional transportation agencies
that have passed sales tax
measures, developer fees, or
other imposed transportation
fees with a funding of $200
million annually from the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account to fund aging
infrastructure, road conditions,
active transportation, and health
and safety benefits projects.

LPP funds are distributed
through a 50% statewide
competitive component and
a 50% formulaic component.

Both programs are eligible to
jurisdictions with voter approved
taxes, tolls, and fees dedicated
solely to transportation and the
competitive program. LPP also
provides the opportunity for
local governments to partner
with Caltrans for enhancements
on state facilities.

ATP Funding The Active
Transportation Program was
created by Senate Bill 99 (SB 99)
to encourage increased use of
active modes of transportation
such as walking and biking. The
goals of the ATP include, but
#13..
- 341 -
33 are not limited to, increasing
the proportion of trips
accomplished by walking and
biking, increasing the safety
and mobility of non‑motorized
users, advancing efforts of
regional agencies to achieve
greenhouse gas reduction goals,
enhancing public health, and
providing a broad spectrum of
projects to benefit many types of
users, including disadvantaged
communities. SB 1 directs $100
million annually from SB 1 to
the ATP, with more than 400
of the funded projects being
Safe Routes to School projects
and programs that encourage
a healthy and active lifestyle
throughout students’ lives.

Caltrans Sustainable
Transportation Planning Grant
The Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants include
two parts: Sustainable
Communities Grants and
Strategic Partnerships Grants.

The Sustainable Communities
Grants have $25 million set
aside to encourage local and
regional planning goals and best
practices cited in the Regional
Transportation Plan Guidelines.

This is in addition to the $9.5
million in traditional State and
federal grants. These grants
were released for Fiscal Year
2022-23 and applications were
are due October 27, 2021. Grant
announcements are anticipated
in spring 2022. There may be
another grant on the horizon, but
Caltrans has not released any
new information yet.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Funding The SRTS program
promotes walking and bicycling
to school through infrastructure
improvements, tools, safety
education, and incentives to
encourage these modes of travel.

Nationally, 10 to 14% of car trips
during the morning rush hour
are for school travel. SRTS can
be implemented at the state,
community, or local school
district level. Competitive federal
funding is available through
the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act).

Depending on the existing
infrastructure, SRTS may require
that education, transportation,
public safety, and city planning
agencies coordinate their efforts.
• Developer Fees California law
allows local governments to
establish and charge a fee on
residential and non-residential
development in order to
fund public facilities and to
service population growth. Local
agencies should update their
transportation impact
assessment (TIA) guidance to
reflect safety improvements for
all modes of travel. Public facility
fees can be charged to new
development based on density
and traffic impacts, and can go
to a variety of public facilities,
one being local roadways.
• RAISE Grant The U.S.

Department of Transportation is
committed to create high-quality
jobs, improve safety, protect our
environment, and generate
equitable economic opportunity
for all American’s with their
Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity (RAISE) grant.

Project will be evaluated
based on merit criteria that
includes safety, environmental
sustainability, quality of life,
#13..
- 342 -
34 Modesto LRSP
economic competitiveness,
state of good repair, innovation,
and partnership. It is one of
the few DOT discretionary
programs for which regional
and local governments can
directly compete for multimodal
transportation funding.
• Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC) The AHSC
Program, administered by the
Strategic Growth Council and
implemented by the Department
of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), funds land
use, housing, transportation,
and land preservation projects
to support infill and compact
development that reduces
greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. This program will
assist project areas by providing
grants and/or loans, or any
combination thereof, that will
achieve GHG emission reductions
and benefit Disadvantaged
Communities, Low-Income
Communities, and Low-Income
Households through increased
accessibility of affordable
housing, employment centers,
and key destinations via lowcarbon transportation. This results in fewer vehicle miles
traveled through shortened or
reduced trip lengths or mode
shifts from Single Occupancy
Vehicles to use of transit,
bicycling, or walking. The project
areas this funding is geared
toward are Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Project
Areas, Integrated Connectivity
Project (ICP) Project Areas, or
Rural Innovation Project Areas
(RIPA).
• Valley Air District The Valley Air
District develops and administers
incentive programs targeted
at reducing harmful emissions
throughout the Valley. The
district is consistently working
to ensure the valley receives
available federal, state, and
local funding for these projects
and has invested more than
$2 billion through a combined
public-private partnership. The
district has set money aside for
bicycle infrastructure projects,
including Class I, Class II, or
Class III bike routes. The program
provides funding to assist with
the development or expansion
of a comprehensive bicycle
transportation network which will
provide a viable transportation
option for travel to school, work,
and commercial sites.
• California Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Grant Programs
OTS administers traffic safety
grants in the following areas:
alcohol impaired driving,
distracted driving, drug-impaired
driving, emergency medical
services, motorcycle safety,
occupant protection, pedestrian
and bicycle safety, police
traffic services, public relations,
advertising, and roadway safety
and traffic records.
• Measure L Measure L is a 35-
year, half-cent sales tax that
was approved by Stanislaus
County voters in 2019. This
measure provides funding for a
variety of local transportation
improvements including, but not
limited to fixing and maintaining
roadways, improving emergency
response, providing safe routes
to schools, providing senior,
#13..
- 343 -
35 veterans and disabled shuttle
services, and improving safety
and reducing traffic congestion
on major arterials and
Highway 99.
• Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
The TCC Program funds
community-led development
and infrastructure projects
that strive to make major
advances in environmental,
health, and economic
benefits in California’s most
disadvantages communities.

Eligible improvements for
this funding source include
active transportation and
public transit projects, transit
ridership programs and passes
for low‑income riders, and
encouraging education and
planning activities to promote
increased use of active modes
of transportation.

While the SSAR identifies a broad
set of infrastructure funding
measures, Modesto is encouraged
to continue exploring diverse
funding sources for implementation
of safety efforts, including for
education and enforcement. The
following grants can support
education and enforcement safety
efforts.
#13..
- 344 -
#13..
- 345 -
Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan
FINAL - AUGUST 2024
#13..
- 346 -
City Council
Mayor Sue Zwahlen
Vice Mayor Chris Ricci
Councilmember Eric Alvarez
Councilmember Nick Bavaro
Councilmember Rosa Escutia-Braaton
Councilmember Jenny Kenoyer
Councilmember Jeremiah Williams
Councilmember David Wright

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Staff
Michael Sacuskie, Assistant City Engineer
Phillip Soares, Senior Civil Traffic Engineer
Consultant Staff
Alta
Jeff Knowles, Principal
Ben Frazier, Project Manager
Prepared for:

Prepared by:
#13..
- 347 -

CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary 4
CHAPTER 2
Introduction, Vision,
Goals, & Policies 14
CHAPTER 3
Existing Conditions
& Needs Analysis 24
CHAPTER 4
Community
Engagement 50
CHAPTER 5
Recommendations 56
CHAPTER 6
Implementation 109

APPENDIX A
Funding Sources 149

APPENDIX B
Bicycle
Recommendation
Table 155
#13..
- 348 -
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
#13..
- 349 -
Goals
This 2023 update to Modesto’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is the guiding document for city staff, officials, developers, and residents to create a safe, balanced, and comfortable transportation system for all roadway users, especially people walking, biking, and rolling. This Plan aims to promote and support walking, biking, and rolling through the development of safe, comfortable, and connected bicycle and pedestrian networks and the implementation of supportive policies and programs. This Plan seeks to:
▶ Build connected bicycle and pedestrian networks that link residents to neighborhood destinations (such as schools, parks, libraries, and grocery stores) and citywide destinations (like public transit stations, shopping centers, and major employers). ▶ Prioritize and implement safety improvements throughout Modesto that reduce and minimize collision and injury risks to people driving, walking, biking, or rolling.
▶ Create bicycle and pedestrian networks that are accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.
▶ Develop and maintain programs that provide educational tools and encouragement resources that support and help grow walking and biking as reasonable, practical means of transportation.
▶ Incorporate high-quality design features, construction mitigation efforts, and practical, efficient maintenance standards that improve the quality of life of all residents.
▶ Develop a list of prioritized, practical, and publicly supported infrastructure projects and programs that can be funded through many potential funding streams, including grants, repaving programs, and coordinating with other development projects or partner agencies.

Connectivity
Safety
Accessibility
Education and
Encouragement
Funding and
Implementation
Quality of Life
5 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 350 -
This Plan also provides an implementation
strategy to build out the pedestrian and
bicycle networks through prioritization and
phasing. This process strives to create a
fundable and implementable list of projects.

Investing in the enhancement of citywide
bicycle and pedestrian networks creates
lasting impacts on residents and their
communities. A safe, comfortable, and inviting
built environment that supports active
transportation can:
▶ Increase the livability of and quality of life in
Modesto.
▶ Increase recreational opportunities through
improved access to outdoor facilities and
amenities.
▶ Decrease the risk of bicycle- and pedestrianinvolved collisions and injuries. ▶ Provide affordable transportation options for
low-income and disadvantaged residents.
▶ Improve air quality through the reduction of
vehicle emissions.

Modesto is well-positioned to prioritize
building infrastructure designed for people of
all types, ages, and abilities to walk and bicycle
comfortably to schools, parks, transit, and
other local and regional destinations.

There are many potential, proposed, and
planned projects that will continue to shift
and transform Modesto’s local and regional
transportation environment. As both
infrastructure and travel patterns change
from new developments and changing
office environments, there is potential to
build infrastructure more supportive of
neighborhood trips. The recommendations
proposed in this Plan lay the foundation that
will help build a more connected, accessible,
healthy, and safe Modesto.

Recommendations
This 2023 update to the Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan was developed
with a robust community engagement
process. During the Plan’s development,
hundreds of comments were received
from Modesto stakeholders. Community
engagement combined with the
existing conditions analysis led to the
development of 109 pedestrian spot
improvement recommendations and over
192 miles of recommended bicycle facilities.

Recommended bicycle projects, broken
down by bicycle class are shown in Table 1.

The Plan also provides policy and program
recommendations. Details on project
recommendations are located in Chapter 5.
6 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 351 -
Table 1: Bicycle Facility Network by Bikeway Classification (Miles) Existing
Bikeways
Facilities Being
Upgraded
Recommended
Facilities
Full Network
Build-Out
Shared-use Path 17.1 0.0 26.1 43.2
Bicycle Lane 26.0 18.8 11.2 18.4
Buffered Bicycle Lane 17.3 13.0 6.4 10.6
Bicycle Route 39.8 26.5 0.3 13.6
Bicycle Boulevard 0.0 0.0 94.9 94.9
Separated Bikeway 4.4 0.0 53.3 57.7
Total 104.6 58.3 192.2 238.4
7 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 352 -

NEXT STEPS
Infrastructure projects are prioritized for
design and construction based on the
following factors:
▶ Safety
▶ Connectivity
▶ Accessibility
▶ Equity
▶ Feasibility
Projects are then grouped into four
implementation categories based on their
prioritization score:

SHORT-TERM PROJECTS
▶ Bicycle projects: 30 projects
▶ Pedestrian projects: 12 projects

MEDIUM-TERM PROJECTS
▶ Bicycle projects: 18 projects
▶ Pedestrian projects: 66 projects

OPPORTUNITY PROJECTS
▶ Bicycle projects: 49 projects
▶ Pedestrian projects: 14 projects

LONG-TERM PROJECTS
▶ Bicycle projects: 14 projects
▶ Pedestrian projects: 17 projects
In addition to those four prioritization buckets,
the highest-ranked short-term projects
are considered First Phase projects. These
are projects that have that the highest
community benefits with high project
feasibility. First Phase projects should
be pursued first by Modesto staff. The
prioritization process and complete project
rankings are provided in Chapter 6. Figure 1
shows the First Phase bicycle projects and
pedestrian projects. Table 2 shows the First
Phase bicycle projects and Table 3 shows the
First Phase pedestrian projects. The full list
of prioritized projects can be seen in Tables 9
and 10.
8 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 353 -
Table 2: First Phase Bicycle Projects Bike Projects
Street To Street From Street Bike Class Miles Points Category H St 1st St Downey Ave Class IV 1.34 10.5 ShortTerm
Crows Landing Rd City Limit E Hatch Rd Class IV 0.85 9.5 ShortTerm El Vista Ave Yosemite
Blvd
Oakdale Rd Class IV 0.98 9.5 ShortTerm
Parker Rd Claus Rd, E
Briggsmore
Ave
East city limit Class IV 0.98 9.5 ShortTerm
La Loma/ Encina/ Miller
Bike Boulevard Group
La Loma
Ave
Encina Ave, N
Santa Rosa Ave
Class IIIB 8.50 9.0 ShortTerm
Sutter/ Emerald Bike
Boulevard Group
Kirschen Dr Yellow Pine Dr Class IIIB 5.09 9.0 ShortTerm W Orangeburg Ave Carver Rd Evergreen Ave Class II 0.59 9.0 ShortTerm Claus Rd Yosemite
Blvd
Creekwood Dr Class IV 0.84 8.5 ShortTerm
Paradise Ave Beverly Dr,
Harris Ave,
Wade Ave
South city limit Class IV 0.45 8.5 ShortTerm
Floyd/ Sunrise Bike
Boulevard Group
W
Orangeburg
Ave
W Granger Ave Class IIIB 11.02 8.0 ShortTerm
Carver Bike Boulevard
Group
McHenry
Ave
Tully Rd Class IIIB 8.68 8.0 ShortTerm
I St Washington
St
17th St Class I 1.13 8.0 MediumTerm
Scenic Dr (WB) McGuire Dr Lakewood Ave Class I 0.89 6.5 ShortTerm Scenic Dr (WB) McGuire Dr Lakewood Ave Class IV 0.77 6.5 ShortTerm Scenic Dr (EB) McGuire Dr Lakewood Ave Class II 0.75 6.0 ShortTerm Lakewood Ave Briggsmore
Ave
Scenic Dr Class IV 0.81 4.5 MediumTerm
Lakewood Ave Briggsmore
Ave
Scenic Dr Class I 0.81 4.0 MediumTerm
Lakewood-Lincoln
Ave Trail Bridge
Scenic Dr Dry Creek Trail
Connector/
Bridge
Class I 0.19 4.0 MediumTerm
9 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 354 -
Table 3: First Phase Pedestrian Projects
ID Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Recommendation Points Category FirstPhase Pedestrian Projects
13 Santa Barbara
Ave
La Loma Ave Install high-visibility
crosswalks with
advanced stop bars
across both crossing at
Santa Barbara Avenue
and restripe the highvisibility crosswalk
across La Loma Ave
with advanced yield
markings. Install an
RRFB for the La Loma
crossing.
9 Short Term Yes
18 Crows Landing
Rd
School Ave Refresh all four highvisibility crosswalks
and install advance
stop markings. Provide
a leading pedestrian
interval for all crossing
phases. Construct curb
extensions at all four
corners.

8.5 Short Term Yes
19 Crows Landing
Rd
E Hatch Rd Refresh all four highvisibility crosswalks
and install advance
stop markings. Provide
a leading pedestrian
interval for all crossing
phases. Construct curb
extensions at all four
corners.

8.5 Short Term Yes
24 Paradise Rd Pine Tree Ln Refresh the highvisibility crosswalk across Paradise Road
with advance yield
markings. Install a
pedestrian hybrid
beacon for this
crossing.

8.5 Short Term Yes
10 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 355 -
ID Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Recommendation Points Category FirstPhase Pedestrian Projects
44 Lucern Ave Coffee Rd Upgrade all crosswalks
to high-visibility
crosswalks and
install advanced stop
marking, and leading
pedestrian intervals
for all crossing phases.

Study free-right turn
lane removal on the
southeast corner.

8.5 Short Term Yes
64 W Rumble Rd Tully Rd Upgrade the existing
eastern and western
crosswalks to highvisibility and provide
a leading pedestrian
interval for all crossing
phases. Construct curb
extensions at all four
corners.

8.5 Short Term Yes
74 Carver Rd Orangeburg Ave Upgrade all crosswalks
to high-visibility
crosswalks and install
advance stop markings.

Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for
all crossing phases.
8 Short Term Yes
39 E Briggsmore
Ave
Coffee Rd Short term: Upgrade
all crosswalks to
high-visibility. Long
Term: Conduct traffic
study to consider
removing both freeright turn lanes and
other intersection
design/geometry
improvements.

7.5 Short Term Yes
11 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 356 -
ID Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Recommendation Points Category FirstPhase Pedestrian Projects
45 Scenic Dr Coffee Rd Upgrade all existing
crosswalks to highvisibility and install
leading pedestrian
intervals for all
crossing phases.

Study free-right turn
lane removal.

7.5 Short Term Yes
67 W Granger
Ave
Tully Rd Construct curb
extensions at the two
eastern corners and
provide a leading
pedestrian interval
for all crossing
phases.

7.5 Short Term Yes
97 H St 7th St Consistent with the
Downtown Master
Plan, install curb
extensions, upgrade
all crosswalks
to high-visibility
crosswalks, and
provide leading
pedestrian intervals
for all crossing
phases.

7.5 Short Term Yes
108 10th St Morton Blvd In coordination with
other pedestrian
improvements
between B Street
and Morton
Boulevard, install
a high-visibility
crosswalk with RRFB
for a crossing of
Morton Boulevard.

7.5 Short Term Yes
12 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 357 -
Figure 1: Top Prioritized Projects
108
132
219
99 8th St
W Granger Ave
Kearney Ave
H St
Stoddard Ave
Norwegian Ave
Kansas Ave
9th St
College Ave
Tully Rd
Woodland Ave
I St
la Loma Ave S t ud e nCt
e n t eDr
r
Tully Rd
Airport Way
Lateral Number4
Co‚ee Rd
Mable Ave
N
Carpenter Rd
N 9th St
Oakdale Rd
Bowen Ave
Prescott Rd
Needham St
Roselle Ave
Paradise Ave
Standiford Ave
Claremon t Ave
Haddon Ave
Sylvan Ave
Lakewood Ave
Virginia Ave
Claus Rd
Sylvan Meadows Dr
Yosemite Blvd
E Briggsmore Ave
G St
Dale Rd
Neece
Dr
Colfax Ave
Laramie Dr
Crows Landing Rd
Brighton Ave
H ashemDr
6th St
Dragoo Park Dr
Hillglen Ave
Fine Ave
L ni co nl Ave
Parker Rd
11th St
Carpenter Rd
Claratina Ave
Celeste Dr
Morse Rd
E Morris Ave
Lucern Ave
Sutter Ave
Miller Ave
Claratina Ave
Modesto Virginia Corridor
Tuolumne Blvd
Cheyenne Way
7th St
California Ave
Millbrook Ave
Creekwood Dr
Enslen Ave
Sherwood Ave
W Hatch Rd
Bangs Ave
W Rumble Rd
W Whitmore Ave
Kodiak Dr
Rose Ave
Snyder Ave
Merle Ave
Root Lateral
W Briggsmore Ave
Lateral Number 6
Sisk Rd
Carver Rd
McHenry Ave
Floyd Ave
Pelandale Ave
Scenic Dr
E Orangeburg Ave
Great Valley
Academy
Stanislaus County West
Campus
Petersen Alternative
Center for Education
M. Robert
Adkison Elementary
Virginia
Parks
Elementary
Norman
N. Glick
Middle
Capistrano
Elementary
Christine
Sipherd Elementary
Bernard
L. Hughes Elementary
Alice N.

Stroud
Elementary
Elihu
Beard Elementary
Bret Harte Elementary
Burbank Elementary
El Vista
Elementary
Enslen
Elementary
Catherine
Everett
Elementary
Franklin Elementary
John Fremont
Elementary
William Garrison
Elementary
John Muir
Elementary
La Loma
Junior
High
Mark Twain
Junior High
James Marshall
Elementary
Orville Wright
Elementary
Robertson
Road
Elementary
Roosevelt
Junior
High
Rose Avenue
Elementary
Shackelford Elementary
Wilson
Elementary
Sonoma Elementary
Lakewood
Elementary
Harriette Kirschen
Elementary
Alberta Martone
Elementary
Evelyn
Hanshaw
Middle
James C.

Enochs
High
Fred
C. Beyer
High
Peter
Johansen
High
Grace
M. Davis
High
Thomas
Downey
High
Elliott
Adult Education
Center
Modesto
High
Robert
Elliott Alternative
Education Center
Independence
Charter Mildred Perkins
Elementary
Mary
Lou Dieterich
Elementary
Josephine
Chrysler
Elementary
Prescott
Junior
High
George
Eisenhut
Elementary
Agnes
M. Baptist Elementary
Daniel J. Savage Middle
Mary
Ann Sanders Elementary
Sherwood
Elementary
Somerset Middle
Standiford Elementary
Sylvan
Elementary
Woodrow
Elementary
Coleman F.

Brown Elementary
Stockard
Co‡ee Elementary
Orchard
Elementary
Elizabeth Ustach Middle
Freedom Elementary
Yosemite ROP
Caswell
Elementary
Carroll Fowler
Elementary
Mae Hensley Junior High
Ceres
High
School
Walter
White Elementary
Amtrak
Station
13 18
19 24
30 39
44 45
54 64
67 74
97 108
0 0.5 1
MILE

FIRST PHASE

PROJECTS

MODESTO CA

NON-MOTORIZED

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Map produced December 2018.

Destinations + Boundaries
Amtrak Station
College
Hospital
Library
Museum
School
Modesto City Boundary
Shopping Center
Park
K St
H St
7th St
I St
12th St
B St
11th St
10th St
Beard St
I St
97 108
Downtown
Pedestrian Recommendations
First Phase Ped Projects
First Phase Bicycle Projects
13 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #13..
- 358 -
CHAPTER 2
Introduction, Vision,
Goals, & Policies
#13..
- 359 -

INTRODUCTION
The 2023 Update to the Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan works toward building
a balanced transportation system that is
safe, comfortable, and accessible for people
walking, biking, and rolling on wheelchairs,
skateboards, and scooters. The Plan lays out a
strategy to develop comprehensive bicycling
and walking networks that provide access to
transit, schools, parks, trails, and downtown.

The Plan also includes information on
support and end-of-trip facilities like bicycle
parking, benches, and other amenities. These
infrastructure improvements are paired with
programs to educate, encourage, and support
walking, rolling, and bicycling. Project and
program recommendations were developed
based on a thorough needs analysis and
community engagement process.

This document provides a plan to
design and construct new infrastructure
recommendations through prioritization
and phasing to ensure implementation
is manageable and fundable. This Plan
represents a long-term vision for walking,
rolling, and biking in Modesto, recognizing
that funding and resources will require
phased implementation over time.
15 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 360 -
Connectivity
Build connected bicycle and pedestrian networks that link residents to local destinations (schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores, etc.) and citywide destinations (public transit, shopping centers, employment centers, etc.).

Safety
Prioritize and implement safety improvements throughout Modesto that reduce modal conflicts and minimize collision and injury risks.

Accessibility
Create bicycle and pedestrian networks that are accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.

Education and Encouragement
Develop and maintain programs that provide educational tools and encouragement resources that support and help grow walking and biking as reasonable, practical means of transportation.

Quality of Life
Incorporate high-quality design features, construction mitigation efforts, and practical, efficient maintenance standards that work toward improving the quality of life of all residents.

Funding and Implementation
Develop a list of prioritized, practical, and publicly supported infrastructure projects and programs that can be funded through many potential funding streams, including grants, repaving programs, and coordinating with other development projects or partner agencies.

GOALS

VISION STATEMENT
The City of Modesto envisions creating a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, amenities, and programs that foster safe and comfortable walking, rolling, and biking trips to schools, jobs, and community destinations. Supporting walking and bicycling provides residents with healthy, low-cost transportation options for people of all ages and abilities for many trip purposes.
16 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 361 -

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

PLANNING POLICIES
Policy 1: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian
network and facility needs into all
City planning documents and capital
improvement projects.

Actions:
▶ 1.1: Review the City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) list annually to ensure that
recommended projects from this Plan
are incorporated for new facilities and the
maintenance of existing facilities.
▶ 1.2: Follow a multi-disciplinary project
scoping process that incorporates the needs
of all modes and stakeholders, both internal
and external. The design process should
include the City divisions, departments, and
staff responsible for emergency response,
parking, law enforcement, maintenance,
and other affected areas.
▶ 1.3: Evaluate all streets during pavement
resurfacing to determine if bicycle facilities
can be provided when the striping is
reapplied.
▶ 1.4: Conduct regular pedestrian and bicycle
counts according to regional methodology
before and after project implementation.
▶ 1.5: Ensure that all traffic impact studies,
analyses of proposed street changes, and
development projects address impacts on
bicycling and walking facilities.

Policy 2: Coordinate with other agencies
and stakeholders to incorporate
and implement Plan policies and
recommendations.

Actions:
▶ 2.1: Work with adjacent government entities,
public service companies, partner agencies,
transit agencies, and school districts to
ensure that Plan recommendations are
incorporated into their planning and areas
of responsibility, and vice versa.
▶ 2.2: Work with transit providers to improve
bicycle and pedestrian access to transit
stations/stops and improve the comfort
of amenities at stops/stations (including
providing secure bicycle parking, covered
waiting areas, benches, etc.).
17 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 362 -

DESIGN POLICIES
Policy 3: Design a low-stress bikeway
network to serve people of all ages and
abilities.

Actions:
▶ 3.1: Design a network of continuous
low-stress bikeways as identified in this Plan.
▶ 3.2: Utilize North American City
Transportation Officials and the most recent
State and Federal design standards and
guidelines to develop plans for on-street
bicycle facilities along corridors and at
intersections.
▶ 3.3: Follow a multi-disciplinary design
process that incorporates and balances
the needs of all modes and stakeholders,
both internal and external; the design
process should include the City divisions,
departments, and staff responsible
for emergency response, parking, law
enforcement, maintenance, and other
affected areas.

Policy 4: Design a connected, convenient,
and comfortable pedestrian network to
serve people of all ages and abilities.

Actions:
▶ 4.1: Include sidewalks on all new or
retrofitted roadways.
▶ 4.2: Identify and construct sidewalks in areas
where they are incomplete.
▶ 4.3: Install leading pedestrian interval
phases in traffic signal timing, as warranted,
to encourage walking and facilitate crossing
busy streets with high volumes of turning
movements.
▶ 4.4: Review signal locations on an annual
basis to identify and adjust for increased
pedestrian clearance time where needed.
▶ 4.5: Routinely evaluate locations for
enhancing crosswalks.
▶ 4.6: Plan and develop well-connected
streets, sidewalks, and pathways that
provide the most direct paths of travel for
pedestrians. Provide connections between
or through cul-de-sacs and remove barriers
to walking where feasible.

Policy 5: Develop an easy-to-read, unified,
and comprehensive wayfinding system for
people walking and biking.

Actions:
▶ 5.1: Develop a consistent citywide
wayfinding program focused on signage for
active transportation users.
18 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 363 -

PROJECT FUNDING &

IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Policy 6: Leverage existing funding to
maximize project delivery.

Actions:
▶ 6.1: Utilizing available funds as a local match,
aggressively pursue funding from available
grant sources. A list of possible funding
opportunities is presented in Appendix A.
▶ 6.2: Actively develop projects from this Plan
to position Modesto to compete for grant
funding.
▶ 6.3: Seek to submit grant applications for
projects that most competitively match with
funding agency criteria.
▶ 6.4: Use the Plan’s project prioritization
list as a guide when determining which
projects to proceed with next.

Policy 7: Continue and expand Modesto’s
annual allocation of bicycle and pedestrian
projects and program implementation
funds.

Actions:
▶ 7.1: Through the CIP process, assess, and
prepare for upcoming staffing, consultant,
and capital funding needs as projects arise.
▶ 7.2: Allocate funds to maintain and support
walking, biking, accessibility, safe routes to
schools, and safe routes to transit programs.

Policy 8: Construct projects from this Plan
utilizing all available internal and external
resources.

Actions:
▶ 8.1: If additional internal support is required,
establish a full-time pedestrian and bicycle
coordinator position and/or a safe routes to
school coordinator position to assist with
planning and implementing bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs.
▶ 8.2: Consistent with the policies and
procedures of the Modesto City Council,
create a Citizen Advisory Group to research,
study, and discuss bicycle, pedestrian,
safe routes to schools, and safe routes to
transit issues. This group should continue
and supplement the City’s coordination
with Stanislaus Council of Governments’
(StanCOG’s) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC). The Citizen Advisory
Group’s membership should be constructed
with the following principles in mind:
▶ Equitable representation: Members
should represent all geographic areas of
the City. Membership should accurately
reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic
makeup of Modesto as much as possible.

Membership should also represent each
mode, having members who actively
walk, bike, and use mobility devices
around the City.
▶ Equitable outreach: The Advisory Group
should make extra efforts to reach out
to all segments of Modesto’s population,
conducting engagement in multiple
languages through different mediums
whenever possible.
▶ The Advisory Group should be consulted
for feedback on planning projects,
development projects, policies, climate
change, and other issues that relate to
transportation.

Policy 9: Ensure that bicyclists and
pedestrians have accommodation in
construction zones.

Actions:
▶ 9.1: Incorporate routine accommodation
for pedestrian and bicycle facilities when
roadway or other construction work disrupts
typical uses of sidewalks, trails, and on-street
bicycle facilities.
19 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 364 -

MAINTENANCE POLICIES
Policy 10: Maintain designated facilities
to be comfortable and free of hazards to
people walking and bicycling.

Actions:
▶ 10.1: Sweep streets regularly, with priority
given to those with higher pedestrian and
bicycle traffic.
▶ 10.2: Trim overhanging and encroaching
vegetation to maintain a clear travel path
along pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
▶ 10.3: Develop and implement an appropriate
minimum paving surface standard for
bicycle boulevards and other low-stress
bikeways.
▶ 10.4: Update repaving project selection
methodology to prioritize bicycle boulevards
and other low-stress bikeways to ensure that
the minimum paving surface standard is
maintained.
▶ 10.5: Incorporate maintenance needs into
the design of separated bikeways and
trails to ensure proper maintenance after
construction.

PROGRAM POLICIES
Policy 11: Educate people walking, bicycling,
and driving, and the general public
about roadway safety and the benefits of
bicycling and walking.

Actions:
▶ 11.1: Work with local partners (bike shops,
bicycle/walking groups, and advocacy/
non-profit organizations) to coordinate and
support bicycle and pedestrian educational
programs and campaigns.

Policy 12: Coordinate and collaborate with
all local school districts to create a citywide
Safe Routes to School Program. Encourage
Modesto public schools to participate in the
Safe Routes to School Program.

Actions:
▶ 12.1: Support school travel safety
assessments at Modesto public schools and
utilize improvement plans to pursue grant
funding for implementation.
▶ 12.2: Participate and support Safe Routes to
School meetings and other encouragement
events/activities.
20 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 365 -
Policy 13: Increase bicycling and walking
through targeted marketing and
promotion.

Actions:
▶ 13.1: Provide current and easily accessible
information about the Modesto bicycle
network, bicycle programs, and bicycle
parking. This includes distributing online
and print bicycle maps, maintaining up-todate City web pages, and providing ongoing public engagement opportunities.
▶ 13.2: Encourage major employers to
continue, develop, or expand bicycle
promotion programs for their employees.

Recognize companies designated as a
Bicycle Friendly Business by the League of
American Bicyclists
▶ 13.3: Encourage the use of bicycles for
City employee commute and work travel
purposes to see the City as a model
employer.
▶ 13.4: Continue to sponsor Bicycle to
Work Day in May to receive input on the
pedestrian and bicycle program and
educate the public about the benefits of
walking and bicycling.
▶ 13.5: Work with major employers to set
up and maintain Transportation Demand
Management programs.

EVALUATION POLICIES
Policy 14: Measure bicycling and walking
activity through an annual count program.

Actions:
▶ 14.1: Establish an annual count program
at critical locations around the city. Ensure
methodology is consistent with other
metrics collected locally and regionally.
▶ 14. 2: Make the data publicly available on an
ongoing or at least annual basis.

Policy 15: Report annually on the
implementation of this Plan.

Actions:
▶ 15.1: Prepare and present a report to the
StanCOG BPAC, Citizens Advisory Group (if
created), and City Council.
21 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 366 -
Public Health
Walking, bicycling, and other forms of
active transportation (rolling, scooting, etc.)
provide many benefits to individuals and
communities. Active transportation is closely
linked to health outcomes. The Stanislaus
County Community Health Assessment 2020
(CHA 2020) discusses multiple health, safety,
and “thriving” factors that impact individual
and overall community health. All three
of these areas have connections to active
transportation. The report stated the lack of
physical activity is one of the four leading risk
factors for chronic disease. The leading cause
of death within Stanislaus County is heart
disease; obesity and physical inactivity are
among the risk factors for heart disease.

Further, obesity rates within the County have
risen by 45% between 2012 and 2017. Asthma
is also a public health issue; Stanislaus County
has a higher rate of emergency room visits
for Asthma-related problems than the state
average. Many factors can contribute to
asthma, including air pollutants and overall air
quality.

Roadway safety also contributes to health
outcomes. While the CHA 2020 focuses
on deaths related to vehicle collisions,
pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions
also impact health outcomes. The Needs
Analysis in Chapter 3 will detail the locations
of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions
throughout Modesto.

BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BIKING
Transportation is one of the four “thriving”
factors that also affect health outcomes. The
availability of reliable, safe transportation is
critical for residents to access jobs, healthcare,
schools, food, and many other destinations
and services. Besides providing safe, low-stress
facilities for people walking and biking,
improving access to transit stops and stations
is also essential to promoting active and
shared transportation modes.

Walking and bicycling can increase physical
fitness and health, create low- or no-cost
transportation options, provide access to
community-serving destinations like parks,
schools, health care, and shopping, using
an environmentally-friendly transportation
option.

Economics
Active transportation can also provide
economic benefits to communities.

Increasing walking and bicycling can reduce
congestion and parking costs, increase
individual mobility, create vibrant and
welcoming streetscapes, and improve local
businesses' accessibility and visibility.1 The
walking and bicycling environment must
be designed to create safe, comfortable,
and inviting places to walk and bike around
Modesto to foster additional active trips. This
Plan's goals and outcomes lay the foundation
for Modesto to make infrastructure, policy,
and program decisions that build and support
active transportation.
1 Cullen McCormick, “York Blvd: The Economics of a
Road Diet,” (2012)
22 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 367 -
Walking and bicycling
can increase physical
fitness and health using
an environmentally-friendly
transportation option.
23 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION, VISION, GOALS, & POLICIES #13..
- 368 -
CHAPTER 3
Existing Conditions
& Needs Analysis
#13..
- 369 -
Transportation Plan Review
This Non-Motorized Transportation Plan seeks
to build on prior planning efforts to create
a comprehensive and cohesive vision for
walking, biking, and rolling in Modesto. The
following documents were reviewed:
▶ Modesto Urban Area General Plan
▶ Modesto Redevelopment Master Plan
▶ Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (2006)
▶ Complete Streets Safety Assessment
▶ Airport Neighborhood Safe Routes to School
Action Plan
▶ Stanislaus County General Plan
▶ StanCOG Non-Motorized Transportation
Plan
Additional references, including corridor
studies, future transportation projects, specific
plans, and other relevant documents, were
also reviewed.
25 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS & NEEDS ANALYSIS #13..
- 370 -

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Community and
Geographic Context
Modesto, located in north-central Stanislaus
County, has over 215,000 residents (US Census,
American Community Survey 2019). Modesto’s
arterial and collector streets form a grid
network that connects most areas of the city.

However, many residential streets deviate
from the grid and follow a more suburban
development pattern. Modesto is a relatively
flat city with a temperate climate, increasing
the attractiveness of walking, rolling, and
biking.

As a large, expansive city, Modesto has both
neighborhood-serving destinations like
parks and schools in addition to citywide
and regional destinations including Modesto
Junior College, retail areas, and employment
centers. Many neighborhood-serving
destinations are located within or near
residential areas, making these relatively short
trips good candidates for active transportation
instead of driving. Citywide and regional
serving destinations likely require travel
on or across an arterial or collector road.

Infrastructure limitations and barriers can
negatively affect an individual’s propensity
to walk or bike. High-volume roadways, highspeed roadways, railroad tracks, highways, and similar barriers create uncomfortable and
stressful walking and bicycling conditions.

NEEDS ANALYSIS
The following sections will briefly summarize
the Needs Analysis's six components:
demand, connectivity, comfort, safety,
accessibility, and barriers.

Demand
In terms of commute travel demand, about
one-third of Modesto residents live and
work within the City. Ceres and Turlock are
the following two most popular cities for
Modesto residents to commute into and for
those residents to commute into Modesto.

Table 4 displays the top 10 cities residents
commute out to, and cities workers commute
in from, 2018 data. Private automobiles are
the primary means of transportation for
most Modesto workers. About 95% of work
trips are completed by car; 85% of trips are
done by people driving alone. Public transit
and bicycling account for under 1% each of
work trips. Just over 1% of commuters walk
to work and 3% work from home (American
Community Survey, 2019).
26 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS & NEEDS ANALYSIS #13..
- 371 -
Table 4: Commute Origins and Destinations - 2018 Data (US Census) Top 10 Commute Destinations for
Residents (% of residents)
Top 10 Origin Cities for Modesto Workers
(% of workers)
Modesto 34% Modesto 32%
Turlock 5% Ceres 4%
Ceres 5% Stockton 3%
Riverbank 3% Turlock 3%
Manteca 2% San Jose 2%
Stockton 2% Tracy 2%
Oakdale 2% Salida 2%
Salida 2% Manteca 2%
San Jose 1% San Francisco 1%
Tracy 1% Sacramento 1%
COVID-19 has shifted travel patterns and the
necessity of office work for some professions.

These shifts may have medium- to long-term
effects on commute-related transportation.

Residents walk and bike to many destinations
across the City. Many of these destinations
are neighborhood-serving, including
schools, parks, libraries, local stores, and
workplaces. Figure 2 shows many of the major
destinations across Modesto.
27 MODESTO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS & NEEDS ANALYSIS #13..
- 372 -
108
132
219
99 Maze Blvd
H St
Kansas Ave
College Ave
Tully Rd
Coee Rd
Mable Ave
N Carpenter Rd
Oakdale Rd
Prescott Rd
Roselle Ave
Standiford Ave Sylvan Ave
Mount Vernon Dr
Yosemite Blvd
E Briggsmore Ave
Dale Rd
Modesto Virginia Corridor
Sherwood Ave
W Hatch Rd
Sunrise Ave
Bangs Ave
W Roseburg Ave
W Whitmore Ave
E Rumble Rd Kodiak Dr
N 9th St
Encina Ave
Rose Ave
Snyder Ave
Merle Ave
Root Lateral
W Orangeburg Ave
W Briggsmore Ave
Lateral Number 6
W Rumble Rd
SiskRd
Carver Rd
Claus Rd
Floyd Ave State Hwy 99
Pelandale Ave
Scenic Dr
E Orangeburg Ave
State Hwy 132
Amtrak
Station
0 0.55 1.1
MILES
MAJOR

DESTINATIONS

MODESTO

NON-MOTORIZED

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Map produced March 2019.

Destinations +
Boundaries
Transit Hub
Shopping Center
School
Major Employer
College
Hospital
Library
Downtown Zone
City Boundary
Park
Existing Bikeways
Class I Shared-Use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class IIB Bu‡ered Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway
108
132
99 H St
S Jeerson St
Needham St
9th St
14th St
G St
F St
S Madison St
4th St
J St
10th St
15th St
5thSt
13th St
K St
6th St
12th St
11th St
8th St
7th St
I St
State Hwy 99
State Hwy 132
S MortonBlvd
Downtown Zone
Figure 2: Major Destinations
#13..
- 373 -