Modesto City Council
April 7, 2026

Collision Data
Collision data for the Modesto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action plan studies an eight (8)-year collision dataset from 2016-2023, available through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database. TIMS reports injury collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) but excludes collisions that cause property damage only (PDO) and no injuries. When the TIMS dataset was pulled in August 2024, 2022 and 2023 data sets were identified as preliminary data. Although not yet final, these years of collisions were included to show Modesto's most recent trends in collisions.

Geographically, the data includes all collisions within the City of Modesto. The data excludes collisions that occur on limited-access roadways (i.e., freeways) but includes collisions on all other roadways, including State highways and other Caltrans-maintained roadways and privatelymaintained roadways.

While collision databases like TIMS remain the best source of collision data, it has been found to have certain reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking, on bicycles, or on motorcycles are less likely to be reported than collisions with people driving.
• Younger victims are less likely to report collisions. • Alcohol-involved collisions may be underreported.

Collision data may also include bias as reports are based on a number of different factors, such as an officer's perception of the race of those involved, the accuracy of bystander witness reports, and emergency service arrival. However, there is currently limited research on the frequency and effect of reporting biases.

Key Considerations of Collision Data-based Analyses
It is important to note that collision data is inherently limited in two ways:

1. The variables provided on the report form are focused on those that help assign "fault" for the purpose of insurance payouts or criminal proceedings. As such, they are skewed to both behavioral factors and factors associated with the moment of the collision and the receding/subsequent brief periods of time.

2. Contextual elements associated with the collision, including roadway design (those elements both present and not present in the design) and socioeconomic and land use characteristics (the who, where, when, where, and why elements of transportation, many of which are determined hours, years, or decades before the collision) are typically not apparent in collision reports)
#19..
- 534 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Thus, while insights from this analysis are key inputs to understanding the safety issues and opportunities in Modesto, they are not sufficient for understanding or addressing the full scope of safety considerations and interventions.

Collision Landscape Summary
In the past eight years (2016-2023), 9,397 injury collisions were reported in Modesto, as shown in Figure 1. This captures pre- and post-COVID-19 conditions and reflects existing roadway conditions, including any recent street improvements from the past eight years.

Over the last eight years, the data shows an annual average of 1,400 collisions. Of that total number collisions, around seven percent of those collisions resulted in KSIs.

Figure 1: Modesto Injury Collisions from 2016-2023
Notes: 2022 and 2023 data is still preliminary and is subject to change.

Source: TIMS, 2016-2023; Fehr & Peers 2024
1284 1392 1330 1321
1102
1347 1366 1255
87 90 95 106
108
104 91
80 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Collisions
Non KSI Crashes KSI Crashes
#19..
- 535 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

In Modesto, Figure 2 illustrates how crashes involving users not traveling inside of a vehicle, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, are disproportionately vulnerable to severe and fatal outcomes than vehicle-vehicle collisions.

Figure 2: Modesto KSI Collisions by Mode from 2016-2023 Notes: 2022 and 2023 data is still preliminary and is subject to change.

Source: TIMS, 2016-2023; Fehr & Peers 2024
Injury Collisions by Type
Collision types describe how a collision is reported by law enforcement based on the parties involved and generally describe how contact was made between the involved parties, as shown in Figure 3. The top three crash types are further describes as:
• BROADSIDE COLLISIONS are between two vehicles on conflicting paths where the front of one vehicle contacts the side of another
• VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS are any collision involving both a motor vehicle and a pedestrian
• HIT OBJECT COLLISIONS are between a vehicle and a non-vehicular object in or near the roadway
The top three crash types account for 70% of KSI collisions between 2016 and 2023. As expected, collisions associated with higher kinetic energy risk (mass and speed), along with the angle of collision impact (e.g. broadside), tend to have a higher percentage of KSI collisions. 40 46
49 58
55 44
37 31
25 23 22
31 28
24 25 23
10 11 9 9 9
12 10 912 10
15 8
16 25
19 17
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
KSI Collisions
Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
#19..
- 536 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Figure 3: Modesto Shares of Collisions by Collision Type Notes: 2022 and 2023 data is still preliminary and is subject to change.

Source: TIMS, 2016-2023; Fehr & Peers 2024
Primary Collision Factors (PCF)
Primary collision factors (PCFs) are cited by the responding officer and based on their judgment of what contributed to the collisions. PCFs do not include contextual information related to the design of the location that could have been a primary or secondary contributor to the collision, or any upstream factors as noted previously. The most common PCFs in Modesto for KSIs, as shown in Figure 4, are driving under the influence, pedestrian related, vehicle right of way violation, improper turning, traffic signal and signs, and unsafe speeds. • DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE identifies a collision where a driver is found to have been operating a vehicle while impaired by a substance – typically alcohol – in violation of CVC 23152
• PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION refers to incidents where pedestrians are not following a rule of the road. In 2022, the Freedom to Walk Act (AB-2147) was passed, which allows people to cross outside of an intersection without being ticketed, provided there is no immediate danger of a collision occurring. Pedestrian Violations also include pedestrians crossing improperly during the flashing "Don't Walk" or red phase of a signal, pedestrians suddenly leaving the curb, and pedestrians walking in the roadway on the right-hand side of the road.
• VEHICLE RIGHT OF WAY VIOLATION refers to a driver infringing upon the right-of-way of another party or the driver observing their right-of-way improperly. A common citation 237
185
113
65 63
38 31
21 8
0 50
100
150
200
250
KSI Collisions
#19..
- 537 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

under this category is for drivers who do not yield to oncoming traffic during a left turn or U-turn. Other citations include not yielding properly at a stop sign and not yielding when entering a road from a property. While the title specifies vehicle, a vehicle hitting a person on a bicycle and not yielding to pedestrians for right turns on red can also be cited.
• IMPROPER TURNING identifies a collision where a vehicle turns at intersections and off of a road and improper signaling during lane changes. A common citation under this category is for drivers who move left or right on a roadway when it is not safe or without signaling. It also covers drivers making an illegal U-turn, turning from a lane that does not allow turns, or making a turn that is signed as prohibited. • TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SIGNS describes a party not observing the rules of a particular signal or sign. Common citations under the category involve a vehicle not stopping at the limit line or stop bar at a signal or stop sign, respectively, or the crosswalk if neither is present. This includes running red lights. If a vehicle stops but then does not yield properly to another vehicle in the intersection, it is included under the Vehicle Right of Way Violation category.
• UNSAFE SPEED refers to a collision where a party is identified to be traveling “at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of” the roadway, and driving at a speed that endangers others. It does not necessarily imply that someone has driven above the speed limit or that the speed limit is contextually appropriate. Even in collisions where “Unsafe Speed” is not the primary violation type, speed is often a factor in severe and fatal collisions given the exponential role of speed in kinetic energy risk.
#19..
- 538 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Figure 4: Modesto Shares of Collisions by Primary Collision Factors Notes: 2022 and 2023 data is still preliminary and is subject to change. *The "Pedestrian Related" category shown here combines two PCF categories: Pedestrian Violation and Pedestrian Right of Way Violation. The former indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk.

In contrast, the latter indicates the driver of a vehicle violated the pedestrian's right of way. The Pedestrian Violation category may be overrepresented due to a lack of clear information related to collision circumstances and the increased likelihood that the pedestrian party may be unable to provide their side of the incident at the time of the collision. For this reason, we have elected not to show the distinction in these tallies but instead show all pedestrian-related collisions in one single category.

Categories representing fewer than 3% are grouped into "All Others" Source: TIMS, 2016-2023; Fehr & Peers 2024
High Injury Network (HIN) Methodology
HIN Guidance Considerations
The HIN methodology developed for this project is based the Recommendations for California Statewide Guidance for High Injury Networks report from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Challenge Area teams.

HIN Data
Collision Data
The HIN was developed using the eight (8) year collision dataset from 2016-2023, as noted above. 147 147
103
91 89 86
24 17 15 12
30 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
KSI Collisions
#19..
- 539 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Contextual Data
The HIN basemap network is derived from the County of Stanislaus Centerline Feature Class (FC).

The network was clipped using a 250-foot buffer around the City of Modesto Boundary. This is to ensure that roadways that traverse along the edge of the City boundary are considered in the development of the HIN.

Collision Severity Weighting
Collision weighting used two methodologies, but both focus on collision severity as the main collision factor criteria for HIN development. The first methodology (full collision weights) puts a strong emphasis on fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions. This prioritizes segments where these collisions occur. The second methodology (square root collision weights) puts less of an emphasis on KSIs, capturing locations where there are a high number of injury (non-KSI) collisions along a segment and not overstating the role of one-off collisions. Combining these methodologies allows for a comprehensive look at locations with high rates of collision history over the eightyear period.

The first methodology used collision weights derived from the 2024 California Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM) collision costs for each collision severity. This method is similar to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) weighting method but uses the "Complaint of Pain" severity level as its baseline because Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions are not included in the HIN.

Cost assumptions from the 2024 Caltrans LRSM are based on costs included in the HSM First Edition, with costs adjusted to 2024 dollars. The HSM uses "comprehensive" or "societal" collision costs to associate costs with each collision severity level. Comprehensive costs include both economic costs and monetized pain and suffering costs. Economic costs are monetary costs associated with emergency services deployment, medical services, productivity loss due to victim injury, insurance and legal costs, costs as a result of congestion impacts as a result of the collision, and property damage costs. Monetized pain and suffering costs are an assumption of the costs associated with lost quality-of-life (or Quality-Adjusted Life Years [QALY]), accounting for reductions in life expectancy and quality-of-life changes because of a collision. #19..
- 540 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Table 1: Full Collision Weights Approach
Severity Collision Cost Collision Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) $2,860,000* 26
Evident Injury – Other Visible $193,000 2
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain $110,000 1
*The fatal and severe injury (KSI) collision cost is an average of the location type costs (signalized intersections, nonsignalized intersections, roadway). **Rounded to nearest whole number.

The second methodology uses the same cost assumptions from the 2024 Caltrans LRSM detailed above. Similarly, the weight of each collision is based on the most serious injury sustained by any individual involved in the collision. The key difference in this methodology is that the proportions are based on the ratio of the square root of the average cost to society from fatal and serious injury collisions and uses the "Complaint of Pain" severity as its baseline.

Table 2: Square Root Collision Weights Approach
Severity Sq. Rt. Collision Cost Collision Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) $1,691* 5.1
Evident Injury – Other Visible $439 1.3
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain $332 1
*The fatal and severe injury (KSI) collision cost is an average of the location type costs (signalized intersections, nonsignalized intersections, roadway). **Rounded to nearest tenth.

High Injury Network (HIN) Development Methodology
HIN Scoring
Three separate HINs were created using the average of the collision weights mentioned above.

Using these two methodologies, additional factors were analyzed, including the mode involved in the collision and whether a victim is in a vulnerable population. These two factors help to prioritize vulnerable road users into safety considerations further. By applying specific weights to vulnerable road users (those 65 years of age or older or 17 years of age and younger), the analysis identified locations with a high concentration of vulnerable road user collisions even if they do not show a high concentration of KSI collisions.

The cumulative score for a single collision can range from 1 to 32 for the full collision weight and from 1 to 13.4 for the square root collision weight. Table 3 presents the variables and their associated scores. Scores were assigned to roadway segments based on the eight-year collision history for that segment, as noted in the following section. #19..
- 541 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Table 3: HIN Scoring
Variable Value Score (Full Collison
Weight)
Score (Square Root
Collison Weight)
Collision Factors
Collision Severity (factors are mutually exclusive) – applied to collision Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) 0 or 1 26 5.1
Evident Injury – Other Visible 0 or 1 2 1.3
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain 0 or 1 1 1
Additional Factors (factors not mutually exclusive) – applied to collision Mode: involves bicyclist or pedestrian 0 or 1 3 3
Vulnerable population: Injury and fatality
victims age 65+ or 17 and under 0 or 1 3 3
Associating Collisions to Roadways
The following section outlines the major steps of the methodology for associating collisions with roadway segments.
1) Associating collisions to roadway segments: Collisions were associated with roadway segments using a 60-foot roadway segment buffer. Roadways were split into quarter-mile equidistant segments, defined as "windows," shifted every one-tenth of a mile. This is known as the "moving window" method. Collisions within 60' of multiple roadway segments (e.g., at an intersection) were assigned to each segment and were double-counted (applied to each intersecting roadway).
2) Calculate HIN Index: A score for each roadway and/or intersection (known as the HIN Index) was calculated by aggregating the weighted collision factor sum, which was joined to the network in the previous step.
3) HIN Building: The top 95th percentile scoring windows, defined as "high scoring windows", were identified and connected to form the HIN. If the distance between 95th percentile scoring segments was a quarter mile or less and segments had the same roadway name, they were connected. Additionally, if the distance between a 95th percentile scoring segment and the end of the roadway was a quarter mile or less, the segment was extended to the end of the roadway. The result of this step defines HIN "corridors." 4) HIN Check and Refinement: A final check was performed to verify that the HIN accurately incorporates the 95th percentile scoring segment gap threshold into the final HIN. This check involves overlaying high-scoring windows with the HIN corridors and measuring the distances between unclosed gaps to ensure that they exceed the segment gap threshold. Additionally, adjustments to the scoring percentile were made to ensure a desirable KSI capture was achieved without capturing an exorbitant proportion of the City's centerline miles. This #19..
- 542 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

refinement process is built on the foundation of the "Pareto Principle," which states that roughly 80% of outcomes come from 20% of causes, which in HIN terms is translated to 80% of KSI collisions occurring on 20% of roadways. Refinements were made until a 10% or less roadway capture was achieved while still capturing 75% of KSI collisions. 5) Repeat for Bicycle and Pedestrian HINs: The process described in steps 1-4 was repeated for each of the vulnerable road user (VRU) HINs: bicycle and pedestrian. A final HIN for all travel modes was also prepared using injury collisions for all modes.

High Injury Network
The City’s High Injury Network (HIN) identifies and prioritizes roadways with the highest levels of injury collisions. The All Collisions HIN consists of just 7% of the City’s roadway network, but accounts for 66% of the citywide KSI collisions. The Bicycle-Involved HIN consists of 6% of the City’s roadway network, but accounts for 92% of citywide bicycle-involved KSI collisions. The Pedestrian-Involved HIN consists of 7% of the City’s roadway network, but accounts for 87% of citywide pedestrian-involved KSI collisions. All maps are provided below and include an overlay of US DOT’s Equitable Transportation Communities within the City of Modesto.

All HIN networks have concentrations in the downtown area, along Orangeburg Avenue and Yosemite Boulevard as east-west connections, and along Tully Road, McHenry Avenue, and Oakdale Road as north-south connections. For segments that interface with Caltrans-owned facilities, coordination between the City and Caltrans will need to occur for recommendations and implementation of improvements.

Appendix A includes additional details of the three HINs and additional information regarding relationship to Equitable Transportation Communities, distance to a school, roadway classification, and posted speed.
#19..
- 543 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 544 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 545 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 546 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

Safety Profiles
To create Safety Profiles, all modes - collisions involving bicycles, collisions involving pedestrians, and collisions involving motorcycles – and all crashes were reviewed. The inputs from the risk analysis were used to identify locations that were contextually similar to those with a history or collisions involving severe and fatal injuries. By merging adjacent road and intersection features with collision data, relationships were uncovered between contextual factors and the likelihood of frequent and severe collisions. Priority factors identified used a collision counts and KSI severity threshold that is further detailed in Appendix B. The seven Safety Profiles cutsheets were refined and are as follows:

1. Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Near Transit Stops and Within Disadvantaged Communities

2. DUI Overnight Collisions

3. Broadside Collisions at Signalized Major-Minor Intersections

4. Bicycle-Involved Collisions at Intersections Without On-Street Bicycle Facilities

5. Broadside Collisions Near Unsignalized Intersections Involving Bicycles

6. Bicycle and Pedestrian-Involved Collisions at Signalized Intersections Downtown

7. Midblock Overnight Hit Object Collisions
The Safety Profile cutsheets include the following information:
• Description and associated information about each profile such number of total collisions or vulnerable road user KSI collisions
• A map of the intersections or corridors where collisions have occurred (note that profiles are not mutually exclusive; collisions can fall under multiple profiles, and totals will exceed 100%)
• Potential primary and secondary countermeasures to address the risk factors associated with the safety profiles
The countermeasures included in each Safety Profile are not intended to be a comprehensive list.

Key roadway design countermeasures applicable to address the focus areas were included to align with the Safe System Design Hierarchy, which focuses on eliminating conflicts, reducing speed, separating users in space and time, and increasing awareness.

Countermeasures in the Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (April 2024) includes a collision reduction factor (CRF) that helps decision makers understand the anticipated decrease in collisions after implementing the countermeasure. The CRF is included for each Safety Profile when available.

Engineering countermeasures are tools to enhance safety and can range from quick-build demonstration projects to larger improvements such as the installation of a roundabout. Higher #19..
- 547 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

cost countermeasures typically require longer planning and design processes and thus have a higher associated cost. They may also require right-of-way acquisition and supplemental grant funding. Lower cost countermeasures assume that sufficient right-of-way is available, can be implemented as part of near-term, planned projects such as repaving projects.

Next Steps
We recognize that the Safety Profiles prepared for the project used historic crash data and are reactive in nature. As a next step in the project process, the Safety Profiles will be overlayed with the high risk network, public comment heat maps, and other data sources to prepare a list of proactive intersections and corridors for safety enhancements throughout the City. #19..
- 548 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 549 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 550 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 551 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 552 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 553 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 554 -
Max Navarro | City of Modesto
March 18, 2025

#19..
- 555 -

Appendix A
The overall statistics for the HINs include:
• All Collisions: 7% of Modesto’s roadways account for 66% of citywide KSI collisions o Within an ETC: 79% of the All Collisions HIN
o Within 0.25 Miles of a School: 20% of the All Collisions HIN o Roadway Classification: 85% of the All Collisions HIN is on a major or minor arterial
o Posted Speed: 50% of the All Collisions HIN is on roadways with a posted speed of 35 or 45 miles per hour
• Bicycle-Involved Collisions: 6% of Modesto’s roadways account for 92% of citywide bicycle-involved KSI collisions
o Within an ETC: 82% of the Bicycle Collisions HIN
o Within 0.25 Miles of a School: 22% of the Bicycle Collisions HIN o Roadway Classification: 70% of the Bicycle Collisions HIN is on a major or minor arterial
o Posted Speed: 50% of the Bicycle Collisions HIN is on roadways with a posted speed of 35 or 45 miles per hour
• Pedestrian-Involved Collisions: 7% of Modesto’s roadways account of 87% of citywide pedestrian-involved KSI collisions
o Within an ETC: 81% of the Pedestrian Collisions HIN
o Within 0.25 Miles of a School: 29% of the Pedestrian Collisions HIN o Roadway Classification: 64% of the Pedestrian Collisions HIN is on a major or minor arterial
o Posted Speed: 55% of the Pedestrian Collisions HIN is on roadways with a posted speed of 30 miles per hour or lower
#19..
- 556 -

Appendix B
The collision analysis was used to develop a list of profiles which are disproportionately reflected in collision records. The initial refinement of profiles used a collision count and KSI severity threshold as follows:
• Profiles involving All Modes:
o Minimum collision/contextual pair count: 50
o KSI % share of collision/contextual count: 20% (3x the KSI % citywide) • Profiles involving Pedestrians:
o Minimum collision/contextual pair count: 10
o KSI % share of collision/contextual count: 50% (2x the KSI % citywide) • Profiles involving Bicycles:
o Minimum collision/contextual pair count: 10
o KSI % share of collision/contextual count: 30% (3x the KSI % citywide) • Profiles involving Motorcycles:
o Minimum collision/contextual pair count: 10
o KSI % share of collision/contextual count: 50% (2x the KSI % citywide) #19..
- 557 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 Modesto, CA
To: Max Navarro, City of Modesto
From: David Wasserman, Cyrus Chimento, Les Brown, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 10, 2025
Re: Risk Factor Analysis Memorandum
Systemic Safety Analysis
Enabling safe systems requires a proactive understanding of the geographic distribution of roadway safety risks in the broader mobility system. In systemic safety analysis, risk factors are contextual characteristics or exposures associated with an increased likelihood of harm from a collision. Risk is conventionally defined as the magnitude of the consequences of some event multiplied by its probability. Within transportation safety, risk often references the probability of a collision of a given severity per unit of exposure. While Alta did not compute actual probabilities of events per unit of exposure, we refer to risk as the association of specific contextual characteristics to historical propensities for severe collisions per centerline mile of that contextual characteristic.

This memo documents Alta’s proactive safety analysis approach, which evaluated risk factors based on existing travel network data and other contextual data. The analysis includes the evaluation of vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian risk factors, including available data regarding the number of lanes of streets, posted speed limits, types of bicycle facilities, built environment context, distance between crossing opportunities, and intersection characteristics such as traffic control types and signal presence. Where data was missing, Alta imputed values based on characteristics such as functional classification to fill data gaps. This process involved creating a centerline (segmented by intersection type), associating the contextual characteristics of each segment with crashes that occurred on it, computing the ratio of crash severity (using Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) weights) to road network length for each contextual characteristic, providing a measure of risk associated with each contextual characteristic. Alta then aggregated these measures of risk associated with each contextual characteristic for each roadway centerline segment to create a network-wide risk index.

Summary of Findings
This section highlights key findings and provides several recommendations to inform road safety planning. Additional findings are presented in the Results section.

Highlighted Findings
• Contextual factors associated with risk were similar across modes. • Roadways with the following characteristics were associated with higher collision risk:
o More lanes (starting at three or more lanes) and higher traffic volumes (starting at 9,000 AADT or more)
o Signalized intersections with major roads
o Roadways located in commercial areas (high and low intensity). These tended to be arterials with commercial activity along their length or that approached or connected commercial centers. #19..
- 558 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 Modesto, CA
• Some contextual factors (posted speed limit, crossing spacing, bikeway class, and sidewalk presence) exhibit counterintuitive risk trends, likely due to proxies for bicycling and walking exposure.

Relevance to Planning Recommendations
• Agreement of risk factors across modes provides a clear basis for proactively targeting safety interventions. • The geography of risk (i.e., risky corridors along or between commercial areas) highlights an opportunity to increase accessibility to destinations and reduce risk simultaneously by implementing better biking and walking environments, benefiting all modes.
• This analysis did not factor in biking and walking exposure when analyzing risk. Improving biking and walking conditions will likely increase biking and walking exposure – post-implementation analysis should use measures of bicyclist and pedestrian exposure in order to better understand risk and analyze the safety benefits of interventions. For example, the City may wish to establish a count program in high-risk corridors to measure changes in utilization before and after implementation and to collect exposure data to inform future risk analyses.

Contextual Data Review
Alta reviewed available datasets and used the following contextual data for its analysis. Table 1 identifies a series of datasets, their sources, and the modes applicable to each risk factor.

Table 1. Table of Risk Factor Data Sources and Risk Factors by Mode Contextual Data Vehicle
Risk Factor
Bicycle
Risk Factor
Pedestrian
Risk Factor Data Source
Lanes X X X
City of Modesto
Posted Speed X X X
City of Modesto

ADT/AADT X X X
City of Modesto, Replica
Bike Facilities X
City of Modesto
Sidewalk Presence X
City of Modesto
Crossing Spacing X X
City of Modesto
Traffic Signals X X X
City of Modesto
Intersection Type X X X
City of Modesto
Zoning X X X
City of Modesto
Gross Activity Density* X X X Smart Location Database
*Measured as Jobs + Housing Units per Acre
**Bolded means the factor was used in the risk factor heatmaps. Blanks indicate the factor was not evaluated for that mode. #19..
- 559 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 Modesto, CA
Methodology
The risk analysis methodology applied took the following steps, as shown in the flow chart below (Figure 1):

1. Load Contextual Attributes to Modesto Roadway Centerline • Used the citywide road centerline data for Modesto, ensuring comprehensive coverage of streets, highways, and relevant pathways.

Process Divided Roadways:
• Identified all divided roadways based on available lane data (e.g., road type or number of lanes). • Doubled Lane Count: For divided roadways, double the lane count to reflect the total vehicle-carrying capacity for those segments.
• Halved Lengths: For tabulations and spatial analyses, adjust the length of divided roadway segments by halving their original length to avoid skewed results.

Tag & Segment Intersections/Signals On Network:
• Identified Major-Minor roads based on Caltrans Functional Classification system. Any facility that was a minor arterial, principal arterial, or expressway was considered a major road, while collectors and local streets were considered minor.
• Buffered all intersections by 50 feet where minor-minor roads meet, 75 feet where major-minor roads meet, and 125 feet where major-major roads meet.
• Used the buffered areas to link intersection data to nearby road centerline segments, marking the presence of intersections as a contextual factor for analysis.
• Anywhere buffers overlapped and were associated with more than one intersection, segments were split in half for accurate associations.
• Conflated presence of traffic signals to segments based on the intersecting spatial relationship between the centerline network segment and traffic signals data layer.

Conflate Contextual Data Based on Centroid Relationships:
• Identified each centerline segment centroid and established spatial relationships with relevant contextual datasets (e.g., land use, roadway context, active transportation networks). • Conflated attributes (e.g., speed limit, traffic volume, zoning, activity density, sidewalk presence, etc.) based on the nearest spatial relationship between the centerline segment’s centroid and the contextual data layer.

2. Associate Contextual Attributes on the Centerline to Collision Data • Spatially joined the collision data with the centerline segments, using a nearest distance approach to assign collisions to the nearest centerline segment.
• Conflated the contextual attributes identified in Step 1 (lane counts, traffic signals, speed limits, etc.) with the collision data to facilitate further analysis.

3. Tabulate Collisions by Mode to KSI, Non-KSI, and EPDO Weighted Totals • Identified KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) and Non-KSI (minor or no injury) collisions in preparation for tabulation. • Calculated the EPDO (Equivalent Property Damage Only) score for each collision using only the High Injury Network’s severity index weighting scheme (Table 2). This analysis did not use the additional weights for vulnerable road users or specific demographics that were used in the HIN. #19..
- 560 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 Modesto, CA
Table 2. Equivalent Property Damage Only weighting scheme based on crash severity.

Collision Severity Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Weight Fatal & Severe Injury Collision (KSI) 26
Evident Injury/Other Visible 2
Possible Injury/Complaint of Pain 1

4. Tabulate the Percentage of EPDO-Weighted Collisions by Contextual Factor Category • Calculated the total EPDO-weighted collisions (weighted using Table 2) associated with each contextual factor category (e.g., road segments with specific intersection types or segments within specific speed limit thresholds). • Expressed the EPDO-weighted collisions associated with each contextual factor category as a percentage of the total EPDO-weighted collisions across the network, which allows for the identification of contextual factors that disproportionately contribute to higher collision severity.

5. Tabulate the Percentage of Network Length Each Contextual Factor Category Represents • Calculated the total length of road segments associated with each contextual factor category (e.g., road segments with specific intersection types and segments within specific speed limit thresholds). • Expressed the network length associated with each contextual factor category as a percentage of the total network length for comparative analysis against the EPDO-weighted collision totals.

6. Compute Risk Ratios
• For each qualifying contextual factor category (e.g., road segments with specific intersection types, segments within specific speed limit thresholds), computed a risk ratio, defined as the proportion of EPDO-weighted collisions that occur where a characteristic is present divided by the proportion of the entire road network where the characteristic exists.
• This ratio highlights which contextual factor categories have a higher concentration of risk relative to their centerline mileage. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that the EPDO-weighted collisions where that characteristic is present is disproportionately larger relative to the characteristic’s centerline mileage (“higher risk”) and a ratio less than 1 indicates that the severity-weighted collisions where that characteristic is present is disproportionately smaller relative to the characteristic’s centerline mileage (“lower risk”).

7. Classify Risk Factors into Tier 1 and Tier 2 and Assign Risk Scores • Identified the top two riskiest categories for each contextual factor based on the risk ratio. o Tier 1 Risk Factors: The top-ranking riskiest category within each contextual factor. Assigned 3 points for a final risk index per mode.
o Tier 2 Risk Factors: The second highest ranking risky category within each contextual factor. Assigned 1 point for a final risk index per mode.

8. Aggregate Risk Scores for Each Network Segment to Develop Risk Index • Assessed whether each contextual factor was relevant to include in a final risk index. Alta selected five contextual risk factors per mode by evaluating on the following criteria:
o Relevance to mode: for example, crossing distance is not directly relevant to motor vehicle driver risk so would not be included in the risk index for motor vehicles; o Magnitude of risk ratios: for example, all else being equal, Alta would choose a factor where the risk ratios of the riskiest categories in each factor were higher; #19..
- 561 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 Modesto, CA
o Alignment with existing safety literature: for example, a ratio trend that indicated higher risk for pedestrians where sidewalks were more complete did not align with existing safety literature and were excluded.
• For each mode, all Tier 1 and Tier 2 risk points were summed for an aggregated risk score (Risk Index) for each road segment in the centerline dataset, using the five contextual risk factors Alta chose. • The Risk Index provides a comprehensive risk profile across the network, with segment-level scores identifying segments with a collection of contextual factors associated with existing high-risk facilities. • The following scenario provides an example road segment risk score that combines two risk factors (number of lanes and speed limit):
o Lanes Tier 1 Factor – 5+ Lanes (3 points)
o Lanes Tier 2 Factor – 3-4 Lanes (1 point)
o Speed Limit Tier 1 Factor – 40+ MPH (3 points)
o Speed Limit Tier 2 Factor – 35 MPH (1 point)
• A road segment that has 3-4 lanes and a speed limit of 40 MPH would be assigned four points (out of six possible points) for these two factors. If there were more tiered categories from a different contextual factor present on the segment, they would also be included into the aggregated risk score for that roadway segment. #19..
- 562 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 Modesto, CA
Figure 1. This Flow chart identifies the major steps and deliverables from the risk factor analysis. #19..
- 563 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 Modesto, CA
Results
Alta defines the risk of a contextual roadway characteristic in this analysis through a risk ratio (see Methodology, Step 6): the proportion of severity-weighted collisions (using EPDO weights, see Table 2) that occur where a characteristic is present divided by the proportion of the entire road network where the characteristic exists. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that the EPDO-weighted collisions where that characteristic is present is disproportionately larger relative to the characteristic’s centerline mileage (which Alta calls “higher risk”) and a ratio less than 1 indicates that the severity-weighted collisions where that characteristic is present is disproportionately smaller relative to the characteristic’s centerline mileage (“lower risk”). Alta found that:
• Across all modes, roadways with more lanes, higher traffic volumes, signalized intersections with major roads, and roadways in commercial areas were associated with a higher risk of higher severity collisions. • For bicyclists and pedestrians, roadways posted at 30-35 MPH were associated with higher risk than higher posted speed limits (+40 MPH).
• In contrast, roadways with higher speed limits (+40 MPH) were associated with higher risk for motor vehicle collisions.
• Roadways with medium crossing spacing were associated with greater risk for bicyclists and pedestrians than those with lower or higher crossing spacing.
• Roadways without separated facilities were associated with a higher risk for bicyclists. • There was greater collision risk for pedestrians on roadways with more complete sidewalks and higher activity densities.

We explore these results in detail below.

Risk Factor Review
Motor vehicle only, bicycle, and pedestrian collisions were ultimately tabulated against the following contextual risk factors:
• Number of Lanes
• Speed Limit
• Traffic volume (AADT)
• Bikeway Class
• Sidewalk Status
• Crossing Spacing
• Intersection Type and Traffic Signals
• Zoning
• Gross Activity Density
For motor vehicle-only collisions, Alta qualitatively identified the number of lanes, speed limit, AADT, intersection type, traffic signals, and zoning as key contextual risk factors based on the concentrations of severe collisions associated with them.
#19..
- 564 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 Modesto, CA
For bicycle collisions, Alta qualitatively identified speed limit, AADT, bikeway class, intersection type, traffic signals, and zoning as key contextual risk factors based on the concentrations of severe collisions associated with them.

For pedestrian collisions, Alta qualitatively identified speed limit, AADT, crossing spacing, intersection type, traffic signals, and zoning as key contextual risk factors based on the concentrations of severe collisions associated with them.

Number of Lanes
This factor represents the number of through-lanes of a roadway segment. Across all modes, segments with five or more lanes were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, and segments with 3 to 4 lanes were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. Cross-tabulation results by mode are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Number of lanes contextual risk factor tabulations.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor:

Number of
Lanes
Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
5+ Lanes 7 30 456 7 28 15 18
3-4 Lanes 92 222 4451 33 291 98 285
<=2 Lanes 665 230 3541 39 253 88 314
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Speed Limit
This factor represents the posted speed limit of a roadway segment. Across all modes, segments with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network. For motor vehicle drivers, 40+ MPH segments were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions, and 30 MPH segments for bicyclists and pedestrians. Cross-tabulation results by mode are shown in Table

4. #19..
- 565 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 Modesto, CA
Table 4. Posted speed limit contextual risk factor tabulations.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor:

Posted
Speed Limit
Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
40+ MPH 99 206 2909 22 147 56 118
35 MPH 37 79 1409 21 135 54 121
30 MPH 49 57 1484 20 123 33 133
<=25 MPH 578 140 2646 16 167 58 245
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

AADT
This factor represents the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of a roadway segment. Across all modes, segments with vehicle AADT greater than or equal to 15,000 were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, and segments with vehicle AADT between 9,000 and 15,000 were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. AADT is, by definition, a measure of exposure for vehicle collisions and also an important consideration for bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Cross-tabulation results by mode are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. AADT contextual risk factor tabulations.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor: AADT Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
AADT >15k 63 205 3745 35 270 93 247
AADT 9k-15k 27 55 1272 10 69 17 74
AADT <9k 674 222 3431 34 233 91 296
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Bikeway Class
This factor represents the presence and classification (using California DOT’s classification schema) of bike facilities on a roadway segment. Segments with Class II bikeways (Bike Lanes) were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, and segments with Class III bikeways (Bike Routes) were #19..
- 566 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 Modesto, CA
associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. We separated some segments into an additional category – “Residential Street,” outside the California DOT classification schema – if they met the following criteria: a Major Collector located in a land use zone designated for residential development (Single Family Residential or Multifamily Residential). These segments were associated with the fewest severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network. Cross-tabulation results for bicycle collisions only are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Bikeway class contextual risk factor tabulations, for bicycle collisions only.

Factor: Bikeway Class Factor Mileage KSI Collisions Non-KSI Collisions 4 (Separated Bikeways) 13 1 12
3 (Bike Route) 80 31 182
2 (Bike Lane) 62 24 170
1 (Bike Path) 62 6 76
Residential Street 546 17 132
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Sidewalk Presence
This factor represents the presence of sidewalks along a roadway segment. Segments with sidewalks on both sides of the street (“Complete”) were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, while segments with incomplete sidewalks or sidewalks missing on one side were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. We separated some segments into an additional category – “Residential Street” – if they met the following criteria: a Major Collector located in a land use zone designated for residential development (Single Family Residential or Multifamily Residential). The results for this risk factor imply sidewalks induce pedestrian risk, but this is contrary to available safety literature that identifies the role of sidewalks in reducing vehicular-pedestrian conflicts. Based on these results, it is likely the sidewalks are a proxy for pedestrian exposure rather than an underlying risk factor, comparable to the results for unseparated bikeways (Table 6). For this reason, Alta chose not to use this risk factor in the final risk index calculation. Cross-tabulation results for pedestrian collisions only are shown in Table 7.
#19..
- 567 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 Modesto, CA
Table 7. Sidewalk status contextual risk factor tabulations, for pedestrian collisions only.

Factor: Sidewalk Status Factor Mileage KSI Collisions Non-KSI Collisions Incomplete or Missing on Both Sides 84 17 29
Incomplete or Missing on One Side 38 24 49
Complete 95 115 370
Residential Street 546 45 169
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Crossing Spacing
This factor represents the distance between pedestrian-marked crossings on a roadway. For both bicyclist and pedestrian collisions, segments with crossings between 600 and 1320 feet apart were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network and segments with crossings over 1320 feet apart were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. We reclassified segments as having crossings 0 to 600 feet apart if they met the following criteria: a Major Collector located in a land use zone designated for residential development (Single Family Residential or Multifamily Residential). Cross-tabulation results for bicycle and pedestrian collisions only are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Crossing spacing contextual risk factor tabulations, for bicycle and pedestrian collisions only.

Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor: Crossing Spacing Factor Mileage KSI Collisions Non-KSI Collisions KSI Collisions Non-KSI Collisions +1320 Feet 145 33 187 63 129
600-1320 Feet 40 20 124 55 130
0-600 Feet 579 26 261 83 358
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Intersection Type & Traffic Signals
This factor represents segments that approach an intersection by the classifications of roadways that make up the intersection and whether the intersection is signalized. Across all modes, segments approaching a signalized intersection between major roadways were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, and segments approaching a signalizing intersection between one major and one minor roadway were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. The Factor Mileage for this factor only includes intersection approaches, not midblock segments. Cross-tabulation results by mode are shown in Table 9. #19..
- 568 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 Modesto, CA
In addition, we calculated a supplementary tabulation for risk at intersections to illustrate the relative risk associated with signalization versus roundabouts. Roundabouts were associated with 4-6 times fewer severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their network share than signalized intersections (Table 10). However, the sample size of roundabouts is too small of a proportion of the overall network to draw definitive conclusions, and this risk factor was not included in the risk index.

Table 9. Intersection type and traffic signalization contextual risk factor tabulations.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor: Intersection
Type & Traffic Signal
Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
Major-Major W-Signal 5 64 1331 7 75 15 83
Major-Major 2 15 256 0 11 0 7
Minor-Major W-Signal 9.1 74 1600 9 98 26 138
Minor-Major 31.1 97 1974 21 147 50 133
Minor-Minor W-Signal 0.1 1 7 0 1 0 0
Minor-Minor 117.2 47 910 16 96 20 95
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Table 10. Supplementary tabulation for traffic signals and roundabouts. Due to the small sample size of roundabouts, this tabulation was not included in the risk index but is provided here to illustrate the risk potential of roundabouts relative to signalized intersections.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor:

Signals
Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
Signal 14 139 2936 16 174 41 221
Roundabout 2 5 80 0 14 2 5
No Signal 148 155 3079 37 243 68 231
Midblock 601 183 2353 26 141 90 160
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2. #19..
- 569 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 Modesto, CA
Zoning
This factor represents the type of land use zone a segment is located in. Alta consolidated zoning designations into similar groupings for the purposes of the risk analysis (Appendix B: Zoning Category Consolidation, Table 28). For motor vehicle and bike collisions, segments located in low-intensity commercial zones were associated with the most severity-weighted collisions in proportion to their share of the network, and segments located in high-intensity commercial zones were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. For pedestrian collisions, this ranking was flipped. Cross-tabulation results by mode are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Zoning contextual risk factor tabulations.

Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Factor: Zoning Factor
Mileage
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
Single Family Residential 430 165 2337 24 170 49 144
Multifamily Residential 62 46 1216 12 79 34 116
Low-Intensity Commercial 27 50 1436 12 102 24 132
High-Intensity Commercial 16 27 646 6 43 21 47
Industrial 31 50 544 2 48 14 43
Other 197 144 2269 23 130 59 135
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Gross Activity Density
This factor represents the measurement of gross activity density (jobs + housing units per acre) of the area in which a segment is located. Segments in an area with gross activity density over 20 were associated with the most severityweighted collisions in proportion to their network share. Segments in an area with gross activity density between 12 and 20 were associated with the second most severity-weighted collisions. Cross-tabulation results for pedestrian collisions only are shown in Table 12.
#19..
- 570 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 Modesto, CA
Table 12. Gross Activity Density contextual risk factor tabulations for pedestrian collisions only.

Factor: Gross Activity Density Factor Mileage KSI Collisions Non-KSI Collisions 20+ Activity Density 25 16 98
12-20 Activity Density 16 6 17
8-12 Activity Density 113 30 114
4-8 Activity Density 428 109 323
0-4 Activity Density 181 40 65
Notes
Red highlight indicates a Tier 1 Risk Factor, and Orange Indicates a Tier 2.

Risk Index
The risk index is an aggregated measure of risk for a roadway segment based on multiple contextual factors. The risk ratio functions at the level of an individual roadway characteristic (e.g., the categories of posted speed limit each have a ratio): we use it to compare risk between categories and assign point values to the riskiest categories. We then create the risk index by summing the point values for a specified set of contextual risk factors at the segment level.

Assembling this segment-level risk index across the entire network allows us to visualize the location of higher risk for different modes.

Vehicle Risk Index
The map showing Modesto’s Vehicle Collision Risk index is shown in Figure 2. This map identifies where there are facilities that include a collection of risk factors that are associated with high-severity vehicle collisions regardless of collision history in that location. Several corridors stand out as having a particularly high-risk index for motor vehicle collisions. These locations include:
• 9
th Street through downtown
• McHenry Avenue/Route 108 along its whole length but particularly approaching its intersection with Sylvan Avenue
• Yosemite Boulevard/Route 132 along its whole length, particularly just outside downtown. #19..
- 571 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 Modesto, CA
Figure 2. Vehicle-Only Collisions Risk Index
#19..
- 572 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 Modesto, CA
Pedestrian Risk Index
The map showing Modesto’s Pedestrian Collision Risk index is shown in Figure 3. This map identifies where there are facilities that include a collection of risk factors that are associated with high-severity pedestrian collisions regardless of collision history in that location. Several corridors stand out as having a particularly high-risk index for pedestrian collisions. These locations include:
• West Orangeburg Avenue starting at Martin Avenue, continuing onto West Briggsmore Avenue, and onto Prescott Road
• McHenry Avenue/Route 108 along its whole length but particularly approaching its intersection with Sylvan Avenue
• Yosemite Boulevard/Route 132 along its whole length but particularly approaching its intersection with La Loma Avenue
#19..
- 573 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 Modesto, CA
Figure 3. Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Risk Index
#19..
- 574 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 Modesto, CA
Bicycle Risk Index
The map showing Modesto’s Bicycle Collision Risk index is shown in Figure 4. This map identifies where there are facilities that include a collection of risk factors that are associated with high-severity bicycle collisions regardless of collision history in that location. Several corridors stand out as having a particularly high-risk index for bicyclist collisions. These locations include:
• Blue Gum Avenue from the city boundary to North Carpenter Road • 9th Street through downtown Prescott Road between West Briggsmore Avenue and Standiford Avenue • Tully Road along its whole length, but particularly approaching its intersections with West Briggsmore Avenue and West Orangeburg Avenue
• El Vista Avenue from Yosemite Boulevard to Scenic Drive • McHenry Avenue/State Route 108 along its whole length, but particularly approaching its intersection with Sylvan Avenue1
1 McHenry Avenue/State Route 108 is under State jursidction. #19..
- 575 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 Modesto, CA
Figure 4. Bicycle-Involved Collisions Risk Index
#19..
- 576 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 Modesto, CA
Discussion & Synthesis
The results of the Systemic Safety Analysis demonstrate that there are types of roadway contexts that clearly present a higher risk for collision than others, which the City of Modesto can target proactively for safety improvements. Across all modes, roadways with more lanes (starting at three or more lanes) and higher traffic volumes (starting at 9,000 AADT or more), signalized intersections with major roads, and roadways located in commercial areas (high and low intensity) were associated with higher risk of collision.

Contextual factors associated with risk were similar across modes. Accordingly, there was a similarity in the types of corridors that resulted in high-risk index values. Typically, higher-risk roadways in the City of Modesto are arterials with commercial activity along their length or that approach or connect commercial centers. While the results highlight several corridors with the highest risk index for each mode, similar corridors are found across the City of Modesto. Further evaluation may be needed on a case-by-case basis to prioritize and make recommendations for corridors identified as highrisk. This analysis should identify the most appropriate countermeasures based on the unique characteristics of that corridor.

The results also indicated that roadway context affects user behavior. While higher speed limits (+40 MPH) were associated with higher risk for motor vehicle collisions, roadways with posted speed limits of 30-35 MPH were associated with higher risk for bicyclists and pedestrians. This likely illustrates differences in exposure across roadways with different speed limits:
a bicyclist or pedestrian might choose to use a 30-35 MPH speed limit roadway but not see a +40 MPH speed limit roadway as an option, leading to less usage by bicyclists and pedestrians on higher speed roadways, resulting in fewer collisions in those contexts. Similarly, the Crossing Spacing risk factor shows that medium crossing spacing (600-1,320 feet) is associated with more severe bicyclist and pedestrian collisions than high crossing spacing (+1,320 feet), which may be a large enough distance that it deters bicyclists and pedestrians from using roadways with that context.

This effect may also work in the opposite causal direction in the Bikeway Class and Sidewalk Status risk factors, where the presence of unseparated bikeways or sidewalks might attract a bicyclist or pedestrian to use a roadway even if its other context does not support walking and biking, increasing exposure, and resulting in more collisions.

These results provide a proactive understanding of where safety risks exist in Modesto’s mobility system, driven by existing data about the roadway network and its context. This understanding will allow the City to take action to prevent highseverity crashes.

Limitations
This analysis evaluated how different contextual risk factors relate to collision histories in the City of Modesto, but this analysis has a few limitations worth considering:
• Lack of Exposure Data: The analysis does not account for the volume of pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles using each segment, leading to an incomplete understanding of relative risk. While the study included vehicle AADT information, it did not include bicycle and pedestrian volumes comprehensively across the City of Modesto. As a result, exposure is indirectly revealed through proxies such as total network mileage and the presence of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• Indirect Risk Representation: Some variables evaluated might act as proxies for exposure. Sidewalk presence was not selected as a risk factor for pedestrians, for example, because there was some evidence that more people walk where there are appropriate sidewalks for use.
#19..
- 577 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 Modesto, CA
• Risk Categorization Process: The risk categorization process simplifies complex relationships by grouping characteristics into categories (e.g., less than or equal to 2 lanes, 3-4 lanes, 5+ lanes). While this makes the analysis results more legible, it may not fully capture the complexity or interactive nature of the risk factors. Even with carefully chosen thresholds (based on sensitivity analysis from iteratively running the analysis with different categorization thresholds), categorization still has inherent limitations because it can obscure details or patterns in the data.
#19..
- 578 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 Modesto, CA
Appendix A: Risk Ratio Calculation Tables
The tables in this appendix show the calculation of Risk Ratios in more detail. Alta calculated the total length of road segments associated with each contextual factor category (Factor Mileage), expressed the network length associated with each contextual factor category as a percentage of the total network length (Network Length Percent), calculated the total KSI and non-KSI collisions associated with each contextual factor category (KSI Collisions and Non-KSI Collisions), multiplied KSI and non-KSI collisions by EPDO collision severity weights and expressed weighted collisions as a percentage of the total EPDO-weighted collisions (EPDO Collision Percent), then computed a risk ratio, defined as the percentage of EPDOweighted collisions to the percentage of the network length (Collision Percent to Length Percent Ratio). These risk ratios indicate how concentrated severe collisions are for each contextual characteristic, with a number > 1 indicating higher relative risk as defined as EPDO-weighted collisions relative to network length, and a number < 1 indicating lower relative risk as defined as EPDO-weighted collisions relative to network length.

Motor Vehicle
Table 13. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for AADT risk factor’s influence in motor vehicle collisions.

Factor: AADT Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Vehicle ADT >15,000 63 8.2% 205 3745 43.2% 5.2
Vehicle ADT 9,000-15,000 27 3.6% 55 1272 13.2% 3.6
Vehicle ADT <9,000 674 88.1% 222 3431 43.6% 0.5
Table 14. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for intersection type and signalization risk factor’s influence in motor vehicle collisions.

Factor: Intersection Type and
Signalization
Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Major-Major W-Signal 5 3.0% 64 1331 21.3% 7.0
Major-Major 2 1.2% 15 256 4.7% 3.9
Minor-Major W-Signal 9.1 5.5% 74 1600 25.6% 4.6
Minor-Major 31.1 18.9% 97 1974 32.6% 1.7
Minor-Minor W-Signal 0.1 0.1% 1 7 0.2% 3.4
Minor-Minor 117.2 71.2% 47 910 15.5% 0.2
#19..
- 579 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 Modesto, CA
Table 15. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for number of lanes risk factor’s influence in motor vehicle collisions.

Factor: Number of Lanes Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
5+ Lanes 7 0.9% 30 456 5.8% 6.1
3-4 Lanes 92 12.1% 222 4451 48.9% 4.1
<=2 Lanes 665 87.0% 230 3541 45.3% 0.5
Table 16. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for posted speed limit risk factor’s influence in motor vehicle collisions.

Factor: Posted Speed Limit Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
40+ MPH 99 13.0% 206 2909 38.7% 3.0
35 MPH 37 4.9% 79 1409 16.6% 3.4
30 MPH 49 6.5% 57 1484 14.6% 2.2
<=25 MPH 578 75.5% 140 2646 30.2% 0.4
Table 17. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for zoning risk factor’s influence in motor vehicle collisions.

Factor: Zoning Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Single Family Residential 430 56.3% 165 2337 31.5% 0.6
Multifamily Residential 62 8.1% 46 1216 11.8% 1.4
Low Intensity Commercial 27 3.5% 50 1436 13.3% 3.8
High Intensity Commercial 16 2.2% 27 646 6.5% 2.9
Industrial 31 4.1% 50 544 8.4% 2.1
Other 197 25.8% 144 2269 28.5% 1.1
#19..
- 580 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 24 Modesto, CA
Bicycle
Table 18. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for AADT risk factor’s influence in bicycle collisions.

Factor: AADT Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Vehicle ADT >15,000 63 8.2% 35 270 45.0% 5.5
Vehicle ADT 9,000-15,000 27 3.6% 10 69 12.5% 3.4
Vehicle ADT <9,000 674 88.1% 34 233 42.5% 0.5
Table 19. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for intersection type and signalization risk factor’s influence in bicycle collisions.

Factor: Intersection Type and
Signalization
Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Major-Major W-Signal 5 3.0% 7 75 14.4% 4.7
Major-Major 2 1.2% 0 11 0.7% 0.6
Minor-Major W-Signal 9.1 5.5% 9 98 18.8% 3.4
Minor-Major 31.1 18.9% 21 147 37.8% 2.0
Minor-Minor W-Signal 0.1 0.1% 0 1 0.1% 1.5
Minor-Minor 117.2 71.2% 16 96 28.2% 0.4
Table 20. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for posted speed limit risk factor’s influence in bicycle collisions.

Factor: Posted Speed Limit Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
40+ MPH 99 13.0% 22 147 26.8% 2.1
35 MPH 37 4.9% 21 135 25.7% 5.2
30 MPH 49 6.5% 20 123 24.4% 3.8
<=25 MPH 578 75.5% 16 167 23.2% 0.3
#19..
- 581 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 25 Modesto, CA
Table 21. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for bikeway class risk factor’s influence in bicycle collisions.

Factor: Bikeway Class Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
4 13 1.7% 1 12 1.5% 0.9
3 80 10.6% 31 182 37.1% 3.5
2 62 8.2% 24 170 29.8% 3.6
1 62 8.1% 6 76 9.3% 1.2
Residential Street 546 71.4% 17 132 22.2% 0.3
Table 22. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for zoning risk factor’s influence in bicycle collisions.

Factor: Zoning Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Single Family Residential 430 56.3% 24 170 30.5% 0.5
Multifamily Residential 62 8.1% 12 79 14.9% 1.8
Low Intensity Commercial 27 3.5% 12 102 15.7% 4.4
High Intensity Commercial 16 2.2% 6 43 7.5% 3.4
Industrial 31 4.1% 2 48 4.4% 1.1
Other 197 25.8% 23 130 27.0% 1.0
#19..
- 582 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 26 Modesto, CA
Pedestrian
Table 23. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for AADT risk factor’s influence in pedestrian collisions.

Factor: AADT Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Vehicle ADT >15,000 63 8.2% 93 247 45.3% 5.5
Vehicle ADT 9,000-15,000 27 3.6% 17 74 8.9% 2.4
Vehicle ADT <9,000 674 88.1% 91 296 45.8% 0.5
Table 24. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for intersection type and signalization risk factor’s influence in pedestrian collisions.

Factor: Factor: Intersection
Type and Signalization
Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Major-Major W-Signal 5 3.0% 15 83 14.4% 4.7
Major-Major 2 1.2% 0 7 0.3% 0.2
Minor-Major W-Signal 9.1 5.5% 26 138 24.7% 4.5
Minor-Major 31.1 18.9% 50 133 42.1% 2.2
Minor-Minor W-Signal 0.1 0.1% 0 0 0.0% 0.0
Minor-Minor 117.2 71.2% 20 95 18.5% 0.3
Table 25. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for posted speed limit risk factor’s influence in pedestrian collisions.

Factor: Posted Speed Limit Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
40+ MPH 99 13.0% 56 118 26.5% 2.0
35 MPH 37 4.9% 54 121 25.6% 5.2
30 MPH 49 6.5% 33 133 17.3% 2.7
<=25 MPH 578 75.5% 58 245 30.6% 0.4
#19..
- 583 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 27 Modesto, CA
Table 26. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for crossing spacing risk factor’s influence in pedestrian collisions.

Factor: Crossing Spacing Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
+1320 Feet 145 19.0% 63 129 29.8% 1.6
600-1320 Feet 40 5.3% 55 130 26.4% 5.0
0-600 Feet 579 75.7% 83 358 43.8% 0.6
Table 27. Detailed risk ratio calculation table for zoning risk factor’s influence in pedestrian collisions.

Factor: Zoning Factor
Mileage
Network
Length Percent
KSI
Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
EPDO Collision
Percent
Risk
Ratio
Single Family Residential 430 56.3% 49 144 24.3% 0.4
Multifamily Residential 62 8.1% 34 116 17.2% 2.1
Low Intensity Commercial 27 3.5% 24 132 13.3% 3.8
High Intensity Commercial 16 2.2% 21 47 10.0% 4.5
Industrial 31 4.1% 14 43 7.0% 1.7
Other 197 25.8% 59 135 28.2% 1.1
#19..
- 584 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 28 Modesto, CA
Appendix B: Zoning Category Consolidation
Table 28. Zones included in each zoning category used in the risk analysis.

Zoning Category Zones
Single Family Residential R-1, TND
Multifamily Residential R-2, R-3, MU-P, MU-H,
Low-Intensity Commercial P-O, C-1, CD, TD, UGD, MSD, END High-Intensity Commercial C-2, C-3
Industrial C-M, M-1, M-2, A-P
Other P-D, SP-H, SP, COUNTY
#19..
- 585 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Modesto
To: Max Navarro, City of Modesto
From: Les Brown, Alta Planning + Design
Date: January 12, 2026
Re: Modesto SS4A – Public Engagement Summary Memorandum Introduction
As part of the Modesto Safe Streets for All project, Alta and the City of Modesto developed and implemented a multipronged approach to public engagement. Community engagement included both in-person and virtual strategies aimed at engaging with community members where they were and providing a variety of convenient opportunities for involvement. Leading with equity, the Modesto Safe Streets for All (SS4A) project ensured equal engagement opportunities in all council districts in Modesto.

Outreach and Engagement Overview
Outreach was conducted in two phases. Phase I occurred in fall 2024 and focused on listening to community to ground truth existing barriers, community key destinations, and concerns, including the collection of existing condition data. Phase II occurred in summer 2025 and focused on gathering community feedback on draft project, policy, and program recommendations.

Outreach activities included Safety Task Force (STF) meetings, in-person pop-up workshops, and virtual public workshops. The project team developed a project website (Modesto Safe Streets for All) to disseminate project information, promote events, host recorded workshops and technical memos for those unable to attend in real time, and provide a contact form for the public to submit feedback at any point throughout the project. Two online interactive maps were also created to collect location-based feedback on traffic safety issues in Modesto and to gather input on draft recommendations. To the extent possible, engagement materials were developed and translated into Spanish, and Spanish interpretation was provided at all public events to increase accessibility and expand participation across the community.

Outreach activities were promoted through project event flyers, Mailchimp e-blasts, direct emails to STF members and community contacts, the City’s communication channels, and the project website. Upcoming events were also highlighted during community presentations and at preceding in-person events.

Modesto SS4A Safety Task Force
The project team assembled a Safety Task Force, serving as an important oversight group and collaborative body to oversee the development of Modesto’s Comprehensive Safety Action Plan along with its ultimate implementation and monitoring. Participants included representatives from:
#19..
- 586 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Modesto
• City of Modesto
• Empire Union School District
• Love to Ride
• Modesto City Schools
• Modesto Junior College
• Safe Kids Stanislaus
• Stanislaus Council of Governments
• Stanislaus County Health Services Agency
• Stanislaus Union School District
• Sutter Health
• Sylvan Union School District
• Visually Impaired Persons Support
STF Meeting #1 – September 30, 2024 (In-person)
The STF met four times over the course
of the project. At the first meeting, the
project team introduced the SS4A
initiative, provided an overview of the
Safe System Approach and past traffic
safety planning efforts in Modesto, and
outlined the project scope and goals.

STF members shared how the shift
toward a Safe System Approach
resonated with their perspectives,
identified potential barriers or
challenges to implementation, and
suggested additional stakeholders who
could be invited to participate in the
STF process.

STF Meeting #2 – January 23,
2025 (Virtual)
The second meeting included an overview of the existing conditions findings, a summary of Phase 1 public engagement, an update on the traffic safety campaign to date, and a voting exercise to determine the preferred campaign design concept and message. Several STF members also offered to help spread the word about the project and campaign through their networks.

Figure 1. Safety Task Force Meeting #1 was held in person at Modesto City Hall on September 30, 2024.
#19..
- 587 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Modesto
STF Meeting #3 – March 27, 2025 (In-person)
The third meeting focused on draft
programmatic and policy recommendations.

After an overview of the draft programmatic
and policy recommendations, STF members
participated in a ranking exercise to identify
priority strategies within each element of the
Safe System Approach, followed by a breakout
activity to narrow the list to the top three
priority strategies. During the breakout
discussions, participants were also asked to
identify actions their agencies or organizations
could take to support implementation. Other
topics covered in this meeting included the
safety countermeasure toolbox, and the
methodology and results of selecting the
project priority corridors. Following the
meeting, STF members were given a two-week period to review the draft programmatic and policy recommendations in detail and provide feedback.

STF Meeting #4 – August 7, 2025 (Virtual)
The fourth meeting focused on presenting draft recommendations for the priority corridors, with an emphasis on the Tier I priority corridors. The project team reviewed existing conditions, shared proposed cross sections, and highlighted key recommendations for each Tier I priority corridor. The meeting also included a recap of the traffic safety campaign, summarizing its outputs, outcomes, and lessons learned. Following the meeting, STF members were given a two-week period to review the short-term recommendations on Tier I priority corridors in detail and provide feedback.

STF Draft Plan Review Session – January 2026
The Draft Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan was shared with the STF members in January 2026 for review and feedback. Their review helped refine the document, ensure that the Safety Action Plan aligns with the project’s goals and vision, and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the Plan.

Figure 2. Mayor Zwahlen and other Safety Task Force members meet for their third Safety Task Force meeting at Modesto City Hall on March 27, 2025 #19..
- 588 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Modesto
Public Outreach and Engagement
Phase I – Existing Conditions
Virtual Workshop
The project team hosted a virtual public workshop on December 12, 2024, to introduce the Modesto SS4A project to the community. The meeting was held via Zoom and engaged eight participants. The workshop provided an overview of the project goals and focus, a recap of previous roadway safety efforts in Modesto, and a summary of existing conditions findings. The workshop also raised awareness of upcoming engagement opportunities and the traffic safety campaign.

Interactive polls were used to gauge the public’s perspectives on traffic safety and to rank their level of concern for selected safety issues in Modesto. Most participants identified vehicle speeds as the most concerning issue, while issues such as inadequate lighting, limited safe crossing facilities, and missing or unsafe sidewalks and bicycle facilities were identified as somewhat concerning. The project team also introduced the project website and an online interactive input map, which were designed to collect public feedback regarding questions about the project and roadway safety concerns. Following the workshop, the recording and meeting materials were posted on the project website.

Online Public Input Map for Safety Concerns
The project team developed an online
public input map, hosted on the project
website, to collect spatial feedback
regarding roadway safety concerns,
desired routes, and missing amenities.

The map was available from November
14, 2024 through January 6, 2025 and
received a total of 58 comments. Most
submissions pointed out challenging
intersections, areas lacking walking and
biking amenities, insufficient lighting,
high vehicle speeds, and desired bicycle
connections. The feedback collected
helped inform the identification of
needs and the development of
recommendations.

Figure 3. Screenshot of the online public input map used to collect location-based safety concerns.
#19..
- 589 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Modesto
Pop-ups
The project team hosted six in-person pop-ups during Phase I outreach. Pop-up meeting locations were selected to ensure representation in each of Modesto’s six council districts and proximity to Modesto’s High-Injury Network. The project team also anticipated that hosting events along these corridors would result in capturing feedback from a diverse set of community members. Table 1 includes a summary of meeting locations, dates, and estimated number of participants.

Table 1. Summary Pop-up Meeting Details
Meeting Location Council
District
Available Languages Date and time Estimated Number
of Participants
Pop-up #1 -- Starbucks
1320 McHenry Avenue,
Modesto, CA 95350
3 English & Spanish November 17, 2024
9am – 12pm
15 participants
Pop-up #2 – Maxx Value
415 Paradise Road,
Modesto, CA 95351
2 English & Spanish November 17, 2024
1pm – 4pm
60 participants
Pop-up #3 – Save Mart
3401 Oakdale Road,
Modesto, CA 95355
6 English & Spanish December 15, 2024
9am – 12pm
40 participants
Pop-up #4 – Davis Community Park
2701 College Avenue,
Modesto, CA 95350
5 English December 9, 2024
12:30pm – 4pm
10 participants
Pop-up #5 – Monterosso Trailhead
Coffee Road & Scenic Drive,
Modesto, CA 95355
3 & 4 English December 11, 2024
7:30am – 12pm
38 participants
Pop-up #6 – McKinney Colony Park
2245 Snyder Avenue,
Modesto, CA 95356
1 English December 18, 2024
1pm – 4pm
16 participants
#19..
- 590 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Modesto
The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the
project and receive feedback from the community on
roadway safety concerns and opportunities. Specifically, Alta gathered information on popular destinations, areas presenting opportunities or concerns, and destinations
people would travel to if it were safer and/or more
convenient. Residents were encouraged to provide
feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots on large printed map boards representing the relevant plan focus areas. The project team approached the community
casually, with a 30-second summary of the project,
followed by questions of how they typically get around
their neighborhood and why.

The project team received a total of 58 individual
comments from participants at pop-up meetings via
meeting boards. These comments are a highly valuable
resource for the project team to better understand the
community’s experience on roadway safety. The project
team reviewed each comment and categorized them into
either a location specific facility improvement comment or general comment not tied to a specific location. All comments received helped inform the identification of
needs and the development of recommendations.

Common comment themes included concerns about speeding, a lack of traffic calming features, dangerous driving behaviors, pedestrian and bicycle safety, roadway maintenance, and the absence of comfortable walking and biking facilities. The majority of comments were focused on the College Avenue, Coffee Road, Yosemite Boulevard, Sylvan Avenue, and Standiford Avenue corridors.

Love Modesto 2025
To help promote the project, the traffic safety campaign, and other City safety initiatives, the project team attended Love Modesto on April 26, 2025, a community-wide volunteer day. Several hundred volunteers participated in the event, and the project team engaged with approximately 350 attendees, distributing campaign materials and encouraging participants to scan a QR code to take the safety quiz. Many attendees also provided feedback and showed support by taking a flyer or sticker. The tabling event helped increase awareness, education, and participation in the campaign.

Figure 4. Alta supported by City of Modesto staff listened to Modesto residents' concerns at the Starbucks near the
intersection of McHenry Boulevard and Orangeburg Avenue. #19..
- 591 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Modesto
Phase II – Implementation Strategy
Virtual Workshop
The project team hosted the second virtual public workshop on September 3, 2025, to review draft recommendations with the community. The meeting was held via Zoom and engaged 16 participants. The workshop included an overview of the methodology and results used to identify the project’s priority corridors, a summary of the safety countermeasure toolbox, and a review of the draft recommendations for Tier I priority corridors. The workshop also promoted upcoming pop-up events and introduced the online interactive input map where participants could review and provide feedback on the draft recommendations. Feedback received through the online interactive input map is summarized in the following section. During the workshop, participants also asked questions related to the Safety Action Plan, roadway safety in Modesto, and the application of several countermeasures. Following the workshop, recordings in both English and Spanish, as well as meeting materials were posted on the project website.

Online Public Input Map for Draft Recommendations
The project team developed an online public input map to allow the community to review draft recommendations for Tier I priority corridors, submit comments, and express support or concern through like and dislike features. The map was available from September 1, 2025 through September 18, 2025 on the project website, and was promoted through the second virtual workshop, pop-up events, Mailchimp e-blasts, and direct emails to the STF and community contacts. The map received a total of 10
comments and 132 likes/dislikes. Most
submissions expressed support for the
proposed recommendations, while a
few participants noted the importance
of ensuring that traffic calming
improvements would not interfere with
the biking experience. Other feedback
included requests for clarification on
specific countermeasures. The input
collected helped validate the draft
recommendations and will be used to
inform refinement during future design
phases.

Pop-ups
The project team hosted six in-person pop-ups during Phase II outreach. Locations were selected to ensure representation across all six council districts and to be proximate to Tier I priority corridors. The project team anticipated capturing feedback on the draft recommendations from people who regularly travel through or visit these Tier I priority corridors and have firsthand user experience. Table 2 includes a summary of meeting locations, dates, and estimated number of participants.

Figure 5. Screenshot of the online public input map used to collect public feedback on draft recommendations
#19..
- 592 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Modesto
Table 2. Summary Pop-up Meeting Details
Meeting Location Council
District
Available Languages Date and time Estimated Number
of Participants
Pop-up #7 -- Chrysler 99 Park
3020 Hahn Drive,
Modesto, CA 95350
1 English September 4, 2025
7am – 9am
8 participants
Pop-up #8 – Virginia Corridor
Trailhead
Virginia Corridor Trail & Rumble
Road,
Modesto, CA 95350
5 English & Spanish September 6, 2025
9am – 11am
15 participants
Pop-up #9 – Ellison Park
2025 Wolcott Way,
Modesto, CA 95355
6 English & Spanish September 6, 2025
1pm – 3pm
3 participants
Pop-up #10 – East La Loma Park
2001 Edgebrook Drive,
Modesto, CA 95355
4 English & Spanish September 6, 2025
5pm – 7pm
2 participants
Pop-up #11 – Monterosso
Trailhead
Coffee Road & Scenic Drive,
Modesto, CA 95355
3 & 4 English September 10, 2025
7am – 9am
25 participants
Pop-up #12 – Modesto Certified
Farmers' Market
1522 H Street,
Modesto, CA 95354
2 English September 11, 2025
11am – 1pm
46 participants
The purpose of the pop-up meetings was to share the
draft recommendations and gather feedback from the
community on improvements they supported, questioned,
or disagreed with. Alta staff explained the proposed
improvements in plain language and described how the
City could implement them. Residents were encouraged
to provide feedback with sticky notes on large, printed map boards representing the relevant plan focus areas.

The map boards also included a QR code linking to the
public online input map, allowing residents to continue sharing comments after the pop-up meetings and to share the information with family and friends. The project team approached the community casually, with a 30-second
pitch of the project, followed by an invitation to review the proposed improvements.

The project team received a total of 22 individual
comments from participants at pop-up meetings via
meeting boards and verbal disclosure. These comments
are a highly valuable resource for the project team to
Figure 6. Alta staff listened to Modesto residents' opinions on the countermeasure toolbox by engaging people on the Virginia Corridor Trailway.
#19..
- 593 -
January 12, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Modesto
better understand the community’s safety needs and priorities.

Overall, participants expressed strong support for the proposed safety improvements, and many indicated interest in helping to advocate for their implementation. Key feedback for each Tier I priority corridor is summarized below:

Briggsmore Avenue at Carver Road
• Location resonated with participants as many mentioned on years of collisions seen at this intersection.

Coffee Road
• Participants encouraged more improvements in front of the several school locations.

Downtown Modesto – H Street
• Participants believed the recent HAWK beacons installed at the Farmer’s Market were successful but wanted to see if the City can get cars to slow down.

Downtown Modesto – 17th Street
• Participants want to see more bicycle lanes connecting to community locations.

El Vista Avenue
• Participants expressed support for the proposed shared-use path along El Vista Avenue. • The intersection of El Vista Avenue and Yosemite Boulevard was identified as a major barrier to safe walking and biking access to local recreation destinations.

Oakdale Road
• Participants supported proposed improvements at intersections to address conflicts with right-turning vehicles who often fail to yield to pedestrians.
• There was broad support for separated bike facilities, with several participants noting that the existing buffered bike lanes do not feel sufficiently safe.
• The proposed median also received support due to safety issues surrounding U-turn movements along the corridor.

Rumble Road
• Participants supported safety improvements in front of Grace M. Davis High School, noting that the proposed median refuge island would improve student safety when crossing the street and help reduce vehicle speeds. • Traffic calming in general received strong support as a strategy to slow vehicles. • Some participants raised concerns that vehicles may maneuver around buses stopped in the travel lane, creating conflicts with pedestrians. They suggested making space for buses to pull over at the curb rather than stopping in the travel lane.

Conclusion
The Modesto SS4A project engaged key stakeholders and community members throughout the development of the Safety Action Plan. Feedback gathered through meetings, workshops, pop-up events, and online tools informed the plan’s priorities and helped shape its strategies and recommendations. Engagement will continue to play a central role during implementation, ensuring that community perspectives remain integrated as Modesto advances roadway safety improvements.
#19..
- 594 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Modesto
To: City of Modesto
From: Alta Planning + Design | Fehr & Peers
Date: February 25, 2025
Re: Policy and Program Benchmarking Assessment Memorandum Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the benchmarking assessment prepared for Modesto as part of the Safe Streets and Road for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan effort. The project team reviewed the City of Modesto's existing policies, programs, and procedures related to road safety to benchmark these against Safe System best practices.

The USDOT adopted the Safe System approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety. Through collective
action on the part of all roadway system stakeholders - from system operators to law enforcement and everyday users - the intention is to move to a Safe System Approach that anticipates human mistakes, with the goal of eliminating fatal and serious injuries for all road users.

The Approach includes the guiding principles that are shown on the outside of the wheel, and the five elements shown on the inside of the wheel. Making a commitment to reducing traffic deaths means addressing all aspects of safety through the elements that together create the holistic approach with redundancy and layers of protection for roadway users.

Following the Safe System Approach and prioritizing
multimodal safety and accessibility in Modesto represents a paradigm shift in transportation decision making in the City. Understanding the existing policies, programs, and procedures will help to understand the areas where safety stakeholders will need to shift their focus to be more proactive and systemic and understand the tradeoff decisions in planning, project prioritization and development, and design. This benchmarking exercise will help the City to institutionalize the Safe System into everyday activities and prioritize implementation in consideration of staff and funding constraints. These shifts will reflect a commitment to reducing safety risk factors in the City’s transportation system.

The benchmarking analysis resulted in four types of conclusions or recommendations:

1. No action needed: City programs, policies, or practices are already consistent with Safe System best practice The Safety System Approach
Source: Federal Highway Administration
#19..
- 595 -
February 25, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Modesto

2. Accomplish with the Safety Action Plan: The Safe Streets for All Plan’s development process and final product will move the City into best practice alignment

3. Implement following Safety Action Plan adoption: The Safe Streets for All Plan will include a recommendation for this program, policy, or practice as a next step for implementation following the Plan’s adoption

4. No action planned for now: This program, policy, or practice is not currently in place in Modesto and the City does not intend to move forward with this topic at this time The full benchmarking assessment is appended to the end of this memorandum. The results of the benchmarking assessment informed the policy and programmatic recommendations and action items in the Safety Action Plan.

Additional detail is provided in Chapter 4 of the Modesto Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Plan, Policy and Programmatic Strategies.
#19..
- 596 -
Not a Current
Practice
Occasional
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
No Action
Needed
Accomplish
with the
SAP
Implement
Following SAP
Adoption
No Action
Planned for Now
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs. [SS4A Self-Cert Q1] X X A zero goal and timeframe will be identified.

Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System Approach that identifies concrete actions to help Modesto achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

X X CSAP will include all these components.

Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if Modesto is not on track. [Self-Cert Q8 pt 1] Evaluation strategies and metrics were recommended in the LRSP. LRSP (pg 31) XX CSAP will include performance indicators and monitoring.

Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring [SS4A Self-Cert Q2]. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element.

Task force was created for the LRSP, but group has not met reguarly since plan was completed. LRSP implementation, accountability, and monitoring is identified in the plan.

LRSP (pg 9. 30-31) XX
Task force was identified for the SS4A SAP. Recommendations will include how this group will continually meet to make progress and hold the City accountable for project, program, and policy implementation.

Provide training to Modesto staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach.

XX Recommendation will be included as part of the SS4A SAP for Safe System consistency.

Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism.

City's School Safety Program plan was finalized in August 2024. The plan helps to guide City staff with project implementation and programming related to Measure L Sales Tax Measure funds and grant funding opportunities.

SSP (pg 66-70) XX
Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan [SS4A Self-Cert Q4] If a transportation citizen advisory group is created, equitable representation (accurately reflecting the ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of Modesto as much as possible) and equitable outreach (making extra efforts to reach out to all segments of Modesto’s population, conducting engagement in multiple languages through different mediums) are outlined as key principles.LRSP noted engagement with city staff, Modesto Police Department, and Stanislaus County Health Services, who met to discuss non-engineering emphasis areas from the SSAR.

NMTP (p 19)LRSP (pg 9)
XX
Engagement with the public, stakeholders, private sector, and community groups will be done as part of this plan.

Establish a website to inform the public about Modesto's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. [SS4A SelfCert Q8] City has not yet created a landing page for safety plans reviewed for this benchmark.

XX
A website (www.modestosafestreets.com) is created for the project. The Plan will identify ways for the City to provide transparency around progress and effectiveness of implemented safety projects.

Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Modesto residents whose first language is not English.

SSP school feedback survey for the SSP was prepared in English and Spanish NMTP's virtual open house was available in English and Spanish SSP (pg 36)NMTP (pg 53)
XX
Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, roadway and roadside condition, and modal specific condition assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings). [SS4A Self-Cert Q3] Collision profiles developed for the SSAR through a systemic analysis merging adjacent road, intersection, and land use features with collision data. Level of Traffic Stress analysis performed as part of NMTP.

SSAR (pg 14-63)NMTP (pg 40)
x X This will be done as part of the SS4A SAP.

Establish a process for residents to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a data-driven approach for evaluating the reports/requests.

City has GoModesto! App to report issues and the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that identifies priority ranking information. However, priority ranking should consider including Safety Plans (HIN, priority locations, disadvantaged communities, etc.) Evaluation for projects in TCP is not Safe System consistent. https://www.modestogov.com/1954/Make-a-RequestGoModesto, https://www.modestogov.com/2782/NeighborhoodTraffic-CalmingProgram-NTC XX
SAP will include recommendation for existing program updates for Safe System consistency and the website will include a webmap where residents can report safety concerns and needs.

Focus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability.

SSAR analysis focused on KSI crashes. SSAR (pg 14) XX
SAP will include recommendation for existing program
updates for Safe System consistency and the website will include a webmap where residents can report safety concerns and needs.

Collect pedestrian and bicyclist volumes routinely with intersection counts and has a GIS database of counts.

X X
SAP will recommend this or similar for exposure input into a future kinetic energy analysis but task will need to be laid out as part of SAP next steps.

Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc.

Bikeway and sidewalk projects are included in the CIP. Link identifies current projects in CIP and percent complete.The City has completed an inventory and assessed where sidewalks are missing, where only one side of the road has a sidewalk, and where sidewalks are complete along both sides of the road.

Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Capital Improvement Program /Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Capital Improvement Program (https://www.modestogov.com/2591/CapitalImprovementProgram)SSP (p 12-13, 20, 41-43) XX
City's Risk Deparment has ADA inventory available. City's TED will update roadway data as studies occur will use the data dashboard from to confirm if there are plans to provide sidewalk and bicycle inventory + progress publicly. Future risk analysis updates can study % of gaps closed with crash data but task will need to be fleshed out as part of SAP next steps.

Proactively and holistically evaluates risk factors and prioritizes locations with high potential for exposure. Analysis considers the 'Ws' of safety (who,what, when, where, why, which) XX Risk analysis will be completed as part of the SS4A SAP.

Meaningful
Engagement
Core Element Category Benchmark State of Current Practice in Modesto (FP Input) Links/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Additional Details
Path to Institutionalization
Safety Planning &
Culture
Data and analysis
Leadership and
Commitment
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Modesto
Benchmarking Assessment Framework #19..
- 597 -
Not a Current
Practice
Occasional
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
No Action
Needed
Accomplish
with the
SAP
Implement
Following SAP
Adoption
No Action
Planned for Now
Core Element Category Benchmark State of Current Practice in Modesto (FP Input) Links/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Additional Details
Path to Institutionalization
Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

X X Is the City interested in this type of data collection and analysis? Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations [Self-Cert Q5].

XX This framework will be a recommendation in the SS4A SAP.

Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects.

Funding Opportunties are included in the SSAR, LRSP, NMTP, SSP, and TCP. City has applied for funding annually through various sources.

SSAR (pg 92-95), LRSP (pg 32-35), NMTP (pg 148-152), SSP (pg 66-70), TCP (pg 8) XX An updated funding list will be included as part of the SS4A SAP.

Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects through the CIP).

NMTP recommends evaluating all streets during pavement resurfacing to determine if bicycle facilities can be provided when the striping is reapplied and calls for an annual review of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list to ensure that recommended projects are incorporated for new facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities.

NMTP (pg 17) XX
Program and policy considerations to align and institutionalize safety in operations and maintenance projects will be included in the SS4A SAP. Funding prioritization will need to be reviewed as part of SAP next steps.

Conduct kinetic energy safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities.

NMTP recommends a designated active transportation coordinator or advisory committee to monitor the review processes for new development and redevelopment.

NMTP (pg 149) X X
SAP will recommend a review of TIA Guidelines, but guidelines will need to be updated to include safety mitigation and cost sharing opportunities after SAP adoption.

During the development review process ensure circulation to, from, and within the development along with recommended TDM measures align with safety best practices and encourage active transportation modes.

NMTP recommends a designated active transportation coordinator or advisory committee to monitor the review processes for new development and redevelopment.

NMTP (pg 149) Xx
Various City departments complete development review for alignment with the General Plan and Standards.

Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders [Self-Cert Q5 pt 2].

The NMTP highlights fatal crash locations and uses CalEnviroScreen 3.0 and Free & Reduced-Price Meal in the analysis. Projects receive additonal weight is project is located in top 25 disadvantages percetiles in CES and 0.5 point if the are located within a quarter-mile of a school with more than 75% of students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals.

NMTP (pg 43-44, 111)
X X This will be completed for the SS4A SAP.

Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts [Self-Cert Q5 pt 1]. Virtual open house was provvided in English and Spanish. NMTP (pg 53) X X This will be completed for the SS4A SAP.

Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved.

Equity was one of the four key factors for determining the Community Priority score in the project prioritization process for the NMTP. NMTP (pg 110) X X Equity will be a SAP prioritization criteria.

Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Modesto Police lead and participate in traffic safety education programs, including DUI education campaigns (partnered with MADD), provide free helmets and safety gear, and provide safety videos and messaging (partnered with Safe Kids Stanislaus). Stanislaus County Health Services Agency provides safety equipment and implements education and training programs for parents and caretakers focused on ensuring their children ride safely within a vehicle, on a bicycle or as a pedestrian.LRSP recommends educational outreach campaigns that focus on common violations leadings to fatalities and severe injuries in Modesto, based on the collision profiles identified in the SSAR.SSP calls for a traffic safety campaign focused on drivers to educate them on safe driving around cyclists and pedestrians, use of the Duch Reach, appreciation for bicycle and pedestrian vulnerability, and awareness of laws such as California's Three-Foot Passing law and restrictions on parking or stopping in bicycle lanes, on sidewalk aprons, and near crosswalks.

LRSP (pg 9, 11, 18)SSP (pg 51)
X X SAP will include a pilot safety education campaign.

Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide the opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Traffic Calming Program indicates temporary installment can be used pilot design recommendations. TCP (pg 12) XX Roundabouts are a common countermeasure in City design. Future demonstration project may include use around mini roundabouts or traffic circles, diverters, or other methods of traffic calming.

Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

LRSP acknowledges the impacts of enforcement and recommends progressive traffic fine structures and demographic and geographic analysis of enforcement efforts to help uncover inequities in policing and the enforcement of traffic safety.

LRSP (pg 24) X X
City and PD are focused on programs to reduce injury crashes. There is no program currently in place, but PD is working on increasing staffing to implement this program.

Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury.

DUI saturation patrols targeted at areas where DUI collisions have occurred, paired with social media campaigns and press releases. LRSP (pg 11) XX PD noted that injury trends drive enforcement efforts. Crashes are reviewed on a weekly basis.

Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting including partnering with organizations such as Stanislaus County Health Services Agency and local hospitals.

One of the six key goals highlighted in the LRSP is to increase multi-jurisdictional collaboration through enhanced technology (such as shared databases) among city agencies, health care, and enforcement on post-crash care.

LRSP (pg 8) X X
Not at this time. HAS is invited as an SAP stakeholder – City is interested in having partnership with them moving forward as part of the on-going task force.PD works with Safe Kids of Stanislaus for car-seat checkups.

Safe Users
Development
review
Equity first
Funding
Education
Enforcement
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Modesto
#19..
- 598 -
Not a Current
Practice
Occasional
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
No Action
Needed
Accomplish
with the
SAP
Implement
Following SAP
Adoption
No Action
Planned for Now
Core Element Category Benchmark State of Current Practice in Modesto (FP Input) Links/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Additional Details
Path to Institutionalization
Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Traffic Calming Program indicates implementation of vertical and horizontal design elements inculding but not limited to speed humps, raised intersections, chokers, and chicanesGeneral Plan Amendment Ch5 Section B and C indicates a list of recommended design features to promote a feeling of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilitiesDowntown Modesto Plan indicates that planted and concrete buffers should be used to serve as a vertical separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.SSAR recommends 20 priority projects utilizing a variety of proven countermeasures to target the 13 collision profiles identified, and hot spot KSI locations.

TCP (pg 17-23)GPA Ch 5 (pg V8-V9)Downtown Master Plan (pg 53, 55, 61, 67, 69, 75)SSAR (pg 64, 65, 71) XX
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, and characteristics of the roadway and adjacent land use associated with higher levels of use.

Downtown Modesto Plan indicates that J Street, 9th Street, 10th Street, 12th Street, H Street, I Street, and K Street receive a series of bike and pedestrian enhancements to reduce severe and fatal injuries, close network gaps, promote walking and biking, and access to transit.Connectivity is a key goal of the NMTP.City should create percent tracker from gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This can be tied to the risk assessment that will be prepared as part of the CSAP.

Downtown Master Plan (pg 33)NMTP (pg 5)SSP (p 12-13, 20, 41-43) XX
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets.

Traffic Calming Program indicates implementation of design elements such as medians, refuge islands, and roundabouts.General Plan Amendment Ch5 Section B, C, and F provide a list of recommended design features to promote a feeling of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities as well as for vehiclesDowntown Master Plan calls for the narrowing of travel lanes to encourage slower speeds.

TCP (pg 21-24)GPA Ch 5 (pg V8-V9, V13-V16)Downtown Master Plan (pg 81) XX
A toolbox of safety countermeasures will be included as part of the SS4A SAP. City has 12 radar speed feedback signs & are requesting more through 2025 grant – signs are deployed based on collision data.City had 9 radar trailers for community-based requests.

Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance.

SSAR includes countermeasure guidance related to 13 profiles.Install traffic calming elements that are consistent with national, state, and local practice relative to geometric design, pavement markings, signs, and lighting.

SSAR (pg 64-65)TCP (pg 12)
XX
Policy considerations will be provided as part of the SS4A SAP. City will incorporate this process in their General Plan Update.

Designate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions.

Roadway functional classification was one of the contextual factors analyzed alongside collision data in the SSAR. SSAR (pg 30) X X Policy considerations will be provided to ensure safety is not a design trade-off in the SS4A SAP. Roads will be identified as safety corridors based on HIN and Safety Risk Index. An update to review functional classification and modal priority would be a next step following SAP adoption.

Has curbside management, shared mobility, or micromobility policies (e.g., permitting, enforcement) in places that prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

NMTP includes policy recommendations around planning, design, project funding and implementation, maintenance, program, and evaluation policies. NMTP (pg 17-21) X X Recommendation for policy updates will be made in the SS4A SAP. Policies will need to be updated as a next step following SAP adoption.

Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects.

Routine accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists during construction projects is a part of one of the key goals of the NMTP. NMTP (pg 5, 19) XX Recommendation for policy updates will be made in the SS4A SAP. Policies will need to be updated as a next step following SAP adoption.

Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities For ITS implementation, including immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs in high-use locations.

LRSP mentions that the City could consider smart signal technology. LRSP (pg 27) XX No further action. 35% of all signals are connected. Caltrans also has ITS signals.Signal performance measures in place – City received data from signals.

Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior.

LRSP mentions that the City could consider smart signal technology. LRSP (pg 17) XX City has emergency vehicle preemption and a transit priority pilot – GPS will coordinate with traffic signal.

Provide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology.

X X
Fleet
Management
Support safer operations of City and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of City's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Modesto School Safety Program recommended traffic safety campaigns that engage people driving trucks and cars as part of SRTS outreach efforts. MSSP (p 35) X X City has transitioned to low-mass and enhanced safety vehicles and is working on updating all fleets.City has plans for designating curbs downtown, bus zone areas, and where there is timed parking; Parklets in downtown are staying.

Autonomous
vehicles
Provide supportive infrastructure for autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology.

LRSP mentions that the City acknowledges opportunities to consider autonomous vehicle planning with future safety efforts. LRSP (pg 27) X X City is not compatible for v2x currently. Working on getting equipment in place - few years out..

Design and
operations Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speed-based design. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds.

Traffic Calming Program indicates implementing vertical design elements such as speed humps, speed cushions, speed tables, and raised intersections to address speed management.General Plan Amendment Ch5 Section F indicates classification and design specifications for roadway types.

TCP (pg 18-19)GPA Ch 5 (pg V13-V16)
XX
Policy recommendations will be made in the SS4A SAP. City standards will be updated post adoption of the SAP.

Enforcement
Deploy automated speed enforcement, with a focus on equitable fee structures.

Traffic Calming Program indicates implementing radar feedback signs with enhancements such as LED lighting.LRSP recommends automated enforcement (red-light cameras and/or speed safety cameras). Equitable traffic fines are recommended for both automated and regular enforcement.

TCP (pg 16)LRSP (pg 20, 24)
X X
Although not allowed in CA, recommendation will be made around automated speed enforcement in the SS4A SAP.

Collision
avoidance
Policies and
tradeoffs
Safe Speeds
Kinetic energy
reduction
Supportive
Infrastructure
Safe Vehicles
Safe Roadways
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Modesto
#19..
- 599 -
Not a Current
Practice
Occasional
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
No Action
Needed
Accomplish
with the
SAP
Implement
Following SAP
Adoption
No Action
Planned for Now
Core Element Category Benchmark State of Current Practice in Modesto (FP Input) Links/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Additional Details
Path to Institutionalization
Policy and
training
Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate speeds based on roadway context and modal priority, rather than the historic behavior of road users. Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization.

Policy is needed to update roadway design to match surrounding land use context, not soley be based on 85th percentile speeds.

X X
Policy recommendations will be made for city to use AB 43 and HIN as part of the SS4A SAP to update posted speeds.

Crash
investigation
Create a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers.

LRSP recommends establishing a cross-agency 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.

LRSP (p 22) X X
City does not currently have a recurring meeting, but is interested in implementing one to make sure communication is happening consistently between City departments and PD.

Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy.

Recommended in LRSP. LRSP (pg 22) X X Recommendation will be included in the SS4A SAP.

Connect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Recommended in LRSP. LRSP (pg 23) X X Partnerships
Post Crash Care
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Modesto
#19..
- 600 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Modesto
To: City of Modesto
From: Alta Planning + Design
Date: June 26, 2025
Re: Safety Countermeasure Selection Guidance and Toolbox Introduction
This memo documents the methodology and outcomes of a typology-driven screening process used to develop safety countermeasure recommendations along the Modesto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan (SAP) priority corridors. Specifically, the Systemic Safety Blueprint in the SAP and the mid-term recommendations proposed on the Tier II priority corridors directly reflect the outcomes of the methodology described in this memo. The process was guided by the Safe System Approach and contextual design principles, aiming to identify improvements that address key roadway safety needs.

The memo begins with a methodology section, which outlines the development of the countermeasure toolbox, the structure and function of the screening tool, and how it was applied with corridor and intersection attributes to generate draft recommendations. This is followed by a summary of typologies that were developed to represent typical street segments and intersections along the Tier II priority corridors, including how these typologies were defined and used to guide the identification of appropriate countermeasures.

To illustrate how the screening process and toolbox is applied in practice, the memo includes two example cutsheets:
one for a street segment typology and one for an intersection typology. These examples show how local context, roadway characteristics, and crash patterns informed the selection of tailored countermeasures.

The memo concludes with a summary of next steps, including guidance on how the city can use the tool and typology framework to broaden the application of countermeasure recommendations. Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox includes the full countermeasure toolbox developed for the Modesto SS4A SAP.

Methodology
Development of Countermeasure Toolbox
The first step of the methodology was to develop the countermeasure toolbox. The approved toolbox was developed using the Safe System Approach, incorporating elements of the Safe System Pyramid1 and the FHWA Safe System 1 Ederer, D.J., Panik, R.T., Botchwey, N., Watkins, K. 2023. The Safe Systems Pyramid: A new framework for traffic safety. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Volume 21, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100905. #19..
- 601 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Modesto
Roadway Design Hierarchy2. Higher tiers of countermeasures apply to greater populations with less individual effort, and lower tiers apply to smaller populations requiring greater individual effort. In addition to the Safe System principles, the toolbox was developed based upon the principles of contextual design which are outlined at the state level by Caltrans in Design Information Bulletin-94: Contextual Design Guidance3 (DIB 94). The final toolbox consisted of 56 countermeasures sorted into four ranked categories based upon the following Safe System principles:
• #1: Demand management. These consist of countermeasures which improve access to transit, improve transit facilities, or promote land use which reduces short car trips. Examples include improving transit stops by adding shelters, adding a last-mile connection to nearby sidewalks or bikeways, or changes to land use near transit stops to encourage ridership.
• #2: Speed management. These consist of roadway design features which lower vehicle speeds and thereby reduce the severity and frequency of crashes. Examples include roundabouts and raised crosswalks. • #3: Separate in space and time. These consist of roadway design or operational features which separate users in space, including by adding separated facilities for non-vehicular modes, medians, or upgrading intersections to innovative intersection designs. Users can also be separated in time using signal timing or other features, including protected-only left turns or leading pedestrian interval. • #4: Improve redundancy. These consist of signing, marking, or other visibility improvements to increase awareness and attentiveness of potential hazards, or to reduce the impact of crash or roadway departure were it to occur. Examples include upgraded curve signing, flashing yellow arrow signals, or guardrail.

The full toolbox can be found in Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox at the end of this memo.

Countermeasure Screening Tool
Screening Process
For each countermeasure, internal screening thresholds were developed based on state and federal guidelines and best practices. Additional resources, such as National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) reports, case studies or existing examples of implementation, were used where agency guidance was unavailable. More emphasis was given to California-specific guidance such as Caltrans’ DIB 94, Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Toolbox, Traffic Calming Guide, or examples of implementation within California. Guidance, best practices, and examples outside of California were used where appropriate.

Screening factors include context area, number of lanes, traffic volumes or average daily traffic (ADT), target speed, truck route, transit route, lane width, presence or absence of curb, shoulder, median, bike lane, sidewalk, and whether existing facility widths or level or protection were in accordance with DIB 94 guidance. In accordance with the purpose of this as a screening tool, thresholds were increased above typical guidance in some cases to account for 2 Hopwood, C., Little, K., Gaines, D. 2024. Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy. FHWA, report FHWA-SA-22-069, https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2024-01/Safe_System_Roadway_Design_Hierarchy.pdf 3 Caltrans. 2024. Design Information Bulletin-94: Contextual Design Guidance. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf #19..
- 602 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Modesto
site conditions, allow for variation in some input parameters (such as traffic volumes), and allow for engineering judgment.

The countermeasure toolbox and the screening factors were incorporated into an Excel-based tool provided to the City of Modesto enable a consistent and streamlined method for countermeasure selection based upon the Safe System principles. The screening tool produces a list of potentially suitable countermeasures that can then be applied along a corridor or segment of roadway based on professional judgment and knowledge of site-specific context data.

Using the Countermeasure Screening Tool for Implementation The Excel-based Screening Tool provides a consistent and streamlined approach to countermeasure implementation.

The screening tool takes the countermeasure toolbox that was previously described and combines it with the screening factors in a series of lookup tables and calculation sheets. These lookups are then used on a corridor or segment basis using input data specific to that corridor to present a list of countermeasures that could be suitable for the corridor or segment. This process results in countermeasure recommendations that should be internally consistent across corridors and multiple reviewers.

The tool is broken into seven sheets across four parts, the last two of which are optional or for reference as needed. • The Introduction sheet explains the logic and process of the tool, with additional information on each of the following sheets. It also contains a brief explanation of seven hidden sheets which are used in the backend of the tool and contain lookup tables, data validation lists for dropdowns, and calculations involved in the screening process.

Part 1 – Existing Corridor Data
• The Input Existing Data sheet is the most essential of the sheets. This sheet is intended for reviewers to input basic data about each corridor that will provide the basis for the screening criteria to be applied. For best use of the tool, it is best to break longer corridors into smaller segments based on significant changes in character of the corridor, such as context area type, land use, number of lanes, sidewalk, bike lane, parking, curb or shoulder, median. The data that should be entered by the reviewer in this sheet include:
o Location of road and segment, as well as information on where the cross section was taken along the segment.
o Right of way, including width and general land use type. o Physical characteristics of the road, including number of lanes; presence and width of median, twoway left turn lane, one-way or two-way road, curb type, and paved shoulder. o Operational characteristics of the road, including Traffic volume, posted speed, context area, transit route and type, truck route.
o Existing Multimodal facilities within the roadway right of way, including presence and width of bike lane, bike lane buffer, sidewalk, sidewalk buffer, on-street parking, and transit lane.

For each of these data, presence and width can be verified through multiple means, including visual survey using aerial imagery, street view, or from other orthoimagery or CAD survey data if available. For the purposes of the tool, there is some tolerance that is acceptable given the imperfection of the measuring tools available (for example, rounding to the nearest 0.25 or 0.5 ft is perfectly acceptable to account for measurement error). #19..
- 603 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Modesto
• The Select Analysis Segment sheet allows the reviewer to choose which segment of a longer corridor, if used, will be screened by the tool. It also presents the input data and approximate footprint of the roadway elements for the segment which is selected.

Part 2 – Countermeasure Screening and Selection Guidance For the purpose of screening the countermeasures for implementation, the list was further consolidated by grouping together similar countermeasures. From the original 56 countermeasures, a final list of 14 corridor or segment level groupings and 23 spot or point groupings were developed. • The Streamlined Toolbox Overview sheet screens the corridor based on a list of 14 corridor/segment and 23 spot/intersection countermeasure groupings. These groupings were developed by grouping together similar countermeasures (for example, combining pedestrian crosswalk improvements such as high visibility crosswalk, advance signing and marking, RRFB, PHB, which are listed in the full toolbox as separate countermeasures). The Safe System tier hierarchy is preserved. Within this sheet, each countermeasure grouping is linked to its place in the countermeasure detail sheets to be able to quickly find the additional guidance. Countermeasures which might not be recommended for a segment are greyed out and stricken through.
• The Corridor Countermeasure Detail sheet provides further guidance and the screening thresholds which are used for screening the 14 groupings for corridor (linear) countermeasures. Each of the 14 groupings is linked to the Streamlined Toolbox Overview sheet to allow for easier navigation. • The Spot Countermeasure Detail sheet provides further guidance and the screening thresholds which are used for screening the 23 groupings for spot (point) countermeasures. Each of the 23 groupings is linked back to the Streamlined Toolbox Overview sheet to allow for easier navigation.

Part 3 – Context Place Type Sensitive Design and Multimodal Facility Feasibility Screening (OPTIONAL) • The DIB 94 MM Facilities (A) sheet is provided for reference. This sheet provides an overview of certain roadway elements and recommended widths which can be found within DIB 94. It also includes a brief feasibility assessment of bike lane and sidewalk feasibility based on the recommended facility type and widths from DIB 94. This sheet includes information on intersection types and which intersection types are recommended from a safety perspective based on Caltrans guidance from Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) documentation, NCHRP studies (including NCHRP 948 and NCHRP 1043), and other best practices or guidance on implementation from other states. o There are optional inputs for the reviewer to adjust the footprint of the segment or corridor. These are: road diet, change in presence of on street parking, width of provided parking, change in median type, and width of provided median. These inputs are intended to be used by practitioners to evaluate feasibility of facilities under DIB 94 if there is a change in cross section. In addition, this can be used to see which safety countermeasures may be recommended (or which may no longer be recommended) based upon a change in cross section. If there are no changes, the cells by default are blank – except for road diet, where “No Road Diet assumed” is the default value. #19..
- 604 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Modesto
Part 4 – Full Countermeasure Toolbox Screening (OPTIONAL) • The Full Toolbox Screen (B) sheet is a screening of the entire 56-countermeasure toolbox, including sorting countermeasures by tier within the corridor and spot improvements. This is provided for reference, as it is useful for screening for additional countermeasures that might not be contained within the streamlined toolbox. (As a note, the streamlined toolbox is based off the full toolbox screening.) There are an additional seven hidden sheets which are used for backend lookups, logic, and calculations. For additional information on each sheet, please refer to the Introduction sheet within the Screening Tool.

Modesto Roadway Typologies
Guided by the countermeasure screening methodology described in the previous section, along with the road network prioritization process described in SAP Appendix G: Safety Project Prioritization Memorandum, a total of 38.3 miles of priority corridors were identified in the Modesto SS4A SAP. These include 29.5 miles of City-owned roadways and 8.8 miles of state-owned roadways. The corridors ranged in length from as little as one-third of a mile to over five miles in length.

To develop recommendations for a network of that size, segments and intersections were categorized into typologies during the countermeasure screening and implementation process. The advantage of a typological approach is that it can do two things at the same time: it provides a list of suitable countermeasures that can be applied systemically across the entire City roadway network, while also allowing the review team to use its resources in an advantageous way to reduce the number of repetitive recommendations along corridors. This enables reviewers to focus on segments or intersections where the countermeasures might be meaningfully different due to site context including different cross-sectional elements, context areas, or land uses.

Roadway Classification
For the purpose of simplifying the typology framework, roadways were classified into typologies based on the number of travel lanes. The decision was informed by the roadway classification defined in the Circulation Diagram on page V-18 of the 2019 Modesto General Plan4. The General Plan assigns roadways a category: Collector (Minor, Major, Downtown); Arterial (Minor, Principal); Expressway; and Freeway, some of which share similar lane configurations and travel behaviors. It should be noted that these designations may vary from the roadway’s functional classification which is reported to FHWA (for example, the City’s “expressway” would be likely classified as major or principal arterials). The typology assignments are distinguished as follows:
2-lane Roads
This category includes Minor Collectors, Downtown Collectors, and select Arterials that have undergone lane reductions through road diet projects implemented after the General Plan was adopted. 4 City of Modesto. 2019. Modesto General Plan, Chapter V, Transportation. https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/15012/GPA-10-001-DOC-Chapter-V-3-6-19-PDF #19..
- 605 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Modesto
4-lane Roads
This category includes Major Collectors and Minor Arterials with four or five lanes, and select four-lane Expressways that have undergone lane reductions through road diet projects implemented after the General Plan was adopted. 6-lane Road
This category includes six-lane Expressways and six-lane Principal Arterials. Although no Priority Corridors coincided with an existing Principal Arterial with six or more lanes, countermeasures for the two would be similar, and they are thus grouped together.

Street Segment Typologies
For the street segments, typologies were developed and assigned using a visual assessment of the corridors, and “variants” were noted based on characteristics such as existing bike lane, existing median, or existing two-way left turn lane. The typologies for the linear recommendations thus give the City or others the ability to quickly screen roadways outside of the Priority Corridors for potential safety countermeasures.

List of Street Segment Typologies
The segment typologies that were frequently observed along priority corridors are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Street segment typology definition, variants, and example locations.

Typology Variant(s) Example(s) on Priority Location
2-lane Roads,
undivided
• Existing parking each side • Rumble Rd east of Hunt Ave • Downtown • F St north of 9th St
2-lane Roads with
two-way left turn
lane or median
• Existing Bike Lane each side • Scenic Dr east of Sharnee Cir • Existing wide parking/bike lane each side • Tully Rd south of Coldwell Ave 4-lane Roads,
undivided • Bike lane and on street parking each direction • Tully Rd south of Madrone Dr • Orangeburg Ave west of Roosevelt Dr
4-lane Roads with
Two-way left turn
lane or Median,
lower volume
• TWLTL, no parking or bike lane • Prescott Rd north of Chrysler Dr • Downtown • I St between 3rd St and 4th St
4-lane Roads with
two-way left turn
lane, higher volume
• TWLTL, no parking or bike lane • Scenic Dr near St. Stanislaus Cemetery • Downtown • I St between 3rd St and 4th St
• No bike lane, no on-street parking • Orangeburg Ave between Briggsmore Ave and Martin Ave
• Bike lane in each direction, no on-street
parking • Sylvan Ave west of Claremont Ave
• Bike lane and parking on one side, bike lane
on the other
• Tully Rd between Montclair Dr and Standiford
Ave
#19..
- 606 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Modesto
Typology Variant(s) Example(s) on Priority Location
• Combined bike and parking lane. • Coffee Rd between Sylvan Meadows Dr and Grand Prix Dr
• Two lanes in one direction, three lanes in the
other (5 total through lanes)
• Oakdale Rd between Orangeburg Ave and
Peppermint Dr
• Two lanes in one direction, three lanes in the
other with bike lanes
• Oakdale Rd between Manor Oak Drive and
Celeste Dr
4-lane Arterial with
median, higher
volume
• Bike lane in each direction • Standiford Avenue east of Hahn Dr • Briggsmore Ave east of Carver Rd
6-lane Expressway
with median • 6-lane Expressway with median • Briggsmore Ave between SR 99 and Prescott Rd
3-lane, one way
Downtown
Collector
• 3-lane, one way Downtown Collector • H St between 1st St and 17th St Intersection Typologies
For intersections, unlike for segments, typologies were determined based upon an initial sample set of corridors and then added to as all the corridors were screened. For each typology, different “variants” were noted, based upon examination of certain key site conditions such as skew, channelized turn lanes, and presence of a bike lane on one or more approaches. The typological approach means that for each corridor, only certain intersections may have detailed recommendations. The main benefit for this approach is that it avoids repetition for the reviewer and allows for easier assignment of countermeasures, as it provides a starting point for each intersection that can be adjusted for each intersection based upon certain characteristics. Travel lane characteristics for intersection typologies are consistent with those of segment typologies with intersection control types (signalized or unsignalized) added as an additional variable.

List of Intersection Typologies
A list of frequently observed intersection typologies along priority corridors can be found in Table 2, along with a list of variants.

Table 2. Intersection Typologies with list of variants and example locations.

Typology Example(s) on Priority Location
Signalized Intersections
Intersection of 2-lane Roads (Signalized) • Roseburg Ave at College Ave • Burney St at G St/18th St (Downtown)
Intersection of 4-lane Road and 2-lane
Road (Signalized) • Tully Rd at Rumble Rd
Intersection of 4-lane Roads (Signalized) • Coffee Rd at Sylvan Ave • Needham St at 14th St/L St (Downtown)
#19..
- 607 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Modesto
Typology Example(s) on Priority Location
Intersection of 6-lane Road and 4-lane
Road (Signalized) • Briggsmore Ave at Prescott Rd
Signalized, 3-lane one way Downtown
Collector intersecting with 2-lane two
way
• H St at 14th St
Signalized, 3-lane one way Downtown
Collector intersecting with 3+ lane one
way
• H St at 17th St
Signalized, 3-lane one way Downtown
Collector intersecting with 4-lane two
way
• H St at 9th St
Unsignalized Intersections •
Intersection of 2-lane Roads
(Unsignalized)
• Floyd Ave at Veracruz St
• F St at 11th St (Downtown)
Intersection of 4-lane Road and 2-lane
Road (Unsignalized) • Orangeburg Ave at Del Vale Ave
Unsignalized, 3- lane one way Downtown
Collector intersecting with 2-lane two
way
• H St at 3rd St
Variants
Bike lanes on three or more approaches
Bike lanes on one or two approaches
Channelized right turn lane(s) on one or more approaches One or more skewed approaches
Three-way junction (i.e., T-intersection)
Unsignalized intersections only – Partially stop-controlled (ie, two-way stop control, or TWSC) Example Countermeasure Recommendations by Typology
To illustrate how the screening process and toolbox are applied in practice, this section includes two example cutsheets: one for a street segment typology and one for an intersection typology. These examples show how local context, roadway characteristics, and crash patterns informed the selection of tailored countermeasures.

The full set of typologies is presented in the final report for this project in the SAP’s Systemic Safety Blueprint. In addition, the Systemic Safety Blueprint summarizes the most frequently recommended and most effective countermeasures to address common safety issues associated with each typology and is intended to complement use of the countermeasure screening tools and methods described in this memorandum.

Cutsheet Example 1: Street Segment on Orangeburg Avenue between Roosevelt Drive and Carver Road.

This location represents a 60-foot-wide road segment, consisting of four vehicle travel lanes. The average lane width is approximately 12 feet. The surrounding area is primary commercial. The posted speed limit is 35mph, with an AADT of approximately 21,000. The roadway includes 7.5-foot sidewalks and 10-foot bike lanes on both sides. Bus route 25 #19..
- 608 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Modesto
operates along this corridor. The example location is also in a school zone and near a Virginia Corridor trail crossing.

Based on the results of the screening tool, which filters potential countermeasures using input data, the reviewer assessed the suitability of each potential countermeasure. This evaluation included a review of ongoing projects, such as recommendations from the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) or Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan (NMTP), crash types occurring within or near the map frame, and visual information from satellite imagery and Google Street View.

In this example, a road diet from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with two-way left-turn lane was recommended to address speedrelated crashes and crashes related to failure to yield the right-of-way. Updating pavement markings was also recommended due to nearby crashes associated with failure to yield and the presence of faded or damaged lane markings. Space reclaimed through the road diet could be repurposed to provide wider sidewalks and to upgrade the existing bike lanes to separated bikeways. At the Virginia Corridor trail crossing, additional safety enhancements were recommended, including installing curb extensions, upgrading the existing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) to a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK), or adding a pedestrian refuge island.

Figure 4 presents the segment cutsheet example at this location.

Figure 1: Street segment cutsheet example, taken on Orangeburg Avenue between Roosevelt Drive and Carver Road #19..
- 609 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Modesto
Cutsheet Example 2: Intersection at Coffee Road and Sylvan Avenue This location represents a signalized intersection of two 80-foot wide, 4-lane arterials. Bike lanes or protected bike lanes are present in all directions, and Sylvan Avenue serves as a truck route. The most common primary crash factors at or near this intersection include Pedestrian Violation, Improper Turning, and Automobile Right-of-Way.

The overall size of the intersection and the volume of traffic contribute to an environment where various safety issues can arise. However, these same conditions also present opportunities to recommend measures that reduce conflicts between modes or between vehicles to reduce the risk of broadside collisions, and to reduce conflicts between vehicles and vulnerable users. In conjunction with the review of the countermeasure selection tool results, these factors informed the recommendation process.

Countermeasures such as crossing enhancements and a protected intersection were selected in consideration of nearby bicycle facilities and to align with broader planning efforts in Modesto, including recommendations from the SSAR and NMTP. Furthermore, collisions linked to failure to yield the right-of-way and improper turning movements informed the signal improvement recommendations.

Figure 5 presents the intersection cutsheet example at this location.

Figure 2: Intersection cutsheet example, taken at the intersection of Coffee Road and Sylvan Avenue #19..
- 610 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Modesto
Conclusion and Next Steps
This memo provides a framework the City of Modesto can use to systematically identify and apply safety countermeasures along its roadway network. Using this methodology, the project team developed detailed shortterm recommendations for 6.9 miles of Tier I high-priority locations, mid-term recommendations for 23.5 miles of Tier II priority corridors, and long-term recommendations for 7.9 miles of Tier III priority corridors.

Moving forward, the approach outlined in this memo can be used by the City in conjunction with the Systemic Safety Blueprint included in the SAP to conduct its own screening and develop location-specific recommendations, either for further evaluation along the priority corridors, or at other locations citywide. Using the screening tool, staff can input physical, operational, and contextual data to generate a list of recommended countermeasures. These recommendations can then be reviewed alongside local crash data, existing plans, and planned improvements to ensure they are appropriate and tailored to site-specific conditions.

By applying this typology-based, data-informed process, the city can proactively identify opportunities for systemic safety improvements, prioritize projects for funding, and advance the development of a safer transportation network in Modesto.
#19..
- 611 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Modesto
Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox

COUNTERMEASURE NAME DESCRIPTION
Tier 1 - Demand Management
First- and Last-Mile Connectivity: Improve
Transit Stop Amenities and Access
Enhance bus stops and the surrounding environment so people can reach transit comfortably and safely, for example by adding seating, shade, and wayfinding.

Transit Operations: Expand Walking, Biking, and
Transit Access Through Corridor Improvements
to Improve Transit Operations
Reconfigures streets along transit corridors to improve bus reliability and speed while adding safe walking and biking connections, such as bus lanes, queue jumps, and upgraded bike and pedestrian facilities.

Land Use: Promote Transit-Oriented,
Pedestrian-Friendly Development
Encourages compact, mixed-use development and site design that brings homes, jobs, and services closer together.

Tier 2 - Speed Management
Road diet Converts a street with more lanes than needed for traffic into a configuration with fewer vehicle lanes, often adding a center turn lane, bike lanes, or medians to calm traffic and reduce crashes.

Speed humps, cushions, or tables Speed cushions are raised elements which are placed strategically such that infrequent vehicles such as heavy trucks, transit vehicles, or EMS vehicles are able to pass through while forcing smaller vehicles to go over the hump. They provide vertical deflection, which slows vehicles. Speed humps are raised, sloping, vertical bumps in the road which allow vehicles to traverse them at or below the posted speed limit with minimal discomfort.

However, trucks and larger vehicles may have difficulty traversing them and could damage the hump if they are frequent enough. Speed tables involve a raised element with a flat top.

Mini roundabouts Mini roundabouts are roundabouts with a fully mountable center island. Best used if transit vehicles and trucks are not frequent road users, but where infrequent use needs to be accommodated. They share many of the same features as a roundabout, such as deflection and pedestrian facilities, but can fit in smaller footprints. Most appropriate on lower volume roadways.

Roundabouts Roundabouts are circular, yield-controlled intersections which can both improve traffic flow and safety.

Roundabouts include many speed management elements, including horizontal deflection, which force vehicles to slow down as they enter the roundabout.

A non-mountable center island prevents vehicles from cutting the roundabout, while truck aprons can accommodate larger trucks. Roundabouts can also be effective in combination with elements such as raised crosswalks to compound the speed reduction and safety benefit, or separated bike lanes to enhance connectivity and safety. Can also be used as a "gateway" treatment to slow down vehicles in transition areas from rural or suburban conditions to urban core or neighborhoods.
#19..
- 612 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Modesto

COUNTERMEASURE NAME DESCRIPTION
Raised crosswalk A raised crosswalk is a speed table with a crosswalk across the flat part. The vertical deflection from the sloped part encourages slower speeds.

Centerline hardening or left turn wedges Centerline or lane line hardening involves the use of plastic curbs, raised delineators, or a combination thereof, which are placed inside or immediately adjacent to a lane line. They discourage vehicles from encroaching when making turns, slowing turn speeds. They can also be used to reinforce bike lanes or demarcate a curb extension.

Narrow the width of vehicle lanes Narrowing lanes reduces speeds by increasing driver discomfort and thus attentiveness. Wide lanes, even lanes which are "standard" width (i.e., 12 ft wide), can subconsciously encourage drivers to go faster. Lane widths of 11 ft are standard for roads with heavy truck traffic and transit traffic, and lane widths of 10 ft are acceptable in most other circumstances.

Curb extensions Curb extensions, sometimes referred to as sidewalk extensions, are the most ubiquitous countermeasure for slowing turning vehicles. They encourage slower right (or left) turning speeds, "daylight" or improve sight distance of intersections, reduce crossing distance and time for pedestrians, and reenforce existing state law (Assembly Bill 413) which prohibits parking within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk and 15 feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension. They encourage vehicles to make slower turns by reducing the curb radius of the intersection.

Square up channelized turn lanes and reduce
crossing distances
Converts high-speed slip lanes into slower, more perpendicular turn movements with shorter, more direct pedestrian crossings and improved visibility.

Reduce curb radius Tightens the corner radius at intersections so drivers must turn more slowly and increases visibility of people walking and biking.

Raised intersection Raises the entire intersection to sidewalk level or slightly above, creating a flat, table-like surface that slows vehicles and emphasizes pedestrian priority.

Lateral shift or chicane Lateral shifts or chicanes are physical shifts in the roadway to introduce curvature (often an S curve) into an otherwise straight roadway. They do this with a combination of curb extensions and/or medians. The horizontal shift in the roadway slows drivers and signals that they must pay attention.

Protected intersection Uses corner islands, setback crossings, and dedicated space to separate people biking and walking from turning vehicles and make movements more predictable.

Self-enforcing roadway design to reinforce
appropriate speed limits for all users
Shapes the street’s width, alignment, and roadside features so drivers naturally choose speeds that match the posted limit and the surrounding context.

Convert multi-lane one-way roads to two-way
operations
Changes a one-way couplet or corridor to two-way travel to reduce excessive speeds, simplify navigation, and support local access and walkability.

Tier 3 - Separate in Space and Time
Refuge islands Provides a raised median or island in the middle of the road where pedestrians can pause, shortening crossing times and allowing them to cross one direction of traffic at a time.

Upgrade existing Class II bike lane or Class III
bike route to higher level of protection or
Improves an existing on-street bike facility or shared lane by adding buffers, separation, or a fully separated shared use path to increase comfort and reduce conflicts with vehicles. #19..
- 613 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Modesto

COUNTERMEASURE NAME DESCRIPTION
shared use path (i.e., buffered Class II, Class IV
or Class I)
Protected-only turns Gives turning vehicles a dedicated signal phase that does not overlap with opposing through or pedestrian movements, reducing angle and turning crashes.

Sidewalk or Shared Use Path (Class I bikeway) Provides a dedicated path or sidewalk that separates people walking and biking from motor vehicle traffic along a corridor.

Raised median Installs a continuous or intermittent raised barrier between opposing directions of travel to manage turning movements, provide space for pedestrian refuge, and reduce risk of head-on collisions with opposing traffic.

Prohibit right turn on red Restricts right turns on red at selected intersections to reduce conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists in crosswalks and improve compliance with signals.

Adjust yellow change or all-red clearance
interval
Modifies signal timing so that yellow and all red intervals better match approach speeds and intersection geometry, reducing red light running and angle crashes.

Pedestrian and bicycle signal enhancements,
including leading intervals (LPI/LBI), exclusive
phases, countdown timers, and shorter cycle
lengths to reduce delay
Improves signal operations for people walking and biking by giving them a head start, dedicated phases, clear countdowns, and reduced wait times to encourage compliance and safer crossings.

Dedicated left turn or right turn lanes Adds separate turn lanes so turning vehicles are removed from through traffic, reducing rear-end and turning conflicts at intersections.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installs a pedestrian activated beacon on streets that stops traffic with a red indication, allowing pedestrians to cross safely at locations without a full signal.

Install traffic signal Adds a full traffic signal at a warranted location to organize right of way, manage vehicle and pedestrian movements, and address documented safety or operational issues.

On-street bikeway (Class II or Class IV) Provides an on-street space reserved for bicyclists, either as a conventional striped lane (with or without a buffer) or as a separated bikeway with physical protection from motor vehicle traffic.

Reduced conflict left-turn intersections,
including RCUT and Median U Turn
Reconfigures major intersections to remove direct left turns from the main intersection, instead routing movements through median openings to reduce conflict points and severe crashes.

Convert intersection to right-in, right out or add
directional median
Limits some turning movements so that vehicles can only enter and exit in the direction of traffic, reducing angle crashes and simplifying decision making.

Access management or driveway consolidation Reduces and organizes driveways and unsignalized access points along a corridor to decrease conflict points, turning movements, and crash risk.

Tier 4 - Improve Redundancy
Safety edge Shapes the outside edge of the pavement with a gentle, sloped wedge so drivers who drift off the road can more easily reenter the lane without losing control.
#19..
- 614 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Modesto

COUNTERMEASURE NAME DESCRIPTION
Rumble strips Adds grooves or raised strips on the pavement that create noise and vibration when driven over to alert inattentive drivers who leave their lane.

Improve pavement friction Applies treatments such as high friction surface courses to increase tire grip on the roadway, particularly at curves, ramps, or locations with wet-weather crashes.

RRFB Installs Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at crosswalks so pedestrians can activate bright, rapidly flashing lights that alert drivers to stop.

Guardrail or crash cushions Uses roadside barriers or energy absorbing devices to shield people from roadside hazards and reduce the severity of run-off-road crashes.

Resurface roadway Rehabilitates the pavement surface to restore skid resistance, improve ride quality, and provide a better base for markings and other safety features.

Wet-reflective pavement markings Uses markings that remain bright and visible in wet or dark conditions, helping drivers stay in their lane and navigate safely at night or in rain.

High visibility crosswalk Marks a crosswalk with bold, ladder or zebra style striping to make pedestrians more noticeable to approaching drivers.

Flashing yellow arrow signals Uses a flashing yellow arrow to indicate a permissive turn phase that emphasizes the need to yield to pedestrians and opposing traffic while clarifying signal meaning.

Widen shoulder Provides additional paved shoulder width to give drivers recovery space, improve bicycle accommodation, and create room for emergency stops.

Remove or relocate fixed objects to improve
sight distance
Eliminates or moves poles, signs, vegetation, or other obstacles so drivers and people walking or biking can see each other and react in time.

Lighting Installs or upgrades street lighting to improve nighttime visibility for drivers and vulnerable road users, particularly at intersections and crossings.

Bike lane intersection enhancements, including
bicycle signals, mixing zone, conflict markings,
bike box
Adds specialized markings and signals at intersections to guide bicyclists and drivers through conflict areas, improve visibility, and clarify who goes where and when.

Advance yield markings and signage Places yield markings and signs in advance of crosswalks so drivers stop further back, improving sight lines between pedestrians and approaching traffic.

Speed feedback signs Uses radar-based signs that display a driver’s current speed alongside the speed limit to encourage voluntary speed reduction.

Enhanced curve signage and delineation Improves signing and markings at curves with chevrons, advisory speed plaques, and edge delineation so drivers can better judge speed and alignment.

Wider edge lines Uses wider pavement edge lines to make lane boundaries more visible and help drivers stay on the road, especially at night or in poor weather.
#19..
- 615 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Modesto

COUNTERMEASURE NAME DESCRIPTION
Systemic signage and marking improvements at
intersections
Upgrades signs and pavement markings consistently across many intersections to improve visibility, clarify priority, and reduce common driver errors.

Signal visibility enhancements, including
backplates, reflective signal borders, and
additional signal heads
Increases the conspicuity of traffic signals through reflective backplates and borders, larger or additional signal heads, or relocated heads so drivers can see and respond to signals more reliably.

Speed reduction bars Installs transverse pavement markings that visually compress spacing as drivers approach a location, creating the perception of increasing speed and prompting drivers to slow down.

Blank out signs for right turns on red and wrong
way
Uses dynamic, illuminated regulatory signs that activate under certain conditions to restrict right turns on red or warn wrong way drivers at critical locations.

Red light cameras Uses automated cameras to detect and cite red light running, reinforcing compliance with signals and reducing severe angle crashes.

Realign intersection to reduce skew (angle of
intersection closer to 90 degrees)
Adjusts the geometry of an intersection so approaches meet closer to a right angle, improving sight distance, reducing turning complexity, and lowering crash risk.
#19..
- 616 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan To: Max Navarro, City of Modesto
From: Kelly Dunn and Les Brown, Alta Planning + Design; Meghan Mitman and Ashlee Takushi, Fehr & Peers Date: March 14, 2025
Re: Safety Project Prioritization Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the methodology for the completed prioritization analysis for the City’s Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan.

Input Data
Alta used the Modesto street centerline network as the basis of this analysis, which is segmented by block. Using OpenStreetMap, we also added centerlines for all nonmotorized trails that have separate alignments from roadways, because some of these were mentioned during the public feedback phase. These included the Hetchy Hetchy Trail, Virginia Corridor Trail, Helen White Memorial Trail, and the trail through Thousand Oaks Park and East La Loma Park.

Other inputs are described below.

Methodology
Road segments (“project locations”) within the City of Modesto were scored based on eight categories for 30 possible points, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The scoring categories include High Injury Network (HIN) alignment, Safety Risk Index alignment, community feedback, equity impact, transit access, school proximity, and mode shift support.

Each project was given a score for its:

1. HIN Alignment: The goal of the Safety Action Plan is to eliminate severe injuries and fatalities on Modesto’s roadway network. Seven points were given if there was an overlap with any of the three HIN (All Collision Types, Pedestrian-Involved, and Bicycle-Involved) maps to ensure projects are improving locations with a history of severe injury and fatal collisions.

2. Safety Risk Index Alignment: The Safety Risk Index identified locations with contextual characteristics or exposures associated with an increased likelihood of harm from a potential collision. A project location earned up to six points if it overlapped with any of the three Safety Risk Index (Motor Vehicle, PedestrianInvolved, and Bicycle-Involved) maps.

3. Community Feedback: Community Engagement is an integral part of the Safety Action Plan to ensure that we consider locations that might otherwise not be flagged as safety concerns in the data but are frequently identified by community members who have lived experiences in the area. In the Phase 1 Engagement and #19..
- 617 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan Outreach, the Project Team attended six pop-ups, hosted a virtual workshop, and created a public input web map. A project location scored two points if it was identified as a priority project by any community member at the various engagement and outreach events.

4. Equity Impact: Priority projects in the Safety Action Plan should represent equitable investment in the safety needs of historically underserved communities. A project location earned three points if it would benefit Disadvantaged Communities as defined by Senate Bill (SB) 535.

5. Transit Access: Transit services allow transportation accessibility for those who may not have the monetary funds to have a personal vehicle, for those who choose not to drive, or those who are unable to drive for a variety of reasons such as age, disability, or comfort. Project locations that fall along a transit route and are near a stop earned up to three points depending on the type of route serving the area.

6. School Proximity: School-aged children are especially vulnerable to collision risk and impacts. Project locations near public schools received a score of three to promote safe routes to school.

7. Mode Shift Support: Because safety is also enhanced when trips need not occur or when they occur in safer modes, such as transit, project locations associated with lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), such as those near mixed-use developments, commercial land uses, or the city’s downtown earned up to three points.

8. Nonmotorized Network Completeness: The Nonmotorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) identified gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks, and these gaps act as barriers to more widespread adoption of sustainable travel. Project locations that overlap with a NMTP recommendation were given a score of three points.

Table 1: Prioritization Criteria
Category Criteria Score
HIN Alignment Located on an HIN map 0 or 71
Safety Risk Index Alignment Located on a Safety Risk Index map 0-6 2 Community Feedback Identified at a Phase 1 event 0 or 23 Equity Impact Defined as a Disadvantaged Community by Senate Bill 535 0 or 34 Transit Access Located along transit route or near transit stops 1-3 5 School Proximity Located near a Modesto public school 0 or 36 Mode Shift Potential Located in an area likely to generate non-motorized trips 0-3 7 Nonmotorized Network
Completeness
Located in an area that includes Nonmotorized
Transportation Plan recommendations
0 or 38
Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 7 if located on the All Modes, Pedestrian-Involved, or Bicycle-Involved HIN map. 2 Projects were given the following scores based on the safety risk index category: Risk index 0 – Score 0; Risk index 1 – Score 1; Risk index 2 – Score 2; Risk index 3-5 – Score 3; Risk index 6-8 – Score 4; Risk index 9-11 – Score 5; Risk index 12 or above – Score 6.
#19..
- 618 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan 3 Projects were given a score of 2 if it is identified as a priority by one or more community member. 4 Projects were given a score of 3 if it is located within or directly adjacent to an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. 5 Projects within 0.25 miles of any transit stop were given a score of 1, project within 0.25 miles of a stop that serves a commuter route were given a score of 2, and project within 0.25 miles of a route that serves stops of interest were given a score of 3.
6 Projects within 0.25 miles of any public school were given a score of 3. 7 Projects were given a score of 1 if it is located within or directly adjacent to a commercial area, project were given a score of 2 if it located within or directly adjacent to a mixed-use area, and project were given a score of 3 if it is within or directly adjacent to downtown.
8 Projects were given a score of 3 if it overlaps with a Nonmotorized Transportation Plan recommendation.

Results
Figure 1 shows the final prioritized scores (out of a possible 30) of road segments throughout Modesto. Final scores ranged from 0 – 27. The segments in the two highest-scoring categories (22-24 and 25-27) are found throughout downtown as well as on most of Tully Road, McHenry Avenue, Coffee Road, and Yosemite Boulevard. All of these 338 road segments are on at least one HIN and all but two are in a disadvantaged community. Where there is variation of scores along the same corridor (such as 23 on some parts of Coffee Road and 25 on others), it is usually because one segment has a gap identified by NMTP recommendations, and one does not. It can also be due to differences in zoning (mode shift potential) or risk index scores.

Segments with mid-range scores (14-18 and 19-21) are found mostly on other arterial and collector roads throughout the city, including most of Orangeburg Avenue, Briggsmore Avenue, and Oakdale Road, as well as a number of blocks downtown. 86% of these segments are on at least one HIN and 83% are in a disadvantaged community.

Table 2 shows the number of segments within each score and their share of centerline miles in Modesto.

Table 2: Modesto Roadways by Prioritization Score
Category Number of Segments Share of Centerline Miles
25-27 53 0.5%
22-24 285 3.4%
19-21 395 4.8%
14-18 529 6.0%
9-13 1185 14.4%
5-8 3349 35.5%
0-4 3829 35.3%
Total 9625 100%
#19..
- 619 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan Figure 1. Modesto Roadways Prioritization Results
#19..
- 620 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan Appendix
Table 3 lists the 25 highest scoring segments by prioritization score. Because many segments share the same score, segments were ranked first by final score and then by risk index score to determine the top 25. The complete list is available as an attachment.

Table 3: Ranked Segments by Prioritization Score
Rank Street Name Between Final Score
1 NEEDHAM ST SYCAMORE AVE & L ST 27
2 NEEDHAM ST L ST & PARK AVE 27
3 9TH ST O ST 27
4 W GRANGER AVE TULLY RD 26
5 NEEDHAM ST 16TH ST & K ST 26
6 9TH ST B ST 26
7 COFFEE RD SCENIC DR & E MORRIS AVE 26
8 D ST 9TH ST & COMMERCIAL PL 26
9 NEEDHAM ST K ST & MAGNOLIA AVE 26
10 NEEDHAM ST MAGNOLIA AVE & 15TH ST 26
11 COFFEE RD DAVID CT & NORWEGIAN AVE 26
12 9TH ST F ST & G ST 26
13 H ST 1ST ST & 2ND ST 26
14 H ST 3RD ST & 4TH ST 26
15 F ST 9TH ST & COMMERCIAL PL 26
16 E ORANGEBURG AVE ALLEN DR & COFFEE RD 25
17 YOSEMITE BLV LA LOMA AVE & RUFFINO AVE 25
18 YOSEMITE BLV ROSINA AVE & SEVERIN AVE 25
19 TULLY RD GLENWOOD DR & W GRANGER AVE 25
20 YOSEMITE BLV KERR AVE & COVENA AVE 25
21 TULLY RD W ROSEBURG AVE & COLLEGE CT 25
22 9TH ST K ST & L ST 25
23 TULLY RD OAKWOOD DR & W ORANGEBURG AVE 25
24 YOSEMITE BLV CAMELLIA WY & KERR AVE 25
#19..
- 621 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan Rank Street Name Between Final Score
25 D ST 13TH ST & 14TH ST 25
#19..
- 622 -

MEMORANDUM
Date: February 9, 2026
Re: Appendix H – Tier 1 High-Priority Recommendations Memorandum File: 10% Plans and Estimates
To: Max Navarro, Associate Engineer, City of Modesto
From: J.J. Beyronneau, P.E.

Mr. Navarro,
Westwood Professional Services, in conjunction with Alta Planning + Design, has prepared improvement recommendations and cost estimates for four priority corridors in Modesto, CA. In addition to these recommendations and estimates, we have also prepared a Unit Cost Estimate for various countermeasure types.

The improvement recommendations represent plans designed to a 10% level. The corridors included in this effort are:
• Rumble Road, between Prescott Road and the Virginia Corridor Trail • 17th Street, between Downey Avenue and G Street
• The Briggsmore Avenue and Carver Road intersection
• El Vista Avenue, between Yosemite Boulevard and Scenic Drive The 10% design exhibits show the recommended improvements in two-dimensional space, overlaid on Stanislaus County GIS right-of-way lines and a geospatial aerial map. Each corridor recommendation includes a corresponding cost estimate.

The Unit Cost Estimate was prepared using current cost data and cost-per-unit calculations. Depending on the countermeasure typology, unit costs were determined on a per-unit, per-square-foot, per-linear-foot, per-mile, or per-intersection basis. The intent is to provide the City with a tool to help determine how best to serve the residents of Modesto while working within available budgets for these specific improvements.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and with Alta Planning + Design. We look forward to continuing our collaboration in the future.

Sincerely,
J.J. Beyronneau, P.E.

Assistant Engineer
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
[email protected]
Direct: (209) 571-1765 ext. 104
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 001
#19..
- 623 -
Project name: Modesto SS4A Modesto, CA

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST
1 $1,300,000.00
2 $20,000.00
3 $150.00
4 $1,700,000.00
5 $20,000.00
6 $330.00
7 $135,000.00
8 $870,000.00
9 $48,000.00
10 $205,800.00
11 $300.00
12 $12.00
13 $2,450,000.00
14 $8,700.00
15 $1,200.00
16 $43,000.00
17 $15.00
18 SEPARATED BIKEWAY (CLASS IV BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET)# $2,800,000.00 19 SEPARATED BIKEWAY (TWO-WAY CLASS IV ONE SIDE OF STREET)# $2,100,000.00 20 PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (PHB OR HAWK) $450,000.00
21 RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) $35,000.00
22 LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL $30,000.00
23 SIGNAL UPGRADE OR MODIFICATION $100,000.00
24 CURB EXTENSION $40,000.00
Notes:

1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.

2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated with the utility poles.

3. All estimates are based on productions quantities only. Unit price may increase for smaller quantities.

4. Items not included as part of this estimate.

A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition/Relocations L Street Trees B. Permits M. Tree Removal
C. Utility Fees N. Mail Boxes
D. City Fees, bond fees O. Demolition Related Items
E. Engineering/design fees P. Mobilization
F. Soils engineering cost Q. Traffic Control
G. Power Pole Relocation R. Erosion Control
H. Construction Surveying S. Utility Allowance
I. Landscaping Fees T. Construction Survey and Staking
J. Easement acquisitions U. Water Pollution Control
K. Joint Trench (Dry Utilities) V. Relocation/installation of wet utilities *
# Assumes bikeway fits into existing roadway footprint. Does not include cost of widening roadway or adjusting curb lines.

Does not include restriping of street as the number of existing lanes and proposed number of lanes is unknown.

RAISED INTERSECTION

RAISED CROSSWALK

SHARED USE PATH (CLASS I ONE SIDE OF THE STREET)
PER EA
PER EA
PER SF
PER MI
PER EA
PER EA

PER INTERSECTION
PER MI

ACCESS MANAGEMENT OR DRIVEWAY CONSOLIDATION

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS

LIGHTING
Project progress stage: Unit Cost
PER MI
PER EA
PER SF

MODIFY OR REMOVE CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN SLIP LANE

IMPROVE PAVEMENT FRICTION (HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT) SIDEWALK (5' WIDE - 6" CONCRETE OVER NATIVE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET)

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS

RAISED MEDIAN
STRIPED OR BUFFERED BIKE LANE (CLASS II BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET)* PER MI
PER EA

DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE
A. COUNTERMEASURE TYPE OR CATEGORY
SYSTEMIC SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS (EX. STOP SIGN)

SLURRY SEAL

ROUNDABOUT

RAISED MEDIAN ON APPROACHES
PER EA

PER INTERSECTION
PER LF
PER MI
PER EA
PER EA
PER LF
PER SF
PER MI
PER EA
PER EA
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 002
#19..
- 624 -
Project name: Modesto SS4A - Rumble Rd Modesto, CA
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT COST AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $286,800.00 $286,800.00
2 LS 1 $286,800.00 $286,800.00
3 LS 1 $28,700.00 $28,700.00
4 LS 1 $57,400.00 $57,400.00
5 LS 1 $143,400.00 $143,400.00
6 LS 1 $86,100.00 $86,100.00
7 LS 1 $86,100.00 $86,100.00
$975,300.00
1 LF 505 $35.00 $17,675.00
2 LF 3,731 $42.00 $156,702.00
3 ROLLED CURB LF 549 $35.00 $19,215.00
4 SF 32,235 $20.00 $644,700.00
5 SF 730 $30.00 $21,900.00
6 TON 1,463 $100.00 $146,260.00
7 CY 1,749 $45.00 $78,705.00
8 SF 60 $10,000.00 $600,000.00
9 SF 1,379 $40.00 $55,160.00
$1,740,317.00
1 EA 8 $35,000.00 $280,000.00
2 EA 1 $450,000.00 $450,000.00
3 LF 341 $3.50 $1,193.50
4 SF 5,024 $24.00 $120,576.00
5 LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
$866,769.50
1 SF 350 $15.00 $5,250.00
2 BUS SHELTER EA 3 $85,000.00 $255,000.00
$260,250.00
$3,842,636.50
1 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $576,400.00 $576,400.00 2 CONTINGENCY + CURRENT INFLATION RATE
33% OF SUBTOTAL
& CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING
1 $1,458,300.00 $1,458,300.00
5,877,337
3 PERMITTING* 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $192,200.00 $192,200.00
4 8% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $307,500.00 $307,500.00
5 PLANS, SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $192,200.00 $192,200.00 6 BID SUPPORTING/DSDC 2% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $76,900.00 $76,900.00 7 ROW 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $192,200.00 $192,200.00
$6,838,336.50
Notes:

1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.

2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated with the utility poles.

3. All estimates are based on productions quantities only. Unit price may increase for smaller quantities.

4. Items not included as part of this estimate.

A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition/Relocations G. Soils engineering cost B. Utility Fees H. Power Pole Relocation
C. City Fees, bond fees I. Joint Trench (Dry Utilities) D. Soils engineering cost J Street Trees
E. Power Pole Relocation K. Mail Boxes
F. Demolition Related Items
*

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND STAKING

STORMWATER CONTROL, SWPPP, & IMPLEMENTATION

UNIT COSTS

VERTICAL CURB
2/6/2026
C. SIGNAGE & STRIPING COUNTER MEASURES

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)
B. HARDSCAPE COUNTER MEASURES

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSS WALK

MISCELLANEOUS SIGNAGE AND STRIPING

LANDSCAPING

SUB-TOTAL

VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
4" CONCRETE (INCLUDING MEDIAN CONCRETE)
8" REINFORCED CONCRETE

AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS II)

ADA RAMP (LABOR ONLY)

ADA DOMES
MAJOR PERMITTING CAN INCLUDE SCE, CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY CERTIFICATION ETC.

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON

PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

PROJECT SUBTOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

ADDITIONAL COSTS
A. GENERAL OVERHEAD RELATED CONSTRUCTION
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION (10%)
TRAFFIC CONTROL (10%)

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

EROSION CONTROL

UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR

ADJUSTMENTS/PROTECTION/COORDINATION
D. MISCELLANEOUS

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
6" WIDE LANE STRIPING
Project progress stage: 10% Design

SUB-TOTAL
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 003
#19..
- 625 -
Project name: Modesto SS4A - 17th Street Modesto, CA
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT COST AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $79,900.00 $79,900.00
2 LS 1 $79,900.00 $79,900.00
3 LS 1 $16,000.00 $16,000.00
4 LS 1 $16,000.00 $16,000.00
5 LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
6 LS 1 $24,000.00 $24,000.00
7 LS 1 $24,000.00 $24,000.00
$279,800.00
1 SF 150 $25.00 $3,750.00
2 LF 255 $35.00 $8,925.00
3 LF 1,075 $42.00 $45,150.00
4 SF 7,143 $20.00 $142,860.00
5 TON 65 $100.00 $6,500.00
6 CY 90 $45.00 $4,050.00
7 SF 10 $10,000.00 $100,000.00
8 SF 135 $40.00 $5,400.00
$316,635.00
1 LF 2,470 $3.50 $8,645.00
2 SF 2,176 $24.00 $52,224.00
3 SF 2,655 $14.00 $37,170.00
4 LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
$101,039.00
1 SIGNAL MODIFICATION EA 3 $100,000.00 $300,000.00
2 EA 67 $1,200.00 $80,400.00
$380,400.00
$1,077,874.00
1 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $161,700.00 $161,700.00 2 CONTINGENCY + CURRENT INFLATION RATE
33% OF SUBTOTAL
& CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING
1 $409,100.00 $409,100.00
1,648,674
3 PERMITTING* 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $53,900.00 $53,900.00
4 8% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $86,300.00 $86,300.00
5 PLANS, SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $53,900.00 $53,900.00 6 BID SUPPORTING/DSDC 2% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $21,600.00 $21,600.00 7 ROW 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $53,900.00 $53,900.00
$1,918,274.00
Notes:

1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.

2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated with the utility poles.

3. All estimates are based on productions quantities only. Unit price may increase for smaller quantities.

4. Items not included as part of this estimate.

A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition/Relocations G. Soils engineering cost B. Utility Fees H. Power Pole Relocation
C. City Fees, bond fees I. Joint Trench (Dry Utilities) D. Soils engineering cost J Street Trees
E. Power Pole Relocation K. Mail Boxes
F. Demolition Related Items
*

UNIT COSTS

VERTICAL CURB

SUB-TOTAL
2/6/2026

VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
4" CONCRETE (INCLUDING MEDIAN CONCRETE)

AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS II)

ADA RAMP (LABOR ONLY)

ADA DOMES

SUB-TOTAL
D. MISCELLANEOUS

PLANTER BOX

GREEN BIKE LANE STRIPING

UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR

ADJUSTMENTS/PROTECTION/COORDINATION
6" WIDE LANE STRIPING

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

PROJECT TOTAL

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSS WALK

MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING

GRAND TOTAL

ADDITIONAL COSTS

PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MAJOR PERMITTING CAN INCLUDE SCE, CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY CERTIFICATION ETC.

Project progress stage: 10% Design

SUB-TOTAL
C. SIGNAGE & STRIPING COUNTER MEASURES

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)
B. HARDSCAPE COUNTER MEASURES
A. GENERAL OVERHEAD RELATED CONSTRUCTION
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION (10%)
TRAFFIC CONTROL (10%)

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

EROSION CONTROL

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND STAKING

STORMWATER CONTROL, SWPPP, & IMPLEMENTATION

CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY APPROACH

SUB-TOTAL
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 004
#19..
- 626 -
Project name: Modesto SS4A - Briggsmore Avenue Modesto, CA ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT COST AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $4,445,000.00 $4,445,000.00
2 LS 1 $4,445,000.00 $4,445,000.00
3 LS 1 $444,500.00 $444,500.00
4 LS 1 $889,000.00 $889,000.00
5 LS 1 $2,222,500.00 $2,222,500.00
6 LS 1 $1,333,500.00 $1,333,500.00
7 LS 1 $1,333,500.00 $1,333,500.00
$15,113,000.00
LS 1 $18,600,000.00 $18,600,000.00
$18,600,000.00
LS 1 $2,335,550.00 $2,335,550.00
LS 1 $3,206,700.00 $3,206,700.00
LS 1 $2,150,000.00 $2,150,000.00
MID 10x12 BOX CULVERT-SIPHON LF 250 $4,500.00 $1,125,000.00 BRIGGSMORE UC EASTBOUND LF 250 $27,320.00 $6,830,000.00 BRIGGSMORE UC WESTBOUND LF 250 $27,320.00 $6,830,000.00 $22,477,250.00
LS 1 $2,340,000.00 $2,340,000.00
LF 800 $1,290.00 $1,032,000.00
$3,372,000.00
$44,449,250.00
1 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $6,667,400.00 $6,667,400.00 2 CONTINGENCY + CURRENT INFLATION RATE
33% OF SUBTOTAL
& CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING
1 $16,868,500.00 $16,868,500.00
67,985,150
3 PERMITTING* 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $2,222,500.00 $2,222,500.00 4 8% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $3,556,000.00 $3,556,000.00
5 PLANS, SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $2,222,500.00 $2,222,500.00 6 BID SUPPORTING/DSDC 2% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $889,000.00 $889,000.00 7 ROW 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $2,222,500.00 $2,222,500.00
$79,097,650.00
Notes:

1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.

2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated with the utility poles.

3. All estimates are based on productions quantities only. Unit price may increase for smaller quantities.

4. Items not included as part of this estimate.

A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition/Relocations G. Soils engineering cost B. Utility Fees H. Power Pole Relocation
C. City Fees, bond fees I. Joint Trench (Dry Utilities) D. Soils engineering cost J Street Trees
E. Power Pole Relocation K. Mail Boxes
F. Demolition Related Items
*

ADDITIONAL COSTS

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

GRAND TOTAL
MAJOR PERMITTING CAN INCLUDE SCE, CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY CERTIFICATION ETC.

SEWER / STORM SYSTEM
B. HARDSCAPE COUNTER MEASURES

UNIT COSTS
Project progress stage: 10% Design 2/6/2025
A. GENERAL OVERHEAD RELATED CONSTRUCTION
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION (10%)
TRAFFIC CONTROL (10%)

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

EROSION CONTROL

UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR

ADJUSTMENTS/PROTECTION/COORDINATION

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND STAKING

STORMWATER CONTROL, SWPPP, & IMPLEMENTATION

SUB-TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

CARVER / ROUNDABOUT PAVING
C. SIGNAGE & STRIPING COUNTER MEASURES

STORM PUMP STATION

PROJECT TOTAL

WATER SYSTEM

SUB-TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL
D. MISCELLANEOUS

CARVER / ROUNDABOUT LANDSCAPING

RETAINING WALLS FOR ROUNDABOUT
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 005
#19..
- 627 -
Project name: Modesto SS4A - El Vista Rd Modesto, CA
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT COST AMOUNT
1 LS 1 $374,300.00 $374,300.00
2 LS 1 $374,300.00 $374,300.00
3 LS 1 $37,500.00 $37,500.00
4 LS 1 $74,900.00 $74,900.00
5 LS 1 $187,200.00 $187,200.00
6 LS 1 $112,300.00 $112,300.00
7 LS 1 $112,300.00 $112,300.00
$1,272,800.00
1 LF 6,750 $42.00 $283,500.00
2 SF 61,367 $20.00 $1,227,340.00
3 TON 732 $100.00 $73,200.00
4 CY 1,117 $45.00 $50,265.00
5 SF 36 $10,000.00 $360,000.00
6 SF 480 $65.00 $31,200.00
$2,025,505.00
1 EA 3 $450,000.00 $1,350,000.00
2 LF 32,835 $3.50 $114,922.50
3 SF 6,317 $24.00 $151,608.00
4 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
$1,621,030.50
1 SF 6,428 $15.00 $96,420.00
$96,420.00
$5,015,755.50
1 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $752,400.00 $752,400.00 2 CONTINGENCY + CURRENT INFLATION RATE
33% OF SUBTOTAL
& CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING
1 $1,903,500.00 $1,903,500.00
$7,671,655.50
3 PERMITTING* 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $250,800.00 $250,800.00
4 8% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $401,300.00 $401,300.00
5 PLANS, SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $250,800.00 $250,800.00 6 BID SUPPORTING/DSDC 2% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $100,400.00 $100,400.00 7 ROW 5% OF SUBTOTAL 1 $250,800.00 $250,800.00
$8,925,755.50
Notes:

1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.

2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated with the utility poles.

3. All estimates are based on productions quantities only. Unit price may increase for smaller quantities.

4. Items not included as part of this estimate.

A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition/Relocations G. Soils engineering cost B. Utility Fees H. Power Pole Relocation
C. City Fees, bond fees I. Joint Trench (Dry Utilities) D. Soils engineering cost J Street Trees
E. Power Pole Relocation K. Mail Boxes
F. Demolition Related Items
*

UNIT COSTS

SUB-TOTAL
2/6/2026

VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
4" CONCRETE (INCLUDING RAMPS)

AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS II)
ADA RAMP + BIKE RAMP (LABOR ONLY)

ADA DOMES

SUB-TOTAL
D. MISCELLANEOUS
6" WIDE LANE STRIPING
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION (10%)
TRAFFIC CONTROL (10%)

CLEARING AND GRUBBING
Project progress stage: 10% Design
A. GENERAL OVERHEAD RELATED CONSTRUCTION ITEMS

SUB-TOTAL
C. SIGNAGE & STRIPING COUNTER MEASURES

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)
B. HARDSCAPE COUNTER MEASURES

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSS WALK

MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING

LANDSCAPING

ADDITIONAL COSTS

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION (PA&ED)
MAJOR PERMITTING CAN INCLUDE SCE, CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY CERTIFICATION ETC.

EROSION CONTROL

STORMWATER CONTROL, SWPPP, & IMPLEMENTATION

SUB-TOTAL

UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR

ADJUSTMENTS/PROTECTION/COORDINATION

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND STAKING

PROJECT SUBTOTAL

GRAND TOTAL
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 006
#19..
- 628 -
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 1

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE

PRESCOTT ROAD
COLLEGE AVE SHEET-2 SHEET-3 SHEET-4 SHEET-5 SHEET-6 SHEET-7 SHEET-8 SHEET-9 SHEET-10 SHEET-11 SHEET-12 SHEET-13 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE

VIRGINIA CORRIDOR TRAIL

CARVER RD
TULLY RD ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND 0 350 700 SCALE: 1" = 700' Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 007
#19..
- 629 -

RUMBLE ROAD

MATHER DRIVE
PRINCE

ALBERT DRIVE

HILLERY DRIVE
PRESCOTT ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
2 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 3 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 008
#19..
- 630 -

PASO ROBLES
DRIVE

WYATT WAY

SANTA TERESA
DRIVE RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 3

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 2 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 4 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 009
#19..
- 631 -

PEMBROKE
DRIVE RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
4 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 3 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 5 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 010
#19..
- 632 -
CARVER
ROAD
CARVER
ROAD

RADNOR WAY
HUNT
AVENUE RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
5 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 4 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 011
#19..
- 633 -

NICKS WAY

CAMPBELL
LANE RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
6 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 5 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 7 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 012
#19..
- 634 -

SECREST WAY
DWIGHT
LANE

THORNTON

COURT RUMBLE ROAD
RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
7 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 8 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 013
#19..
- 635 -
DEBBIE
LANE
DEANNA WAY RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
8 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 7 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 014
#19..
- 636 -
HEMMINGER WAY HEMMINGER WAY RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
9 RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 8 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 10 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 015
#19..
- 637 -
TULLY
ROAD
TULLY
ROAD RUMBLE ROAD GRACE M.DAVIS HIGH SCHOOL LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 10

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 11 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 016
#19..
- 638 -

YORK WAY
WALES
STREET RUMBLE ROAD GRACE M.DAVIS HIGH SCHOOL LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 11

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 10 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 12 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 017
#19..
- 639 -
NAPIER
DRIVE RUMBLE ROAD LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 12

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 11 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 12 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 018
#19..
- 640 -

COLLEGE

AVENUE RUMBLE ROAD
VIRGINIA CORRIDOR TRAIL LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Rumble Rd-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 13

RUMBLE ROAD CORRIDOR - PRESCOTT RD TO COLLEGE AVE
SEE SHEET 12 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 019
#19..
- 641 -
Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-17th Street-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 14
17TH STREET CORRIDOR - NEEDHAM ST TO G ST 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND J STREET 17TH STREET

I STREET

H STREET

G STREET
DOWNEY AVENUE SHEET 15 SHEET 16 SHEET 17
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 020
#19..
- 642 -
17TH STREET

J STREET

I STREET

I STREET
DOWNEY AVENUE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: LEGEND:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-17th Street-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 15
17TH STREET CORRIDOR - NEEDHAM ST TO G ST
SEE SHEET 16 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 021
#19..
- 643 -
H STREET 17TH STREET 17TH STREET
H STREET CONSTRUCTION NOTES: LEGEND:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-17th Street-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 16
17TH STREET CORRIDOR - NEEDHAM ST TO G ST
SEE SHEET 15 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 17 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 022
#19..
- 644 -
G STREET 17TH STREET
G STREET CONSTRUCTION NOTES: LEGEND:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-17th Street-0068337 F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 17
17TH STREET CORRIDOR - NEEDHAM ST TO G ST
SEE SHEET 16 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 023
#19..
- 645 -

W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE

CARVER ROAD W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE
Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Briggsmore Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 18
BRIGGSMORE AVENUE CORRIDOR - INTERSECTION WITH CARVER RD 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 024
#19..
- 646 -

W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE
CARVER ROADW BRIGGSMORE AVENUE W BRIGGSMORE AVENUE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-Briggsmore Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 19
BRIGGSMORE AVENUE CORRIDOR - INTERSECTION WITH CARVER RD 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' LEGEND WEST BOUND TUNNEL EXIT EAST BOUND TUNNEL ENTRANCE WEST BOUND TUNNEL ENTRANCE EAST BOUND TUNNEL EXIT Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 025
#19..
- 647 -
Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 20
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR 0 200 400 SCALE: 1" = 400' OAKDALE ROAD

SCENIC DRIVE

EDGEBROOK DRIVE

ENCINA AVENUE

GLENDALE AVENUE
YOSEMITE BLVD (132) EL VISTA AVE EL VISTA AVE EL VISTA AVE ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND SHEET 21 SHEET 22 SHEET 23 SHEET 24 SHEET 25 SHEET 26 SHEET 27 SHEET 28 SHEET 29 Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 026
#19..
- 648 -

GLENDALE
AVENUE

YOSEMITE BLVD
(132) EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 21
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 22 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 027
#19..
- 649 -
MILLER
AVENUE EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 22
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 21 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 23 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 028
#19..
- 650 -
ROBLE
AVENUE
HADDON
AVENUE EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 23
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 22 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 24 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 029
#19..
- 651 -
ENCINA
AVENUE
ROBLE
AVENUE EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 24
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 23 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 25 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 030
#19..
- 652 -
ADA
STREET
MORAN
AVENUE EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 25
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 24 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 26 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 031
#19..
- 653 -
CAROL
STREET

LAMBERT
STREET
ELLIS
STREET EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 26
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 25 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 27 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 032
#19..
- 654 -

EDGEBROOK
DRIVE

EDGEBROOK
DRIVE EL VISTA AVE FIRE STATION LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodps.com
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 27
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 26 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 28 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 033
#19..
- 655 -
EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 28
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 27 FOR CONTINUATION
SEE SHEET 29 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 034
#19..
- 656 -
OAKDALE ROAD SCENIC DRIVE EL VISTA AVE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Plot Date:2.6.2026 Drawing: N:\_ODE\Modesto\0068337.00 Modesto Safe Streets for All\Planning\Exhibits\EXH-Corridor-El Vista Ave-0068337
F: 888.937.5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
westwoodSs.coP
1165 SCENIC DRIVE, SUITE A
MODESTO, CA 95350
T: 209.571.1765 0068337

MODESTO, CA

MODESTO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL
CITY OF MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 29
EL VISTA CORRIDOR - YOSEMITE BLVD/SR 132 TO SCENIC DR
SEE SHEET 28 FOR CONTINUATION 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50'
Appendix H: Tier 1 Recommendations Memorandum Page 035
#19..
- 657 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Modesto
To: City of Modesto
From: Alta Planning + Design
Date: June 26, 2025
Re: Tier II Mid-Term Recommendations Memorandum
Introduction
The Modesto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan (SAP) sorted priority corridors into three recommendation tiers through a prioritization process established in Appendix G: Safety Project Prioritization Memorandum: Tier I with Short-Term Recommendations including both City- and State-owned roads; Tier II with MidTerm Recommendations on exclusively City-owned roads; and Tier III with Long-Term Recommendations exclusively on State-owned roads. Guided by Appendix F: Safety Countermeasure Selection Guidance and Toolbox, this memo documents the recommendation process for the Tier II Mid-Term Recommendations in Modesto, as well as two detailed lists of draft Mid-Term Recommendations developed for example locations. While not an exhaustive set of recommendations for every location along the Tier II priority corridors, the process employed to develop these recommendations – including application of contextually appropriate countermeasures to typical intersection and segment configurations representing key transition points – serve as a starting point to support broader application of countermeasures both along the priority corridors and citywide.

Recommendations Process
The recommendation process began with a comprehensive review of the entire corridor to identify an initial set of roadway typologies. The project team then selected example locations representing identified typologies along the Tier II priority corridors. Example locations were chosen where segments or intersections exhibited physical, operational, or right-of-way characteristics differed from one or more adjacent areas and required a separate set of recommendations. Key factors such as ADT, speed limit, and road width, were entered into the Countermeasure Screening Tool, which generated a list of applicable countermeasures for each example location.

Next, a further assessment of each location was conducted, including reviewing common crash types and contributing factors and previously proposed recommendations. Using the guidance from the screening tool and this additional contextual analysis, tailored recommendations were developed and mapped for each example location.

Through this process, a total of 85 example locations were identified on the Tier II priority corridors. These include 35 intersection-only locations, 43 segment-only locations, and 7 locations that support both intersection and segment typologies. Recommendations were developed for these locations and are shown in Figure 1. #19..
- 658 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Modesto
Figure 1. Map of Example Locations for Mid-Term Recommendations along Tier II Priority Corridors.

Within or along these example locations, a total of 94 linear recommendations and 177 point recommendations were proposed. The Mid-Term Recommendations section below documents the detailed lists of linear and spot recommendations developed for these example locations along Tier II Priority Corridors.

After developing the recommendations, the project team reviewed the full list and identified the most common countermeasures associated with each intersection and segment typology. Findings of this analysis are included in the Systemic Safety Blueprint section of the Modesto SS4A Safety Action Plan. Additional documentation of the methodology used to develop the Mid-Term Recommendations, as well as the typological intersection and segment recommendations in the Blueprint is provided in Appendix F: Safety Countermeasure Selection Guidance and Toolbox. #19..
- 659 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Modesto
Mid-Term Recommendations
Street Segment (Linear) Recommendations

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION

COFFEE RD
20075 COFFEE RD MABLE AVE SYLVAN AVE Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.5 Upgrade shared parking/bike lane to fully separated and buffered class II or IV. This project is supported by NMTP (Project ID 74).
20076 COFFEE RD MABLE AVE SYLVAN AVE Raised median Bidirectional 0.5 Replace existing TWLTL with raised median. Identified in SSAR.
20077 COFFEE RD MABLE AVE SYLVAN AVE Update pavement
markings
Bidirectional 0.5 Replace existing Bott's dots with reflective lane markings and restripe faded markings.
20081 COFFEE RD NORWEGIAN
AVE
SCENIC DR Access management or
driveway consolidation
Bidirectional 0.51 Driveway consolidation in commercial areas. 20082 COFFEE RD NORWEGIAN
AVE
SCENIC DR Raised median Bidirectional 0.53 Replace existing TWLTL where feasible to separate traffic.
20083 COFFEE RD SYLVAN AVE MABLE AVE Road diet Bidirectional 0.5 Convert existing 5-lane section to 3-lane with median and bike lane.
20080 COFFEE RD SYLVAN AVE SCENIC DR Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.75 Upgrade to class IV bike lane. The project was proposed in NMTP (Project ID 73).

FLOYD AVE
20027 FLOYD AVE MC HENRY
AVE
OAKDALE RD Traffic Calming Bidirectional 1.99 Add bulbouts within parking lane or choker medians.

This traffic calming recommendation aligns with the
Class IIIB project proposed in the Modesto NMTP
(Project ID 144).
20028 FLOYD AVE MC HENRY
AVE
OAKDALE RD Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 1.99 Narrow the width of vehicle lanes to 11 ft.

N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR - SUTTER AVE
#19..
- 660 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20046 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR

CALIFORNIA
AVE

PARADISE
WAY
Sidewalk N 0.25 Fix sidewalk gaps.
20044 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
ELM AVE LAUREL AVE Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.05 Fix sidewalk gaps on east side of roadway. 20043 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
ELM AVE MAZE BLVD Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.27 Narrow the width of vehicle lanes to 11 ft. 20054 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR

ELM AVE ROBERSTON
RD
Traffic Calming Bidirectional 2.01 Add vertical and horizontal traffic calming treatments, including speed cushions, speed tables, more
frequent midblock crossings, raised crosswalks,
choker medians, and curb extensions to slow traffic. If bike lanes are added, make sure that vertical
elements are placed to avoid major impacts or
discomfort to bicyclists.
20045 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR

ELM AVE ROBERSTON
ROAD
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 2.01 Add Bike Lane (Class II or Class IV) or Bike Blvd (Class III), potentially as part of a road diet. SSAR
recommended Class II bike lanes.
20048 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR

ELM AVE ROBERSTON
ROAD
Update pavement
markings
Bidirectional 2.01 Paint edge lines.
20047 SUTTER AVE WESTERN
WAY

ROBERTSON
ROAD
Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.88 Fix sidewalk gaps. Identified in SSAR.

OAKDALE RD - EL VISTA AVE
20069 OAKDALE RD BRIGGSMORE
AVE
SCENIC DRIVE Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.72 Narrow lanes and TWLTL to 11 ft.
20071 OAKDALE RD BRIGGSMORE
AVE
SCENIC DRIVE Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.71 Add class IV separated bike lanes. The project is supported by NMTP (Project ID 288).
20078 OAKDALE RD FLOYD AVE BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Road diet Bidirectional 0.72 Road diet by removing one northbound vehicle travel lane. Two vehicle travel lanes in each direction with a TWLTL. Use additional space for better bike lane
protection, on-street parking, and wider sidewalk.
#19..
- 661 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20067 OAKDALE

RD/EL VISTA
AVE

FLOYD AVE YOSEMITE
BLVD
Raised median Bidirectional 0.72 Add raised median between turn lanes and in locations where raised median is absent. The project
was recommended in SSAR (Project ID 10).
20068 OAKDALE

RD/EL VISTA
AVE

FLOYD AVE YOSEMITE
BLVD
Update pavement
markings
Bidirectional 0.75 Update/repaint lane markings and edge lines.

ORANGEBURG AVE
20074 ORANGEBURG
AVE

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
COFFEE RD Update pavement
markings
Bidirectional 3.18 Add wet-reflective centerline, lane markings, and bike/parking lane markings throughout.
20064 ORANGEBURG
AVE

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
MARTIN AVE Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.44 Narrow lanes to 11 ft.
20055 ORANGEBURG
AVE

CARVER RD ROOSEVELT
DR
Road diet Bidirectional 1.07 Convert from 4 lanes to 3 with TWLTL. Use remaining space for bike lane protection and sidewalk.

Alternative: Raised Median.
20061 ORANGEBURG
AVE

CARVER RD ROOSEVELT
DR
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.07 Widen existing bike lane and Upgrade to class IV bikeway in conjunction with road diet.
20062 ORANGEBURG
AVE
MARTIN AVE CARVER RD Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.2 Widen existing sidewalk to minimum of 5 ft wide. 20063 ORANGEBURG
AVE
MARTIN AVE CARVER RD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.2 Delineate bike and parking lane. Stripe buffer between parking and sidewalk.
20057 ORANGEBURG
AVE

MCHENRY
AVE
COFFEE RD Road diet Bidirectional 1 Convert from 5 lanes to 3 with TWLTL, or 4 lanes undivided. Use additional space for better bike lane
protection, on-street parking, and wider sidewalk.
20060 ORANGEBURG
AVE

MCHENRY
AVE
COFFEE RD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1 Widen existing bike lane and Upgrade to class IV or parking-protected class II bikeway in conjunction with
road diet.
20059 ORANGEBURG
AVE

ROOSEVELT
DR
COFFEE RD Sidewalk Bidirectional 1.47 Widen sidewalk to minimum 5 ft. Remove trees and utility poles from existing sidewalk to maintain 4 ft
minimum clear width at all times. The project is
supported by MSSP (Project ID 352).
#19..
- 662 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20056 ORANGEBURG
AVE

ROOSEVELT
DR

MCHENRY
AVE
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.47 Upgrade existing bike lane to wider class II, buffered class II, or parking protected lanes. Repurpose north
side parking lane from Roosevelt Dr to Enslen Ave and
from Sherwood Ave to McHenry Ave.
20058 ORANGEBURG
AVE

ROOSEVELT
DR

MCHENRY
AVE
Rumble strips Centerline and
Shoulder

0.47 Add centerline rumble strips. Consider adding edge line or shoulder rumble strips on side of parking lane
to discourage encroachment.

PRESCOTT RD - W BRIGGSMORE AVE
20022 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
PRESCOTT RD SISK RD Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.15 Narrow the width of vehicle lanes to 11 ft. 20026 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
PRESCOTT RD SISK RD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.04 Recommend to Upgrade existing Class II bikeway to higher level of protection Class IV. The project was
proposed in NMTP (Project ID 419).
20023 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
SISK RD N HWY 99 ON
RAMP
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.04 Recommend to add Class IV separated bike lane as recommended in the NMTP. Consider Class I bikeways
due to amount of lanes within the interchange area.
20024 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
SISK RD N HWY 99 ON
RAMP
Raised median Center 0.04 Median possible if additional space repurposed. 20019 PRESCOTT RD W RUMBLE RD W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Road diet Bidirectional 0.84 Evaluate feasibility of road diet from 5 lanes to 3. 20020 PRESCOTT RD W RUMBLE RD W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.84 Narrow the width of vehicle lanes to 11 ft. 20025 PRESCOTT RD W RUMBLE RD W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.84 Recommend to upgrade existing Class II bikeway to higher level of protection Class IV. The project was
proposed in NMTP (Project ID 324).

ROSEBURG AVE
20018 ROSEBURG
AVE
COLLEGE AVE VIRGINIA AVE Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.25 Add Class II buffered bike lane to connect College Ave bikeway to Virginia Trail and Roseburg Square
shopping Center. This improvement would offer
#19..
- 663 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION greater protection than the Class IIIB project
proposed in the NMTP.
20021 ROSEBURG
AVE
COLLEGE AVE VIRGINIA AVE Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.25 Add curb extensions to define parking area where parking is maintained.
20016 ROSEBURG
AVE
TULLY RD COLLEGE AVE Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.25 Add chicanes and speed cushions. Add curb extensions to define parking areas. Consider choker
medians. Implement bike boulevard measures,
including signing and markings. This traffic calming
recommendation supports the Class IIIB project
proposed in the NMTP (Project ID 426).
20017 ROSEBURG
AVE

VIRGINIA AVE MCHENRY
AVE
Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.5 Add chicanes and speed cushions. Add curb extensions to better define parking areas. Add choker
medians where feasible. Implement bike boulevard
measures, including signing and markings. This traffic
calming recommendation supports the Class IIIB
project proposed in NMTP (Project ID 426).

RUMBLE RD
20040 RUMBLE RD CONANT AVE PRESCOTT RD Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.5 Add speed tables, curb bulb outs, choker medians, and raised crosswalks throughout to slow vehicles
down. Supported by SSAR (Project ID 8). This traffic
calming recommendation supports the Class IIIB
project proposed in the Modesto NMTP (Project ID
427).
20039 RUMBLE RD SHERWOOD
AVE

MCHENRY
AVE (SR 108)
Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.22 Add speed tables, curb bulb outs, choker medians to create gateway from commercial strip at McHenry
Ave into residential area closer to Sherwood Ave.

Supported by SSAR.

SCENIC DR (OAKDALE RD - LAKEWOOD AVE)
20001 SCENIC DR OAKDALE RD SONOMA AVE Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.03 Upgrade to Class IV bikeway within existing pavement width. Previous recommendation from NMTP was
Class I bikeway, but could be suitable for on-road
Class IV to avoid shifting curb line.
20002 SCENIC DR OAKDALE RD SONOMA AVE Update pavement
markings
Center 1.03 Replace existing Bott's dots with reflective lane striping.
#19..
- 664 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20003 SCENIC DR OAKDALE RD SONOMA AVE Sidewalk S 1.03 Add sidewalk and curb and gutter to south side of road. Shift north curb line to add sidewalk, curb and
gutter, and landscaped buffer where missing.
20004 SCENIC DR OAKDALE RD SONOMA AVE Lighting S 1.03 Add lighting where missing 20005 SCENIC DR OAKDALE RD SONOMA AVE Narrow the width of vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 1.03 Narrow all lanes to 11 ft.

SYLVAN AVE - STANDIFORD AVE
20030 STANDIFORD
AVE
DALE RD HAHN DR Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.25 Narrow roadway lanes to accommodate wider bike lane.
20035 STANDIFORD
AVE
DALE RD PRESCOTT RD Sidewalk N 0.96 Infill sidewalk on north side. Alternatively, add Class I SUP or wide sidewalk on north side of drainage canal.
21234 SYLVAN AVE DRAGOO

PARK DR
COFFEE RD Update pavement
markings
Bidirectional 0.47 Replace existing Bott's dots with reflective lane markings
20032 SYLVAN AVE MCHENRY
AVE (SR 108)
OAKDALE RD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.99 Upgrade existing Class II bikeway to Class IV. The project is supported by NMTP (Project ID 389).
21235 SYLVAN AVE MCHENRY
AVE (SR 108)
OAKDALE RD Raised median Bidirectional 1.99 Install raised median in place of existing two-way left turn lane where feasible.
20034 SYLVAN AVE MCHENRY
AVE (SR 108)
OAKDALE RD Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 1.99 Narrow lanes and TWLTL.
20033 STANDIFORD
AVE
PRESCOTT RD COLONIAL DR Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 1.18 Narrow lanes and/or TWLTL to 11 ft to reduce speeds. 20036 STANDIFORD
AVE
PRESCOTT RD COLONIAL DR Raised median Bidirectional 1.24 Add median in commercial areas to promote access management and eliminate full-movement driveways
where feasible.
20031 STANDIFORD
AVE

PRESCOTT RD MCHENRY
AVE (SR 108)
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 3.14 Upgrade existing Class II (or buffered Class II) to Class IV bikeway. The project was proposed in NMTP
(Project ID 377).
20037 STANDIFORD

AVE & SYLVAN
AVE

SHERWOOD
AVE

BRIDGEFORD
LN
Raised median Bidirectional 0.33 Add median in commercial areas to promote access management and eliminate full-movement driveways
where feasible.
#19..
- 665 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20029 BECKWITH RD
& STANDIFORD
AVE
SR 99 DALE RD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.21 Recommend to add Class I shared use path west of Dale Rd, through SR 99 interchange, due to number of
lanes. Included in PSR report by City and Caltrans.

TULLY RD
20051 TULLY RD BOWEN AVE BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.3 Upgrade existing bike lanes to protected bike lanes (preferred) or buffered bike lanes. The project was
supported by NMTP.
20052 TULLY RD BRIGGSMORE
AVE

STODDARD
AVE
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.44 Flip the on-street parking and existing bike lanes to create parking-protected bike lanes. If there were no
on-street parking, upgrade the bike lanes to class IV
separated bike lanes. The project was supported by
NMTP.
20050 TULLY RD Just south of
Grace Davis
High School
MOUNT

VERNON DR
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.5 Flip the on-street parking and existing bike lanes to create parking-protected bike lanes. This project will
provide greater protection than the Class IIB project
proposed in Modesto NMTP.
20053 TULLY RD STANDIFORD
AVE
9TH ST Road diet Bidirectional 2.84 Study the feasibility of a road diet along the corridor.

Speeding was noted in public comment.
20049 TULLY RD STANDIFORD
AVE
Just south of
Grace Davis
High School
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.34 Upgrade existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes.

Parking removal on the west side may be required
along certain segments. The project was proposed in
NMTP.

DOWNTOWN AREA
20085 H ST 17TH ST DOWNEY AVE Convert one way roads to
two-way operations
Bidirectional 0.17 Convert H St to two-way operations. One lane in each direction with parking on the NW side and turn lanes
at intersections as needed. This is supported by
Downtown Master Plan.
20114 H ST 10TH ST 5TH ST Convert one way roads to
two-way operations
Bidirectional 0.36 Convert H St to two-way operations. One lane in each direction with parking on the NW side and turn lanes
at intersections as needed. This is supported by
Downtown Master Plan.
20090 H ST 17TH ST DOWNEY AVE Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.17 Install 7 ft Class IV bikeway (incl. gutter pan) with 3-4 ft buffer in each direction. The project was previously #19..
- 666 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION proposed in Modesto NMTP (Project ID 161) and is
supported by Downtown Master Plan.
20115 H ST 10TH ST 5TH ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.17 Install 7 ft Class IV bikeway (incl. gutter pan) with 3-4 ft buffer in each direction. The project was previously proposed in Modesto NMTP (Project ID 161) and is
supported by Downtown Master Plan.
20102 H ST 10TH ST 5TH ST Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.36 Add wider sidewalk on each side of street. Project is supported by Downtown Master Plan.
20107 H ST 10TH ST 5TH ST Lighting Bidirectional 0.36 Infill street and intersection lighting as needed, and add pedestrian-scale lighting throughout. This is
supported by Downtown Master Plan.
20108 I ST 1ST ST 7TH ST Road diet Bidirectional 0.36 Reduce from 4 lanes to 2 with TWLTL as needed.

Reallocate space to add dedicated turn lanes, wider
sidewalks, and landscaped buffer areas.
20084 G ST 1ST ST LA LOMA
AVE/19TH

ST/BURNEY ST
Convert one way roads to
two-way operations
Bidirectional 1.33 Convert to two-way operations with dedicated turn lanes at intersections as needed. Project was included
in Downtown Master Plan
20089 G ST 1ST ST LA LOMA
AVE/19TH

ST/BURNEY ST
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.24 Add class IV bike lane to both sides of the roadway.

Project is supported by NMTP and Downtown Master
Plan.
20101 I ST 1ST ST NEEDHAM ST Sidewalk Bidirectional 1.22 Add Class I bikeway (SUP) to both sides. This project is supported by NMTP (Project ID 178) and the
Downtown Master Plan.
20105 I ST 1ST ST NEEDHAM ST Lighting Bidirectional 1.22 Infill street and intersection lighting where needed and add enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting
throughout the corridor. Project is supported by
Downtown Master Plan.
20109 F ST 9TH ST 14TH ST Narrow the width of
vehicle lanes
Bidirectional 0.36 Narrow the width of vehicle lanes to 11 ft. 20110 F ST 9TH ST 14TH ST Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.36 Add traffic calming to corridor, including speed tables or cushions, raised crosswalks, bulbouts.
20111 F ST 9TH ST 14TH ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.36 Add Class II bike lanes in each direction. This recommendation is supported in Downtown Master
Plan and NMTP (Project ID 142).
#19..
- 667 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20100 J ST 9TH ST NEEDHAM ST Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.58 Widen sidewalks; created shared street between 9th and 11th St. This project is supported by the
Downtown Master Plan.
20112 BURNEY ST G ST LA LOMA
AVE/H
ST/19TH ST
Convert one way roads to
two-way operations
Bidirectional 0.08 Convert to two way in tandem with improvements at 19th/H/La Loma/Scenic intersection. Project is
included in Downtown Master Plan.
20113 BURNEY ST G ST LA LOMA
AVE/H
ST/19TH ST
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.08 Add class IV bikeway. Project is supported by NMTP and Downtown Master Plan.
20094 WASHINGTON
ST
H ST MAZE BLVD Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.49 Add two-way Class IV bikeway. This project was recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
20097 7TH ST J ST H ST Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.19 Widen sidewalks to create and reinforce pedestrianfocused corridor. Project is recommended is the Downtown Master Plan.
20098 7TH ST J ST H ST Traffic Calming Bidirectional 0.18 Calm traffic on pedestrian focused corridor. Project is recommended in Downtown Master Plan.
20099 7TH ST J ST H ST Lighting Bidirectional 0.19 Add pedestrian scale lighting. Project was recommended in Downtown Master Plan.
20103 10TH ST K ST MORTON
BLVD
(Riverside
Trail)
Sidewalk Bidirectional 0.98 Add wider sidewalk. Project was recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
20104 10TH ST K ST MORTON
BLVD
(Riverside
Trail)
Lighting Bidirectional 0.8 Add pedestrian scale lighting. Project was recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
20095 17TH ST G ST BURNEY ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.10 Install Class II bike lanes. This project was previously proposed in NMTP (Project ID 14) and is included in
Downtown Master Plan.
20091 12TH ST NEEDHAM ST D ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.91 Add Class IV bike lane. This project was recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
#19..
- 668 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION LENGTH (MILE) RECOMMENDATION 20096 14TH ST NEEDHAM ST H ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.41 Add Class II bike lanes. This project was recommended in Downtown Master Plan and NMTP
(Project ID 11).
20092 9TH ST TULLY RD TUOLUMNE

RIVER BRIDGE
Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 1.66 Add Class IV bikeway to connect existing bikeway north of Tully Rd to Tuolumne River Trail. Project is
included in Downtown Master Plan and NMTP, and
segment between L St and I St is under design.
20093 K ST WASHINGTON
ST
9TH ST Add or upgrade
protection level of bike
lane
Bidirectional 0.38 Add Class IV bike lane. This project was recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
#19..
- 669 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Modesto
Intersection or Spot (Point) Recommendations

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION

COFFEE RD
30175 COFFEE RD No GRAND PRIX DR Speed feedback signs N, S 2 Install speed feedback signs. 30177 COFFEE RD No SYLVAN AVE Signal improvements All 1 Comprehensive evaluation recommended to address
signal-related crashes.

Consider adjustment to
yellow change or all-red
clearance interval, leading
pedestrian or bike interval
(if missing), countdown
timers (if missing), signal
backplates (if missing), and
additional signal heads.
30178 COFFEE RD No SYLVAN AVE Protected
intersection
All 1 Install protected
intersection if corridor
upgraded to Class IV
separated bike lane.
30179 COFFEE RD No SYLVAN AVE Speed feedback signs All 1 Install speed feedback signs to create gateway effect
north of Sylvan.
30180 COFFEE RD No SYLVAN AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Install refuge islands to
accompany curb
extensions/protected
intersection improvements.
30183 COFFEE RD No PRINCEWOOD AVE New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
- 1 RRFB, advanced yield
markings and signage, highvisibility crosswalk.
30184 COFFEE RD No PRINCEWOOD AVE Speed feedback signs - - Speed-related crashes common in area.
30185 COFFEE RD No PRINCEWOOD AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NE, SE 2 Reduce curb radius.

FLOYD AVE
#19..
- 670 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30068 FLOYD AVE Yes Transit Stops Transit Spot or stop
improvements
<Null> 1 Improve transit stop with
amenities such as shelters,
lighting, and real-time
information displays.
30069 FLOYD AVE Yes Transit Stops Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
<Null> 1 Build bulb-outs at transit
stops.
30074 FLOYD AVE No PRIDMORE AVE Roundabout All 1 Alternative 1: Convert existing two-way stop
intersection to miniroundabout.
30075 FLOYD AVE No PRIDMORE AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Alternative 2: Install curb
extensions on all corners
with all-way stop control.
30076 FLOYD AVE No PRIDMORE AVE New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Install high visibility triple
four crosswalks.
30077 FLOYD AVE No VERA CRUZ DR Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
SE, SW, NW 3 Install curb extensions at all
2 intersection corners and
bump out for north side of
proposed midblock crossing.
30078 FLOYD AVE No VERA CRUZ DR New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
W 1 Add new crossing on one
side of T. Add new triple
four crosswalk with RRFB
and advance yield
markings/signage. The
project was proposed
Modesto NMTP (Project ID
36).
30119 FLOYD AVE Yes Transit Stops Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NW 1 Add curb extension at
crosswalks nearest to the
bus stop.

N MARTIN LUTHER KING DR - SUTTER AVE
#19..
- 671 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30121 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No LAUREL AVE Roundabout All 1 Mini roundabout or
neighborhood traffic circle,
using modular materials if
possible to reduce cost.
30122 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No LAUREL AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Curb extensions or
Striping/Delineator curb
extensions and Reduce curb
radius.
30123 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No MAZE BLVD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NE, NW 2 Curb extensions or
Striping/Delineator curb
extensions and Reduce curb
radius.
30124 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No MAZE BLVD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
SE, SW 2 Truck apron (if roundabout
installed).
30125 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No MAZE BLVD Signal improvements All 1 Leading pedestrian or bike interval (LPI/LBI).
30126 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No MAZE BLVD Roundabout All 1 Replace existing signal with single lane roundabout,
using modular materials if
possible to save time and
cost.
30127 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No PARADISE AVE Realign intersection All 1 Realign intersection to reduce skew and crossing
distance.
30128 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No PARADISE AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 5 Curb extensions to reduce
crossing distance.
30129 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No PARADISE AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
SW 1 Reduce curb radius/curb
extension at SW corner to
reduce crossing distance
and turning speed.
#19..
- 672 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30130 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No PARADISE AVE Protected
intersection
All 1 Protect intersection for
Class II bike lane on Paradise
Ave. Redesign is supported
by SSAR (Project ID 15).
30154 MARTIN

LUTHER KING
DR
No PARADISE AVE Roundabout All 1 Convert intersection to either 1) oblong ("Peanut")-
shaped roundabout or 2) a
system of 2 connected
roundabouts by realigning
MLK/Sutter and Tuolumne.

Project was recommended
in SSAR.

ORANGEBURG AVE
30155 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No NELSON AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
W 1 Add refuge islands and
advance yield markings.

Consider shifting crosswalk
to west or east to
accommodate refuge island.
30156 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No DEL VALE AVE New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
<Null> 1 Install marked crosswalk
with RRFB, refuge island,
and advance yield markings.
30157 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No DEL VALE AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions at all
corners within parking lane.
31878 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No DEL VALE AVE Dedicated left turn
lane
Bidirectional 2 Install dedicated left turn
lane. Evaluate use of
directional median opening
to prevent left turn conflicts
from side streets.
30158 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No SUNRISE AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
N, S 2 Upgrade all crosswalks to
high visibility triple four
crosswalks. Add stop bars in
advance of signals. The
project is supported by
MSSP (Project ID 114).
#19..
- 673 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30159 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No SUNRISE AVE Signal improvements All 1 Add LPI to all four corners.

The project is supported by
MSSP (Project ID 114). City
is planning updates to the
signals (construction 2027).
30160 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No SUNRISE AVE Protected-only turns All 4 Add protected only left turns to all approaches. City
is planning updates to the
signals (construction 2027).
30161 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No SUNRISE AVE Roundabout All 1 Consider upgrading to
multilane roundabout or
single lane with bypass
lanes.
30162 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No SUNRISE AVE Bikeway intersection
improvements
E, W 2 Add conflict markings and
green bike lane visibility
improvements.
30164 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No KEARNEY AVE Flashing yellow
arrow signals
E, W 2 Add permissive only or
protected-permissive
flashing yellow arrow (FYA).
30165 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No KEARNEY AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions on
minor street leg which has
parking. Reduce curb radius
of Orangeburg turns.
30166 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No KEARNEY AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Upgrade all crosswalks to
high visibility triple four
crosswalks.
30167 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No KEARNEY AVE Signal improvements All 1 Add LPI to all signals. 30168 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No DEL VALE AVE Bikeway intersection
improvements
E, W 2 Add bike lane conflict
markings across
intersection.
30173 ORANGEBURG
AVE
No KEARNEY AVE Transit Spot or stop
improvements
<Null> 2 Improve transit stop with
amenities such as shelters,
lighting, and real-time
information displays.
#19..
- 674 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30174 ORANGEBURG
AVE
Yes Virginia Corridor Trail Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
N, S 2 Install curb extensions at
trail crossing. This crossing
was identified by public
comment as a dangerous
area for pedestrians.
30255 ORANGEBURG
AVE
Yes Virginia Corridor Trail Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
N, S 2 Upgrade existing flashing
beacon to Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon or adding refuge
island.

PRESCOTT RD - W BRIGGSMORE AVE
30038 PRESCOTT RD Yes Transit Stops Transit Spot or stop improvements
N, S 4 Improve transit stop with
amenities such as shelters,
lighting, and real-time
information displays.
30039 PRESCOTT RD No CHRYSLER DR Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
N 1 Enhance existing crosswalk
with refuge island and
either Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon or Rapid
Rectangular Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
30040 PRESCOTT RD Yes CHRYSLER DR Centerline hardening
or left turn wedges
N, S 2 Install raised median in
place of existing two-way
left turn lane where
feasible.
30041 PRESCOTT RD No MOUNT VERNON DR Roundabout All 1 ADT allows for Single Lane Roundabout, but Two-lane
Roundabout may be
warranted if traffic
increases.
30042 PRESCOTT RD No MOUNT VERNON DR Centerline hardening or left turn wedges
N, S 2 Centerline hardening.
30043 PRESCOTT RD No MOUNT VERNON DR Prohibit right turn on red
N, S 1 Prohibit right turn on red.
30044 PRESCOTT RD No MOUNT VERNON DR Signal improvements N, S 1 Adjust yellow change or allred clearance interval; #19..
- 675 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION Leading pedestrian or bike
interval (LPI/LBI).
30057 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
N, S 2 Square up channelized turn
lanes and reduce crossing
distances.
30058 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Protected
intersection
All 1 Intersection of Class II and
another Class II; protected
intersection could
complement other bikeway
improvements on both
streets.
30059 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Signing, marking, and
object delineation
improvements
All 2 Advance actuated flashing
beacon warning signs and
signal visibility
improvements.
30060 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Prohibit right turn on
red
All 1 If channelized turn lanes
removed and protected
intersection installed,
prohibit right turn on red.
30061 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Signal improvements All 1 Leading pedestrian or bike interval (LPI/LBI); Shorter
cycle lengths to reduce
pedestrian/bike delay.
30062 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Yes W ORANGEBURG AVE Speed feedback signs N, S 2 Speed feedback signs. 30063 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Yes W ORANGEBURG AVE Speed feedback signs N, S 2 Speed feedback signs. 30064 W

BRIGGSMORE
AVE
Yes W ORANGEBURG AVE Signing, marking, and
object delineation
improvements
All 4 Systemic signage and
marking improvements at
intersections.
30065 PRESCOTT RD No MOUNT VERNON DR Protected-only turns N, S 2 Protected-only turns. 30066 PRESCOTT RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Raised crosswalk All 1 Alternative recommendation: raised
#19..
- 676 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION crosswalk across slip lane if
southbound channelized slip
lane remains.
30067 PRESCOTT RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Raised crosswalk All 1 Alternative recommendation: raised
crosswalk across slip lane if
northbound channelized slip
lane remains.

ROSEBURG AVE
30020 ROSEBURG AVE No TULLY RD Roundabout All 1 Add single-lane roundabout in place of existing signal.
30021 ROSEBURG AVE No ENSLEN AVE Roundabout All 1 Alternative 1: Convert existing two-way stop
intersection to miniroundabout.
30022 ROSEBURG AVE No ENSLEN AVE Raised intersection All 1 Alternative 2: Convert intersection to raised
intersection with all-way
stop control.
30023 ROSEBURG AVE No COLLEGE AVE Protected
intersection
All 1 Convert to protected
intersection.
30037 ROSEBURG AVE No COLLEGE AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions as part
of protected intersection
design. Recommendation
was part of Modesto MSSP
effort (Project ID 78).
30045 ROSEBURG AVE Yes Along ROSEBURG AVE Speed feedback signs E, W 2 Speed feedback exiting commercial area to
reinforce residential
area/gateway.
30046 ROSEBURG AVE Yes Along ROSEBURG AVE Speed feedback signs E, W 2 Speed feedback exiting commercial area to
reinforce residential
area/gateway.
#19..
- 677 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30047 ROSEBURG AVE No GRINNELL ST New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
<Null> 1 As gateway to residential
area.
30048 ROSEBURG AVE No GRINNELL ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Part of gateway treatment.
30049 ROSEBURG AVE No GRINNELL ST Raised intersection All 1 Part of gateway treatment. 30050 ROSEBURG AVE No WELLESLEY AVE Raised intersection All 1 Traffic calming in residential area.
30051 ROSEBURG AVE No MILLS AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
E 1 Add advanced yield
markings. Project was
recommended as part of
MSSP.
30052 ROSEBURG AVE No MILLS AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to all
corners. Recommendation
was part of Modesto MSSP
effort.

RUMBLE RD
30109 RUMBLE RD No CONANT AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Curb extensions on all
corners. Supported by SSAR
(Project ID 14) and Modesto
MSSP (Project ID 14).
30110 RUMBLE RD No CONANT AVE Roundabout All 1 Single lane roundabout. 30115 RUMBLE RD No CONANT AVE Raised intersection All 1 Alternative for roundabout:

Raised intersection to slow
vehicles. Supported by
traffic calming
recommendation in SSAR.

SCENIC DR (OAKDALE RD - LAKEWOOD AVE)
30000 SCENIC DR No EASTRIDGE DR New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
E 1 Add new crossing on side of
T without left turn lane. Add
new triple four crosswalk
with RRFB, refuge island,
#19..
- 678 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION and advance yield
markings/signage.
30001 SCENIC DR No EASTRIDGE DR Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NW, NE, SE 3 Install curb extensions at all
2 intersection corners and
bump out for south side of
proposed midblock crossing.
30002 SCENIC DR No EASTRIDGE DR Centerline hardening
or left turn wedges
E 1 Alternative: Install short
raised median.
30004 SCENIC DR No EASTRIDGE DR Bikeway intersection
improvements
E, W 1 Add conflict markings across
intersection.
30005 SCENIC DR No EASTRIDGE DR Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
N 1 Add high visibility triple four
crosswalk across existing
crosswalk.
30540 SCENIC DR Yes SHARNEE CIR Speed feedback signs Bidirectional <Null> "Consider installing speed feedback signs upstream

SYLVAN AVE - STANDIFORD AVE
30079 STANDIFORD
AVE
No DALE RD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NE, SW 2 Remove or improve angle of
channelized right turn lane
to Dale Rd. Remove
channelized right turn lane
entering shopping center.
30080 STANDIFORD
AVE
No DALE RD Raised crosswalk NE 1 Alternative for Dale Rd channelized turn lane: Add
raised crosswalk and
advanced markings and
signage.
30081 STANDIFORD
AVE
No DALE RD New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
E 1 Add refuge island on east
leg of Standiford Ave,
extend median. Install
crosswalk across east leg of
intersection (if channelized
right remains, use splitter
island as crosswalk location
without refuge. If
channelized right turn is
removed, then push stop
#19..
- 679 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION bars up and tighten
intersection).
30082 STANDIFORD
AVE
Yes Shopping center
driveway
Median All 1 Close full access driveway
out of shopping center.

Convert to left-in, right out.
30083 STANDIFORD
AVE
No DALE RD Signal improvements SB 1 Add additional signal head for southbound right turning
vehicles.
30084 STANDIFORD
AVE
No DALE RD & SISK RD &
SR 99 RAMP
Roundabout All 6 Convert to system of
roundabouts per PSR report
from City in order to
rebalance traffic.
31534 STANDIFORD
AVE
Yes CONANT AVE Speed feedback signs Bidirectional <Null> Consider installing Speed feedback signs.
30085 SYLVAN AVE No KELLER ST Signal improvements NB 1 Add LPI or exclusive pedestrian phase to
accommodate crossing to
park/school. The project is
supported by MSSP (Project
ID 156).
30086 SYLVAN AVE No KELLER ST Protected-only turns WB 1 Add protected only or timeof-day protected only left turns during night hours and
school zone hours.
30087 SYLVAN AVE No KELLER ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
SE, SW 2 Add curb extensions in
parking lane. The project is
supported by MSSP (Project
ID 156).
30088 SYLVAN AVE No OAKDALE RD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NW, SW 2 Close or reduce radius of
channelized right turn lanes
EB and SB. Remove lane
drop westbound in NW
corner and shift lane add in
southbound direction to be
clear of the intersection to
transition
bikeway/protected
#19..
- 680 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 24 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION intersection. The project is
supported by NMTP (Project
ID 1).
30089 SYLVAN AVE No OAKDALE RD Protected
intersection
All 1 Add new protected
intersection, bikeways on all
approaches.
30090 SYLVAN AVE No OAKDALE RD Roundabout All 1 Evaluate potential multilane roundabout with bypass lanes.
30092 SYLVAN AVE No OAKDALE RD Protected-only turns NW, SW 2 On NW and SW corners, remove merging lanes and
make right turns signalized.
30093 SYLVAN AVE No CLAREMONT AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions in all
corners where side street
has on street parking.

Connect to parking lane or
edge of bike lane on Sylvan.
30094 STANDIFORD
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Protected
intersection
All 1 Add protected intersection
at all corners to provide
adequate protection
through intersection for
bikeways.
30095 STANDIFORD
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Signal improvements All 1 Add LPI/LBI if not already installed. Consider adding
bicycle detection or passive
pedestrian detection.
30096 STANDIFORD
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Prohibit right turn on
red
All 1 Prohibit right turn on red.

Add blankout signs for
activation during LPI.
30097 STANDIFORD
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Transit Spot or stop
improvements
<Null> <Null> Consider shared bus/bike
bay.
30098 STANDIFORD
AVE
No CONANT AVE Flashing yellow
arrow signals
NB, SB 2 Add FYA signals for side
street left turns.
30099 STANDIFORD
AVE
No CONANT AVE Prohibit right turn on
red
NB, SB 1 Prohibit right turn on red
across bikeway and during
LPI.
#19..
- 681 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 25 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30100 STANDIFORD
AVE
No CONANT AVE Signal improvements NB, SB 1 Add LPI on NB and SB Conant Ave approaches.

Add blankout signs for no
turn on red.
30101 STANDIFORD
AVE
No CONANT AVE Bikeway intersection
improvements
E, W 2 Add bike conflict markings
through intersection. Add
bike left turn box to make
turns onto Conant.
30102 SYLVAN AVE No KELLER ST Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
W 1 Add stop bars and refuge
island across TWLTL on west
leg of intersection.
30103 BECKWITH RD No SISK RD Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
W 1 Add refuge island across
striped out westbound lane.

Interim improvement until
interchange project is
funded.
30114 BECKWITH RD &

STANDIFORD
AVE
No SISK RD Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
NW, NE, SE 3 Square up or eliminate
channelized right turn lanes.
alternative is raised
crosswalk.
30181 STANDIFORD
AVE
No PRESCOTT RD Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Pedestrian refuge islands on
all legs.
30182 SYLVAN AVE No OAKDALE RD Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Pedestrian refuge islands on
all legs.

TULLY RD
30131 TULLY RD No STANDIFORD AVE Bikeway intersection
improvements
All 4 Add bike conflict markings
through intersection.
30132 TULLY RD No STANDIFORD AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Install truck apron on all
corners.
30133 TULLY RD No STANDIFORD AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Install pedestrian refuge
islands on all legs.
#19..
- 682 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 26 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30134 TULLY RD No STANDIFORD AVE Signal improvements All 1 Implement LPI and provide additional crossing time for
pedestrian and bike.
30135 TULLY RD Yes Transit Stops Daylighting, Curb extension, radius reduction, or truck apron
<Null> 1
30136 TULLY RD Yes Transit Stops Transit Spot or stop
improvements
<Null> 1 Improve transit stop with
amenities such as shelters,
lighting, and real-time
information displays.
30137 TULLY RD No MONTCLAIR DR New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
N 1 Install Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB) on the north
leg across TULLY RD. Add
refuge island in median.
30138 TULLY RD No MONTCLAIR DR New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
W, N 2 Install high-visibility triple
four crosswalks on the west
and north legs, and curb
extensions on crossing
corners.
30139 TULLY RD No WOODROW AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 3 Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility triple four crosswalks. The project was
supported by NMTP (Project
ID 63).
30140 TULLY RD No WOODROW AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Install curb extensions on all
corners.
30141 TULLY RD No WOODROW AVE Centerline hardening
or left turn wedges
S 1 Install centerline hardening
on the south leg.
30142 TULLY RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Protected
intersection
All 1 Square up channelized rightturn lanes on the south and west legs and build a
protected intersection with
truck apron.
30143 TULLY RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Bikeway intersection improvements
All 4 Add bike conflict markings
through intersection.
#19..
- 683 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 27 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30144 TULLY RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Install pedestrian refuge
islands on all legs.
30145 TULLY RD No W BRIGGSMORE AVE Signal improvements All 1 Implement LPI and provide additional crossing time for
pedestrian and bike.
30146 TULLY RD No PRINCETON AVE Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Square up skewed
intersection, install curb
extensions to reduce
crossing distances. The
project was proposed in
NMTP (Project ID 72).
30147 TULLY RD No PRINCETON AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
S 1 Restripe the crosswalk on
the south leg to reduce
crossing distances.
30148 TULLY RD No PRINCETON AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
S 1 Install Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB) on the south
leg across TULLY RD. Add
refuge island in median. This
improvement would offer
greater protection than the
RRFB proposed in NMTP
(Project ID 72), and the
RRFB proposed by the City
at a nearby location (Tully
Rd at Leonard Ave); note
that RRFBs could be
improved as
countermeasure if
combined with refuge island
and curb extensions to
reduce pedestrian exposure.

This location was identified
as a safety concern for
pedestrians by public
comment.
30149 TULLY RD No STODDARD AVE Bikeway intersection
improvements
All 3 Add two-stage bike turn
boxes and bike conflict
#19..
- 684 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 28 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION markings to guide
southbound bike traffic
transitioning from the
buffered bike lane on the
north leg to the two-way
separated bike lane on the
south leg.
30150 TULLY RD No STODDARD AVE Centerline hardening
or left turn wedges
S 1 Install centerline hardening
on the south leg.
30205 TULLY RD No BRIGGSMORE AVE Raised crosswalk All 4 Add raised crosswalk to all slip lanes.

DOWNTOWN AREA
30192 H ST No 19TH ST Raised crosswalk All 4 Add raised crosswalks to proposed gateway
roundabout entry and exit
legs.
30193 19TH ST No BURNEY ST Raised crosswalk All 4 Add raised crosswalks to proposed gateway
roundabout entry and exit
legs.
30194 14TH ST No NEEDHAM ST and

PARK AVE
Realign intersection All 1 Realign edge intersection to align with non-downtown
grid street. (In this case,
align 14th with Park Ave).

The project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 77).
30195 14TH ST No H ST Realign intersection All 1 Realign edge intersections to simply number of
crossings and legs. In this
case, truncate H St at 14th
St and realign 14th St to
intersect Needham St more
directly. The project is
supported by NMTP (Project
ID 77).
#19..
- 685 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 29 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30196 G ST No 5TH ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to
cover width of existing
parking lane, two through
lanes on frontage roads.
30197 5TH ST No G ST Dedicated left turn
or right turn lanes
NW 2 Add dedicated left and right
turn lanes off of SR 99
frontage road.
30198 G ST No 5TH ST Protected-only turns NW 1 Convert shared through/left to left turn only lane. Add
protected only left turn to
remove conflict between
pedestrians crossing and left
turning vehicles.
30199 6TH ST No G ST Dedicated left turn
or right turn lanes
SE 1 Add dedicated left and right
turn lanes off of SR 99
frontage road.
30200 G ST No 6TH ST Dedicated left turn
or right turn lanes
SW 1 Once Downtown Collector
mainline has been
converted to two-way
operations, add dedicated
left turn lane onto the SR 99
frontage roads.
30201 I ST No 5TH ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to
cover width of existing
parking lane, three through
lanes on frontage roads. The
project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 93).
30202 I ST Yes Alley between 3RD ST
and 4TH ST
Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 2 Add curb extensions at
existing alley crossing.
30203 G ST No 6TH ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to
cover width of existing
parking lane, two through
lanes on frontage roads
#19..
- 686 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 30 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30204 I ST No 6TH ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to
cover width of existing
parking lane, three through
lanes on frontage roads. The
project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 92).
30206 G ST No 6TH ST Protected-only turns NW, SE 2 Add protected-only turns off of frontage road so that
heavy flows do not conflict
with pedestrian traffic.
30207 G ST No 5TH ST Dedicated left turn
or right turn lanes
All 1 Once Downtown Collector
mainline has been
converted to two-way
operations, add dedicated
left turn lane onto the SR 99
frontage roads.
30208 I ST No 5TH ST Protected-only turns NW, SE 2 Add protected-only left turn lanes onto SR 99 frontage
road.
30209 I ST No 6TH ST Protected-only turns NW, SE 2 Add protected-only left turn lanes onto SR 99 frontage
road and protected only left
or right turns onto
Downtown Collector streets.
30210 11TH ST No F ST Raised intersection All 1 Install raised intersection to slow vehicles.
30211 11TH ST No F ST Roundabout All 1 Alternative: Upgrade intersection to mini or
urban compact roundabout.

Consider using modular
materials to reduce cost.

Add class III shared lane
markings in roundabout to
guide bicycles.
30212 11TH ST No F ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
All 4 Add curb extensions to all
corners to reduce crossing
distances for pedestrians.
#19..
- 687 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 31 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION reduction, or truck
apron
30213 11TH ST No F ST Signing, marking, and
object delineation
improvements
All 8 Add stop signs on both sides
of road and add
retroreflective strip to stop
signs. Add "ALL WAY"
Plaque underneath stop
signs where missing.
30214 F ST No 9TH ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
N, E 2 Add "gateway" treatment of
curb extensions at entrance
to lower volume streets
from higher volume streets
such as 9th St.
30215 F ST Yes Alley between 9TH and
10TH
Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions at
intersections with alleys.
30216 F ST Yes Alley between 9TH and
10TH
New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
<Null> 1 Add new midblock crossings
on each block, with high
visibility triple four
crosswalks.
30217 F ST Yes Alley between 9TH and
10TH
Raised crosswalk S 1 As part of traffic calming
and new pedestrian
crosswalks, add raised
crosswalks to reinforce slow
vehicle speeds and
pedestrian priority at
crosswalks.
30218 14TH ST No H ST Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
NW, SW, SE 3 Upgrade crosswalks to high
visibility triple four
crosswalks. The project is
supported by NMTP (Project
ID 77).
30219 14TH ST No H ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
N, E, W 3 Add curb extensions at 14th
St. The project is supported
by NMTP (Project ID 77).
#19..
- 688 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 32 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30220 14TH ST No H ST Install traffic signal All 1 Add traffic signal at realigned intersection. The
project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 77).
30221 G ST No 18TH ST & BURNEY ST
& LA LOMA AVE
Roundabout All 1 Upgrade complicated
intersection to roundabout.

The project is supported by
SSAR (Project ID 19).
30222 18TH ST No BURNEY ST Realign intersection All 1 Close one of the edges of the "triangle" formed by the
intersection of grid streets
with the edge street. The
project is supported by SSAR
(Project ID 19).
30223 G ST No 18TH ST & BURNEY ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions at all
intersections where
roundabout is not proposed
to be installed. The project
is supported by SSAR
(Project ID 19).
30224 NEEDHAM ST No PARK AVE/14TH ST New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 1 Relocate crosswalks to Park
Ave intersection and
relocate signal. Add refuge
island for pedestrians
crossing Needham St. The
project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 77).
30225 NEEDHAM ST No PARK AVE and 14TH ST Protected
intersection
All 1 Upgrade intersection to
protected intersection to
connect existing bikeway on
Needham St with proposed
bikeway on (proposed to be)
realigned 14th St. The
project is supported by
NMTP (Project ID 77).
30226 NEEDHAM ST No PARK AVE and 14TH ST Install traffic signal All 1 Remove signal at H St and add at realigned 14th
St/Park Ave. The project is
#19..
- 689 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 33 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION supported by NMTP (Project
ID 77).
30227 H ST No 9TH ST Protected
intersection
All 1 Convert to protected
intersection, in tandem with
Class IV bikeway installation
and two-way conversion of
H ST.
30228 H ST No 9TH ST Protected-only turns All 4 Add protected-only left turns at all legs of
intersection. Add as interim
measure on 9TH ST NB only.
30229 9TH ST No H ST Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Add curb extensions to all
corners.
30230 H ST No 9TH ST Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Upgrade pedestrian
crosswalks to high visibility
"triple four" crosswalks.
30231 H ST No 9TH ST Signal improvements All 1 Add LPI to all legs of intersection. Add signal
backplates. Shorten signal
cycle lengths to reduce
pedestrian delay.
30232 NEEDHAM ST No PARK AVE Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
E 1 As interim measure, install
refuge island, RRFBs, and
advance yield markings
across existing unsignalized
crosswalk. The project is
supported by NMTP (Project
ID 77), and was noted by
public input as a dangerous
intersection for pedestrians.
30241 G ST Yes Alley between 11TH
and 12TH ST
Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
S, E 2 Add curb extensions to
daylight the alley entrances.
#19..
- 690 -
June 26, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 34 City of Modesto

ID STREET MID-BLOCK CROSS STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIRECTION QUANTITY RECOMMENDATION 30242 G ST Yes Alley between 11TH
and 12TH ST
New pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
<Null> 1 Add new midblock crossing
with RRFB and refuge island.
30248 G ST No 18TH ST & BURNEY ST Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
All 4 Upgrade crosswalks to high
visibility triple four; add
missing crosswalk in NE
corner once roadways
concerted to two-way or
reconfigured.
30250 F ST No 9TH ST Existing pedestrian
crossing
enhancements
NE 1 Add high visibility crosswalk
where none exists (across F
St).
#19..
- 691 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 35 City of Modesto
Conclusion and Next Steps
This memo summarized the process used develop 271 mid-term spot and linear recommendations along Tier II priority corridors, using a typological approach that reflects key transitions in roadway conditions.

Moving forward, the City can further apply this typology-based, data-informed process to proactively identify opportunities for systemic safety improvements, prioritize projects for funding, and advance the development of a safer transportation network in Modesto. With additional guidance from the method described in Appendix F: Safety Countermeasure Selection Guidance and Toolbox, the City can further refine and finalize recommendations at key transition locations. For example, along a priority corridor that includes segments with different numbers of travel lanes, the toolbox method can help determine the most appropriate traffic calming treatments for each condition.

This may include considering a road diet along wider multi-lane segments, while applying speed management measures, such as speed humps, along narrower segments. This approach enables the City to translate typologybased recommendations into context-sensitive improvements at specific locations along Tier II priority corridors and beyond.
#19..
- 692 -
Memo
Date: February 9, 2026
To: Max Navarro, City of Modesto
From: Sarah Chan, PE, Ashlee Takushi, RSP1, and Jasper Hendra, Fehr & Peers Subject: Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
This memorandum outlines the study approach and proposed Tier III Recommendations for the City of Modesto’s updated Safety Action Plan. Study locations are found along the State Highway System owned, operated, and maintained by Caltrans. Recommendations are from the project’s countermeasure toolbox, developed in coordination with Alta Planning + Design, and Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94 to inform design elements for the proposed cross sections. We also reviewed and considered planning documents from the City of Modesto. The recommendations are advisory in nature and reflect the City of Modesto's preferred approach for addressing safety issues on the State Highway System. Recommendations will evolve as additional analyses and engineering studies are completed. We encourage continued coordination between the City and Caltrans as studies advance.

Study Locations
The locations below were chosen based on existing conditions such as roadway volume, crash history, and adjacent land uses.

SR 108
• Segment: SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street • Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue • Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive
• Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue • Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
• Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
• Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street • Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue SR 132
• Segment: SR 132/McHenry Avenue, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive • Intersection: SR 132/9th Street and K Street
• Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street • Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road #19..
- 693 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 2
Approach for Countermeasures
Countermeasures should follow a hierarchy: reduce demand, reduce severity, manage conflict. This approach prioritizes prevention at the source, not just mitigation. Countermeasures begin by reducing demand, which supports mode shift, shortens trips, eliminates trips, or improves transit (through transit signal priority and bus shelter adjustments). Reducing demand directly decreases the number of potential conflicts and lays the foundation for a safer system.

Once demand is minimized, the next priority is reducing the severity of potential collisions. DIB 94 outlines the following strategies to reallocate roadway space to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities:
• Narrowing traffic lanes and including medians/turn lanes when width is available • Removing travel or turning lanes
• Removing parking on one or both sides of the street
These strategies help reduce vehicle speeds closer to the targeted operating speed. Lower speeds not only reduce the risk of serious injury or death but also create safer conditions for all road users, especially those who are most vulnerable. In places where these strategies cannot be implemented, speed management strategies with intelligent transportation systems (ITS) may further contribute to lower vehicle speeds. ITS strategies may include the following:
• Variable posted speed limit signs (pending further Engineering & Traffic Survey studies) • Adaptive signals
• Set the signal timing coordination progression at the target operating speed (green wave progression)
• “Rest in Red” signals, where signals would change to a red phase when drivers are traveling at a speed higher than the target operating speed
• Speed feedback signs
• Speed safety cameras (pending appropriate agency and local jurisdictions policies) After addressing exposure and severity, conflict management strategies should be applied to further reduce risk by separating users in space and time and by adding redundancy to the transportation system. These strategies can enhance the safety performance of existing infrastructure rather than replace it. For example, upgrading a standard transverse crosswalk to a high-visibility crosswalk increases pedestrian conspicuity and improves driver awareness at crossing locations. Conflict management may involve prioritizing one mode over another: DIB 94 outlines modal priority based on the location’s place type. For example, a suburban community prioritizes pedestrians and transit over motor vehicles. Conflict management strategies that prioritize pedestrians may include but not be limited to the following:
• Protected intersections
• Prohibiting right-turns on-red
• Leading pedestrian intervals
• Protected left-turns
• Consolidating driveways
• Reducing full-access driveways to right-in and right-out • Removing channelized right-turns
#19..
- 694 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 3
Due to the conceptual nature of the countermeasure recommendations, a traffic operations analysis was not prepared. Daily roadway volumes were reviewed to evaluate if corridor segments or intersections could accommodate a road diet. Should a traffic analysis be prepared, a comprehensive analysis should be evaluated across multiple time periods and quantify multimodal effects (e.g., safety improvements, conflict points, emergency access, pedestrian/bicyclist delay and comfort, transit reliability, vehicular delay and queuing, traffic rerouting/diversion, and heavy vehicles). Conducting analyses under peak-hour performance or LOS thresholds as decision-making metrics can place disproportionate weight on vehicle operations. This would inadvertently undermine the systematic approach of the safety countermeasures.

Countermeasures should not be viewed in isolation; while individual treatments may offer standalone benefits, maximum safety outcomes are achieved when these measures are implemented as part of a coordinated set of strategies. For example, access management strategies—such as driveway consolidation—should be implemented alongside raised medians to reduce midblock conflicts and redirect turning movements to safer, more controlled locations like signalized intersections. Similarly, the introduction of Class IV bikeways should be paired with protected left-turn treatments to physically separate bicyclists from vehicle movements.

Background Considerations
We reviewed the following documents to understand future improvements within the study area and study locations.

A review of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Ten - Year Project Book (Caltrans, April 2025)1 was conducted to determine any overlap with study locations. Of the 22 projects within Stanislaus County, only one project was found to overlap with a study segment.

Caltrans indicated that the SR 108 and 17th Street intersection would undergo traffic signal improvements (SHOPP ID 23310); however, the project is still under development and may be subject to change.

Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (City of Modesto, August 2024) provided maps of proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the city.

Class IV separated bikeways are proposed at many study locations; however, the plan did not propose any bicycle facilities along SR 108 north of Needham Street-Downey Avenue. Based on the traffic volumes and target operating speed, Class I and Class IV facilities are proposed as facilities along the SR 108 corridor. These Class IV facilities are presented as an alternative at the following study locations:
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue • SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue
1 Note that District 10 had independently completed a conceptual report in October 2025 for SR 108 from Needham Street to Briggsmore Avenue for potential programming into the 2028 SHOPP cycle. The concept includes alternatives with proposed widened sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, and new bike lanes on SR 108. The City of Modesto is committed to collaborating with Caltrans as the project develops to address safety needs and promote Complete Streets on SR 108.
#19..
- 695 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 4
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
Downtown Master Plan (City of Modesto, August 2020) outlines policies and plans within the downtown Modesto area. This document includes proposed cross sections and intersection modifications that overlap with the following study locations:
• SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street – Realigns L Street and 14th Street to connect north to a newly signalized Needham Street intersection. Removes the westbound one-way lane on Needham Street and provides access to adjacent parking. It also creates a new perpendicular, signalized intersection at 15th Street and Needham Street. • SR 132/9th Street and K Street – Repurposes underutilized parallel parking to create a two-way protected bikeway with a landscaped buffer. Narrows the north and south sidewalk slightly to include landscaping.

Additionally, the plan includes a one-way to two-way conversion on roadways that affects the K Street and 17th Street study locations. The proposed recommendations included in the Downtown Master Plan are also reflected in the cross section recommendations.

Place Type and Target Speed
In general, the study locations exhibited wide cross sections, high vehicle volumes, and a history of crashes involving unsafe speeds. The cross sections included minimal pedestrian facilities and, in most cases, lacked bicycle facilities. Utilizing DIB 94, the surrounding land uses were considered to determine the place type and suggested operating speed. The place types are characterized as follows:
• Urban Areas
• City Center (25 mph or less)
• Urban Community (25 to 35 mph)
• Suburban Areas
• Suburban Community (30 to 45 mph)
• Rural Areas
• Rural Main Street (25 to 35 mph)
• Transitional Area (not provided)
• Underdeveloped Area (not provided)
Source: DIB 94, Caltrans, 2024.

Table 1 describes the place type and suggested operating speed for each study location. As shown, place types ranged from City Centers to Suburban Communities, which was then used to identify the target operating speed. The target operating speed plus the place type dictates the type of countermeasure proposed. For example, a roadway located in the City Center would include pedestrian crossing enhancements such as raised crosswalks and prohibiting right-turns on-red to promote a target operating speed of 25 mph.
#19..
- 696 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 5
Table 1: Study Locations Classification
Location Place Type Suggested
Operating Speed
Segments
SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street City Center 25 mph SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to
Granger Avenue
Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford AvenueSylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive Suburban Community 30 mph
SR 132/McHenry Avenue, between Trask Lane and
Riverside Drive
Suburban
Community 30 mph
Intersections
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 132/9th Street and K Street City Center 25 mph
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and
17th Street City Center 25 mph
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue Suburban
Community 30 mph
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell
Road
Suburban
Community 30 mph
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025
Cross-Section Alternatives
Road diets were also considered at all locations; however, due to the existing traffic demand they were deemed infeasible at SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue, SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue, and SR 108/Needham Street/ McHenry Avenue and 17th Street. 3 Recommendations are high level, and therefore, may evolve as additional analyses and engineering studies are completed. Further analysis and engineering studies will determine the feasibility of facility types and an appropriate number of travel lanes. Additionally, coordination between the City of Modesto and Caltrans should continue as studies advance.

Cross section development was subjected to the following parameters:
3 Traffic volume data used was 2023 Annual Average Daily Traffic from the Traffic Census Program (Caltrans). #19..
- 697 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 6
• A detailed traffic operations analysis to evaluate peak-hour related impacts (such as intersection level of service) was not considered. A high-level analysis using daily volumes was performed and the findings are reflected in the recommendations. If a peak hour analysis is performed, additional analysis to reduce peak hour demand and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) impacts should be considered when evaluating recommendation effects and tradeoffs. • Cross sections typically represent the most constrained width along the segment/intersection.

Multimodal elements (bike lanes, buffers, sidewalks), and vehicle travel lanes may be narrower than the DIB 94 recommended widths. However, cross sections would be expected to evolve along the segment depending on the available right-of-way. Further engineering surveys should be conducted to confirm right-of-way limits before finalizing widths for each element. • Intersection approaches, turn lane configuration, traffic signal modifications, and any other intersection related items that may overlap with the cross sections were evaluated at a high-level; detailed intersection evaluations should be conducted in further studies. • The cross sections assume a gutter width of 2 feet. Widths may be altered with further engineering studies to determine the appropriate minimum width and location along the cross section.

Bike Facilities
Fehr & Peers utilized Caltrans’ DIB 94 Complete Streets and DIB 89-02 Class IV Bikeway guidance to develop cross sections, simultaneously referencing available data from local plans as mentioned above. The project design includes two cross section alternatives for Complete Streets infrastructure along each corridor. Each option provides protected facilities, but with different configurations and implications within the available right-of-way. Where feasible, an alternative providing a Class I facility located on both sides of the roadway was proposed given adequate right-of-way.

Table 2 shows a summary of proposed bicycle facilities at each study location. The following sections discuss the characteristics and approach in implementing one-way Class IV, two-way Class IV, and Class I with road diet bicycle facilities.

Table 2: Study Locations Proposed Bicycle Facility
Location One-way
Class IV
Two-way
Class IV
Class I with
Road Diet
SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street ⚫ 1 ⚫ SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to
Granger Avenue ⚫ ⚫
SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive ⚫ ⚫
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue ⚫
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way ⚫ ⚫
SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street ⚫
SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street ⚫ ⚫ 2
SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue ⚫
SR 132/McHenry Avenue, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive ⚫ ⚫
#19..
- 698 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 7
Location One-way
Class IV
Two-way
Class IV
Class I with
Road Diet
SR 132/9th Street and K Street ⚫ 3
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street ⚫ ⚫
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road ⚫ ⚫ Note:

1. Applicable only with the K Street one-way to two-way conversion.

2. Applicable only to the west leg on Needham Street.

3. Based on the City of Modesto Downtown Master Plan, 2020.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

ONE-WAY CLASS IV FACILITIES
The main feature of Class IV facilities is to provide enhanced separation from motor vehicle traffic through vertical separation (may consist of flexi-post, concrete median, planters). Each proposed cross section follows widths from DIB 94 and DIB 89. In general, the proposed Class IV facilities are designed as one-way (directional), where the travel way is placed adjacent to the motor vehicle traffic direction. Providing one-way facilities is the most common form and route through an intersection with fewer traffic control devices (dedicated bicycle signals) compared to a two-way facility.

One-way Class IV facilities are typically implemented through the following process:
• Identify opportunities to reduce the widths of existing travel lanes or remove parking • Provide a bicycle travel way and buffer, a minimum of 5 feet and 2 feet, respectively (per DIB 89) • Include a 2-foot-wide buffer between the bicycle travel way and sidewalk (per DIB 94) TWO-WAY CLASS IV FACILITIES4
Similar to one-way Class IV facilities, where the main feature is vertical separation, a two-way Class IV facility has both bike lanes travel on one side of the roadway. The facility features only one vertical separation element between motor vehicle traffic and the bicycle facility. Advantages of a two-way facility include minimizing conflict points between motor vehicles and bicyclists, and roadway benefits if primary access is located on one side of the street (which reduces the need for bicyclists to cross the roadway to access the bicycle travel way). Some locations along SR 132 are designed with this type of facility.

Two-way Class IV facilities are typically implemented through the following process:
• Identify opportunities where removing parking or a travel lanes reduction is feasible • Provide a bicycle travel way and buffer, a minimum of 9 feet and 2 feet, respectively (Per DIB 89) 4 Caltrans District 10 has expressed concerns regarding the use of two-way Class IV bikeways located immediately adjacent to vehicular travel lanes, citing the potential for increased conflicts between bicyclists traveling in both directions and turning vehicles. In some cases, these concerns may be mitigated where a sufficiently wide landscaped buffer provides substantial separation between the bikeway and adjacent traffic.

As an alternative, District 10 generally prefers the use of one-way Class IV bikeways on each side of the corridor to reduce turning conflicts and improve overall operational clarity. However, in the City of Modesto, constraints related to available width and physical separation may limit the ability of street sweeping vehicles to access one-way separated bikeways, which is an important maintenance consideration. #19..
- 699 -
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum | 8
• Include a 2-foot buffer between the bicycle travel way and sidewalk (Per DIB 94)

CLASS I FACILITIES
Class I facilities provide a higher degree of separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists/ pedestrians. In addition to horizontal roadway separation, Class I facilities are aligned at sidewalk level, where bicyclists would not be at the same level as motor vehicle traffic. This alternative has two facilities adjacent to either side of the roadway, providing the greatest access for pedestrians and bicyclists; however, implementing these facilities would require modifying the existing sidewalk, as well as other utilities located on the shoulder of the roadway. This alternative would also require a large share of the cross section, likely to reduce the total number of travel lanes. This alternative is generally not offered at locations near the downtown area, as these locations have limited right-ofway, and existing traffic demand may not be able to sustain the removal of travel lanes. If this alternative is preferred outside the downtown area, it is recommended that further feasibility analysis be conducted to continue these Class I facilities in the downtown area.

This includes analysis to
• identify if a road diet is feasible based on the existing travel demand (e.g., AADT, peak hour volumes);
• identify opportunities where the existing travel lanes or parking can be removed; • provide a shared-use facility with a dedicated bicycle travel way and pedestrian sidewalk with a total width of at least 12 feet (Per DIB 94); and
• include a 5-foot buffer between the motor vehicle travel way or shoulder (per DIB 94) This concludes the Tier III Recommendations approach. The attachment shows the study locations recommendations along SR 108 and SR 132. The recommendations and countermeasures presented in the attachment should not be viewed in isolation. While individual treatments may offer standalone benefits, maximum safety outcomes are achieved when these measures are implemented as part of a coordinated set of strategies.

Attachments
Modesto SS4A Tier III Recommendations
#19..
- 700 -
Modesto SS4A
Tier III Recommendations
February 2026
#19..
- 701 -
Introduction
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
This attachment is a part of the Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations Memorandum. The basis of developing the proposed countermeasures and cross sections are documented in the Memorandum.

The countermeasures should be viewed and implemented through a hierarchical approach of reducing demand, severity, then conflict. By doing so, the study locations will be designed to prioritize prevention at the source and not just mitigation. Countermeasures should begin by reducing demand, which include supporting mode shift, shortening trips, or eliminating trips. Reducing demand directly decreases the number of potential conflicts and lays the foundation for a safer system.

Once demand is minimized, the next priority is to reduce the severity of potential collisions. This is typically achieved through speed management strategies that bring vehicle speeds closer to context-sensitive target speeds with geometric and operational changes. Lower speeds not only reduce the risk of serious injury or death but also create safer conditions for all road users, especially those who are most vulnerable.

After addressing exposure and severity, conflict management strategies should be employed to separate users in space and time. These strategies focus on separating or simplifying movements—such as through access management, dedicated turn lanes, or signal phasing.

The countermeasures presented in the following slides should not be viewed in isolation. While individual treatments may offer benefits on their own, maximum safety outcomes are achieved when these measures are implemented as part of a coordinated set of strategies. For example, access management strategies—such as driveway consolidation—should be implemented alongside raised medians to reduce midblock conflicts and redirect turning movements to safer, more controlled locations like signalized intersections. Similarly, the introduction of Class IV bikeways should be paired with protected left-turn treatments to physically separate bicyclists from vehicle movements.
#19..
- 702 -
SR 108 Recommendations
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
#19..
- 703 -
SR 108 Study Locations
Corridor Segments
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Intersections
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
• SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
• SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street • SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue
• SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street
• SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue • SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue -Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive #19..
- 704 -
Segment: SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 3 lanes, one-way NE bound
Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
High Injury Network All, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 1 fatal, 1 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 1 head on
• 24 broadside
• 4 vehicle/pedestrian
• 1 other
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 4,650
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class IV Separated Bikeway (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan) • Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) • Downtown Master Plan
Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type City Center
Target Operating Speed 25 mph
#19..
- 705 -
Legend
Segment: SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures 11th Street
13th Street
14th Street
SR 108
Install Class IV bike lanes
North
Transit stop improvements
Provide bus shelters
Move bus stop to far side with in-lane bus stop
Source: Google Earth
Install curb extension and
pedestrian refuge island
Place Type City Center
Target Operating Speed 25 mph
Pedestrian crossing
enhancements (high
visibility crosswalks,
bulb outs
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Protected Intersection
Leading pedestrian interval
Prohibit right-turn on red
Protected left turns
Left turn wedges
Include ITS and TSP
Raised crosswalks or intersections
12th Street
#19..
- 706 -
Segment: SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Convert one travel lane and one parking lane to Class IV two-way bikeway (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies to the segment along K Street only; Non-Motorized Plan does not indicate facilities along SR 108/L Street *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 707 -
Segment: SR 108/K Street, between 11th Street and 14th Street Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Based on Downtown Master Plan, convert from one-way to two-way roadway. Convert one travel lane and one parking lane to Class IV one-way bikeways (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies to the segment along K Street only; Non-Motorized Plan does not indicate facilities along SR 108/L Street Class IV one-way bikeways should only be installed in conjunction with K Street as a two-way roadway. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 708 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Source: Google Earth
North
Existing Conditions
Number of Lanes 4-8 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 1 fatal, 7 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23)
• 5 head on
• 5 side swipe
• 39 rear end
• 37 broadside
• 10 hit object
• 1 other
• 11 vehicle/pedestrian
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 30,000
Planned Improvements
• Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 709 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures Granger Avenue
Briggsmore
Avenue
SR 108
Protected intersection
Remove channelized right-turns
Remove right merge lane on Briggsmore
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
(high visibility crosswalks, bulb outs)
Source: Google Earth
Replace TWLTL with raised median
Close to public, fire access only
Move bus stop to far side with in-lane bus stop
Transit stop improvements
Reduce curb radii
North
Consolidate driveways
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Consolidate driveways
Consolidate driveways
Include ITS and TSP Legend
Change to rightin/right-out
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Include ITS and TSP
Judith Lane
Install bike facilities
Include ITS and TSP Protected intersection
Signalize intersection with
driveway consolidation
#19..
- 710 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Remove TWLTL and add Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD).

Proposed Cross-Section
*
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
Note: This cross-section applies to the segment at the most constrained point. Buffers between Class I facilities would widen as existing right-of-way would allow.
#19..
- 711 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Briggsmore Avenue to Granger Avenue Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Remove TWLTL and add Class I paths on both sides (buffer TBD).

Proposed Cross-Section
Note: This cross-section applies to the segment at the most constrained point. Buffers between Class I facilities would widen as existing right-of-way would allow.
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
* *
#19..
- 712 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between
Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Source: Google Earth
North
Existing Conditions
Number of Lanes 6 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 6 fatal, 8 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23)
• 13 head on
• 7 side swipe
• 36 rear end
• 55 broadside
• 3 hit object
• 6 other
• 11 vehicle/pedestrian
• 2 overturned
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 37,000
Planned Improvements
• Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 713 -
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford
Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive Legend North
Change to rightin/right-out
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures Robin Hood Road
Standiford Avenue
SR 108
Include ITS and TSP
Consolidate driveways
Source: Google Earth
Install bike facilities
Consolidate driveways on
east and west side and
signalize intersection with
pedestrian crossings.

Consolidate driveways
Include ITS and TSP
Transit stop
improvements
Raised or
directional median
Consolidate driveways
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Protected intersection
Protected left turns
Protected intersection
Allow U-turns
#19..
- 714 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Convert two travel lanes to Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD); convert TWLTL to raised/directional median.

Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive
*
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 715 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Segment: SR 108/McHenry Avenue, between Standiford Avenue-Sylvan Avenue to Woodrow Avenue-Robin Hood Drive
Convert two travel lanes to Class I paths on both sides (buffer TBD); convert TWLTL to raised/directional median. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 716 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue
Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 4 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 1 Head on
• 24 Broadside
• 4 Vehicle/Pedestrian
• 1 Other
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 27,000*
Source: Google Earth
North
Planned Improvements
Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
• Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Place Type Suburban Community
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
* = AADT not present at this location, volumes shown are from the next closest count location #19..
- 717 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
Morris Avenue
SR 108/
McHenry Avenue
North
Source: Google Earth
Adam Avenue
Foy Street
Johnson Street
Install protected-only left turn signal
Move bus stop to far side
with in-lane bus stop/curb
extension
Convert TWLTL to a raised median
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Install bike facilities
Legend
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Protected intersection
Lottie Avenue
#19..
- 718 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Morris Avenue
Convert one parking lane to Class IV paths on both sides (buffer TBD); move bus stop to far side Note: This cross-section applies at the intersection where the left-turn pocket is needed. The mid-block cross-section would remove the left-turn pocket and widen the buffers between the bike lane with 2’ gutters and the travel lanes, and travel lanes to have 10.5’ minimum and 11’ on outside lanes. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 719 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry
Avenue and Meily Way
Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 6 Lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 3 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 9 Broadside
Bus Routes 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 36,000*
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
North Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
• Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Place Type Suburban Community
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
* = AADT not present at this location, volumes shown are from the next closest count location #19..
- 720 -
North
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
SR 108/
McHenry Avenue
Source: Google Earth
Meily Way
Tighten corner radii
Remove acceleration lane
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph Install bike facilities
Legend
Change to rightin/right-out
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Convert TWLTL to a raised median
through intersection
Install pedestrian hybrid beacon
with high visibility pedestrian
crossing
Install high visibility
crosswalk
If full access is desired, consider
signalization and full pedestrian access
#19..
- 721 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
Convert two travel lanes to Class IV paths on both sides (buffer TBD); convert TWLTL to raised/directional median. * = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
* *
#19..
- 722 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Meily Way
Convert two travel lanes to Class I paths on both sides (buffer TBD); convert TWLTL to raised/directional median. * = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
* *
#19..
- 723 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way
Posted Speed Limit 30 mph WB, 35 mph EB
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) N/A
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 1 sideswipe
• 3 rear end
• 1 hit object
• 1 not stated
• 1 broadside
Bus Routes (Headways) N/A
AADT 15,600
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class II Bicycle Lane on SR 108/Needham Street (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan)
• Downtown Master Plan (see next slide)
Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 724 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
Downtown Master Plan Improvements Assumptions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
• Convert K Street and L Street to two way
• Realign 14th Street to intersect with Needham
Street/Park Avenue
• Terminate L Street at 14th Street
• Realign 15th Street to create a perpendicular
signalized protected intersection with Needham
Street/Sycamore Avenue
• Remove the 15th Street contraflow left turn lane
Source: City of Modesto Downtown Master Plan (2020)
#19..
- 725 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
SR 108/Needham Street
North
Note: * = Downtown Master Plan improvement assumptions (see previous slide) Source: Google Earth
Colfax Avenue
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Legend
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Sycamore Avenue
Magnolia Avenue
Install bike facilities
Include ITS and TSP
Realign intersection*
Protected intersection/Bike turn boxes
Protected left turns
Pedestrian crossing enhancements (high
visibility crosswalks, bulb outs)
Terminate L Street at
14th Street*
Remove contraflow
left turn lane*
Realign intersection*
Convert to twoway street*
Close segment*
Allow left-turn access
to 14th Street*
#19..
- 726 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
Proposed Cross-Section (West leg on SR 108/Needham Street) Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (West leg on SR 108/Needham Street) Add raised/directional median and remove WB left-turn lane in accordance with the Downtown Master Plan improvement assumptions; add Class IV one-way bike lanes on both sides (buffer TBD). *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
Note: This cross-section applies is based off concept plans from the City of Modesto Downtown Master Plan. Widths would evolve as design progresses with these recommendations.
#19..
- 727 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and 15th Street
Proposed Cross-Section (East leg on SR 108/Needham Street) Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (East leg on SR 108/Needham Street) Add raised/directional median and convert two parking lanes to Class IV one-way bike lanes on both sides (buffer TBD). *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
Note: This cross-section applies is based off concept plans from the City of Modesto Downtown Master Plan. Widths would evolve as design progresses with these recommendations.
#19..
- 728 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way on SR 108/Needham Street; 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane on SR 108/McHenry Avenue Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 2 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 5 head on
• 4 sideswipe
• 3 rear end
• 2 broadside
• 1 hit object
• 1 vehicle/pedestrian
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 15,600 (Needham), 27,000 (McHenry)
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class II Bicycle Lane on SR 108/Needham Street, Downey Avenue, and 17th Street (NonMotorized Transportation Plan) • Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) • One-way to two-way conversion on 17th Street (Downtown Master Plan) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type City Center
Target Operating Speed 25 mph
#19..
- 729 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
Downey Avenue
North
Source: Google Earth
Place Type City Center
Target Operating Speed 25 mph
SR 108/
McHenry Avenue
SR 108/Needham Street
Johnson Street
Install bike facilities
Transit stop improvement: provide
bus shelter with floating island to
accommodate two-way bike facility
Include ITS and TSP
Legend
Change to rightin/right-out
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Install dedicated bicycle phasing and
signals
Protected left turns
Prohibit RTOR
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
(high visibility crosswalks, bulb outs)
#19..
- 730 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street Proposed Cross-Section (North Leg on McHenry Avenue)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (North Leg on McHenry Avenue)
Convert one travel lane to add Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies to the segment along McHenry Avenue only *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 731 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street Proposed Cross-Section (West leg on Needham Street)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (West leg on Needham Street)
Convert one travel lane to add Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies to the segment along Needham Street only. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 732 -
Intersection: SR 108/Needham Street and SR 108/McHenry Avenue and 17th Street Proposed Cross-Section (West leg on Needham Street)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (West leg on Needham Street)
Add raised/directional median and convert two travel lanes to Class I paths on both sides (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies to the segment along Needham Street only *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 733 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 1 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23)
• 10 head on
• 7 side swipe
• 14 rear end
• 19 broadside
• 7 vehicle/pedestrian
• 3 other
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 30,000*
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class II Bicycle Lane on Orangeburg Avenue (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan) • Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
* = AADT not present at this location, volumes shown are from the next closest count location #19..
- 734 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
East Orangeburg Avenue
North
Source: Google Earth
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Legend
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
SR 108/
McHenry Avenue
West Orangeburg Avenue
Install bike facilities
EBL and WBL
Protected left turn
Transit stop improvement for SB stop
Provide bus shelters
Move bus stop to far side with in-lane bus stop
Include ITS and TSP
Consolidate driveways
Consolidate driveways
Protected intersection
Add LPI
Prohibit RTOR
Pedestrian crossing
enhancements (high visibility
crosswalks, bulb outs)
#19..
- 735 -
Intersection: SR 108/McHenry Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Add Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD).
*
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
Note: This cross-section applies at the intersection where the left-turn pocket is needed. The mid-block cross-section would remove the left-turn pocket and widen the buffers between the bike lane and the sidewalk. #19..
- 736 -
SR 132 Recommendations
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
#19..
- 737 -
Study Locations
Corridor Segments
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Intersections
• SR 132/9th Street and K Street
• SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street
• SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road • SR 132/McHenry Avenue, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive #19..
- 738 -
Segment: SR 132, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
North
Source: Google Earth
Existing Conditions
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 40 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 1 fatal, 6 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23)
• 5 head on
• 2 side swipe
• 12 rear end
• 23 broadside
• 3 hit object
• 2 vehicle/pedestrian
Bus Routes (Headways) 50 (60 min), 25 (30 min)
AADT 19,200
Planned Improvements
• Class IV Separated Bikeway (Non-motorized Transportation Plan) • Pavement Rehabilitation (Caltrans SHOPP 22986)
Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 739 -
Segment: SR 132, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive North
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures Trask Lane
Riverside Drive
SR 132
Consolidate driveways
Tighten corner radii
Include ITS and TSP
Source: Google Earth
Remove TWLTL, add raised median
Convert to bus bay with queue jump
Transit stop improvements, bus shelter
Add right turn pocket with
protected right-turn phase
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Include ITS and TSP
Install bike facilities
Legend
Change to rightin/right-out
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
Realign skewed pedestrian
crossings
NB/SB protected-only lefts
Traffic signal and railroad
crossing improvements
Consider single lane
roundabout or protected
intersection
#19..
- 740 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Segment: SR 132, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive Add Class IV two-way bikeway (buffer TBD) on north side; convert TWLTL to raised/directional median. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 741 -
Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Segment: SR 132, between Trask Lane and Riverside Drive Add Class IV one-way bike lanes (buffer TBD); convert TWLTL to raised/directional median. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 742 -
Intersection: SR 132/9th Street and K Street
Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 2 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 2 head-on
• 2 sideswipe
• 1 rear end
• 12 broadside
• 2 vehicle/pedestrian
• 2 other
Bus Routes (Headways) 22 (20 min), 23 (30 min)
AADT 14,400*
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class IV Separated Bikeway on SR 132/9th Street and K Street (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan)
• Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310)
• Class IV Two-way (adjacent to EB direction) Separated Bikeway along 9th Street from Downtown Master Plan
Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type City Center
Target Operating Speed 25 mph
* = AADT not present at this location, volumes shown are from the next closest count location #19..
- 743 -
Intersection: SR 132/9th Street and K Street
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
The City is currently pursuing improvements at this intersection. While the scope of the recommendations are to be determined, F&P would recommend the following improvements:

Conflict Management
• Protected intersection
• Protected left turns
• Prohibit RTOR
• Add LPI
• Pedestrian crossing enhancements (high visibility crosswalks, bulb outs) • Install bike facilities
• Install a raised or directional median
Speed Management
• Include ITS and TSP
#19..
- 744 -
Intersection: SR 132/9th Street and K Street
Downtown Master Plan Improvements
Assumptions
• SR132/9th Street would widen 8 feet
encroaching on the adjacent facility.
• Class IV Two-way Separated bike facility
running adjacent to the EB direction
• Maintain the same number of travel lanes
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
The City is currently pursuing improvements
at this intersection. While the scope of the
recommendations are to be determined, F&P
would recommend the following
improvements:
#19..
- 745 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 35 mph on WB Yosemite Boulevard
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 2 fatal, 1 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23) • 3 sideswipe
• 6 rear end
• 3 broadside
• 4 hit object
• 1 vehicle/pedestrian
• 1 other
Bus Routes (Headways) 38 (30 min), 50 (60 min)
AADT 14,800
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class IV Separated Bikeway on Yosemite Boulevard and D Street; Class I SharedUse Path on D Street (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan) • Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 746 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard
North
Source: Google Earth
Groveland Street
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Legend
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
D Street
Jennie Street
Include ITS and TSP
Tighten curb radii
Protected intersection
Split/protected left-turn phasing
Pedestrian crossing
enhancements (high visibility
crosswalks, bulb outs)
Move bus stop to far side (EB Yosemite Blvd)
with in-lane bus stop
Transit stop improvements
Install bike facilities
Remove channelized right
turn lane and reduce
turning radii
Protected right-turn phase
Raised or
directional median
Realign skewed
pedestrian crossings
Consolidate driveways
Consider closing
left/through access
#19..
- 747 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Proposed Cross-Section (SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard)
Add raised/directional median and Class IV one-way bike lanes on both sides (buffer TBD). Note: Traffic operations to be revisited to consider approach lane modifications.

*
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 748 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Proposed Cross-Section (SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard)
Replace left-turn lane with raised/directional median and add Class I two-way bike paths on both sides (buffer TBD).

Note: Traffic operations to be revisited to consider approach lane modifications. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 749 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Proposed Cross-Section (SR 132/D Street)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (SR 132/D Street)
Add Class IV one-way bike lanes on both sides (buffer TBD). Note: Traffic operations to be revisited to consider approach lane modifications.
*
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 750 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and SR 132/D Street Proposed Cross-Section (SR 132/D Street)
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section (SR 132/D Street)
Remove one travel lane; add raised/directional median and Class I two-way bike paths on both sides (buffer TBD).

Note: Traffic operations to be revisited to consider approach lane modifications. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 751 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road Existing Conditions
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Number of Lanes 4 lanes, two way, with two-way left turn lane Posted Speed Limit 40 mph
High Injury Network All, Bicycle, Pedestrian
KSI Crashes ('16-'23) 3 serious injury
Type of Crashes ('16-'23)
• 1 sideswipe
• 14 rear end
• 10 broadside
• 3 hit object
• 1 vehicle/pedestrian
Bus Routes (Headways) 50 (60 min)
AADT 20,200
North
Source: Google Earth
Planned Improvements
• Class IV Separated Bikeway on SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan) – no planned improvements on Mitchell Road • Transportation Management System Elements (Caltrans SHOPP 23310) Proposed Countermeasure Assumptions
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
#19..
- 752 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Proposed Countermeasures
SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard
Mitchell Road
North
Source: Google Earth
Colfax Avenue
Place Type Suburban
Target Operating Speed 30 mph
Legend
Conflict Management
Speed Management
Demand Management
El Vista Avenue
Install bike facilities
Add right turn pocket with
protected right-turn phase Include ITS and TSP
Reduce corner radii
Protected intersection
Prohibit RTOR
Pedestrian crossing
enhancements (high
visibility crosswalks, bulb
outs)
Transit stop improvement for WB stop
Provide bus shelters
Move bus stop to far side with in-lane bus stop
Replace TWLTL
with raised median
#19..
- 753 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Remove raised median and add a Class IV two-way bike lane on north side (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies at the intersection where the left-turn pocket is needed. The mid-block cross-section would remove the left-turn pocket and widen the buffers between the bike lane and the sidewalk. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 754 -
Intersection: SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard and El Vista Avenue/Mitchell Road Proposed Cross-Section
Modesto SS4A – Tier III Recommendations
Existing Cross-Section
Remove raised median and add Class IV one-way bike lanes on both sides (buffer TBD).

Note: This cross-section applies at the intersection where the left-turn pocket is needed. The mid-block cross-section would remove the left-turn pocket and sidewalk and add 2’ gutter width to the outside travel lanes. *
* = Includes 2’ of curb and gutter width
*
#19..
- 755 -
Let Kids
Cross
Traffic Safety Campaign
AUGUST 2025
#19..
- 756 -
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Campaign Overview 6
Background 6
Campaign Goals, Objectives, and Focus . 6
Messaging and Design Process 7
Campaign Strategies, Activities, and Outputs 8
Paid Media Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Community Engagement and Outreach 10
Evaluation 16
Public Survey Results 16
Outcomes 17
Conclusion and Recommendations
for Future Campaigns 18
2Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 757 -
Campaign Objectives
Increase adult and teenage driver
adherence to speed limits citywide.

Increase public awareness of the
dangers of speeding, especially around
schools, and the benefits of compliance
with speed limits and crosswalk laws.

Campaign Focus
The media campaign was implemented
citywide, geotargeting school zones when
possible, with an aim to reach the following
audiences:
‹ Adult drivers
‹ Teen drivers
‹ School officials and parents
About the Campaign
The City of Modesto received Safe
Streets for All (SS4A) funding to
develop and deliver a pilot traffic
safety campaign alongside the
development of a holistic strategy
to reduce roadway fatalities and
serious injuries.

The “Let Kids Cross” campaign ran
April 7 to May 18, 2025, in support of the
City’s overarching goal of reducing the
number of pedestrian-involved crashes in
school zones. The City integrated paid media
and community engagement strategies to
reach adult and teenage drivers to improve
safety for the most vulnerable road users.

Executive Summary
3Executive Summary
#19..
- 758 -
Campaign Outputs
The campaign included a mix of paid media and community engagement strategies to raise awareness of the campaign. Paid media included advertising with local publications as well as targeted digital and streaming ads. Community engagement included a campaign quiz and pledge, distribution of campaign materials, ongoing communications, and a tabling event.

PAID MEDIA

OUTLET BUDGET AND

DONATED VALUE KEY METRICS
Modesto Bee $12,500 Total reach: 374,295
Stanislaus Magazine $3,200 + $1,600 in
donated value Readership: 100,000
Digital out-of-home ads $8,000 Total reach: 280,302
CapRadio $15,750 Est. total reach: 68,900
Spotify $7,700
Total reach: 831,786
Completion rate: 91%
StanRTA interior bus ads Donated Est. total reach: 489,303 Social media ads
(Facebook and Instagram) $490 Total reach: 52,568 Total clicks: 1,086 TOTAL BUDGET: $49,240 TOTAL REACH: 2,197,154

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
1,440
materials distributed,
including yard signs, posters,
and handouts
233
quizzes completed
150
pledges signed
100+
new email contacts
350
people reached at
1 tabling event
4Executive Summary
#19..
- 759 -
Campaign Outcomes
Campaign objectives and key outcomes include:

OBJECTIVE
Increase adult and teenage driver adherence to speed
limits citywide.

KEY OUTCOME
150 community members pledged to make Modesto’s
streets safer by slowing down, stopping for pedestrians, and staying alert in school zones.

OBJECTIVE
Increase public awareness of the dangers of speeding,
especially around schools, and the benefits of compliance with speed limits and crosswalk laws.

KEY OUTCOMES
The traffic safety campaign quiz was taken 233 times,
with approximately half the questions serving to reinforce common traffic safety laws and half the questions serving to educate respondents on lesser known, pertinent facts.

Paid media tactics had an estimated reach of 2,197,154
with a primary design and call to action for drivers to stop at crosswalks.
1,440 campaign materials were distributed to spread
the campaign message.
13 schools participated in the program by opting in to
receive and distribute campaign materials.

Conclusion and
Recommendations
for Future Campaigns
The campaign evaluation findings and key
outputs demonstrate that the campaign
supported its objectives to increase adherence
to speed limits and crosswalk laws, and
awareness of the dangers of speeding.

When designing future campaigns, it is recommended that the City:
‹ Proactively identify future campaign topics by gathering input from community members and partners, and
aligning with data-driven priorities and recommended
actions in the Safety Action Plan. Early engagement builds community buy-in and increases campaign relevance.
‹ Maintain consistent campaign elements, such as design and branding, to strengthen recognition and trust. This continuity builds on the audience reach established
through this pilot campaign.
‹ Invest in dedicating staffing, such as a Vision Zero
Coordinator, to provide ongoing leadership, oversee
campaign delivery, and build and maintain strong
community relationships.
5Executive Summary
#19..
- 760 -
Campaign Overview
Background
The project team analyzed crash data and trends for pedestrianand bicyclist-involved crashes and identified the most common behavioral, geographic, and demographic attributes associated with these crashes. The City considered this information when selecting crosswalk compliance and speeding in school zones as the pilot campaign focus.

Funding, Project Management,
and Consultant Team
The City of Modesto funded the pilot campaign through their SS4A planning grant. A representative from the City’s Public Works Department served as the project manager. City Public Relations and Communications staff also supported the project.

The City contracted with a consulting firm, Alta Planning + Design, to assist in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the campaign.

Campaign Goals, Objectives,
and Focus
The following goals and objectives were established at the start of the pilot campaign:

OVERARCHING TRAFFIC SAFETY GOAL
Reduce the number of pedestrian-involved crashes
in school zones.

CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES
Increase adult and teenage driver adherence to speed
limits citywide.

Increase public awareness of the dangers of speeding,
especially around schools, and the benefits of compliance with speed limits and crosswalk laws.

CAMPAIGN FOCUS
The media campaign was implemented citywide in English and Spanish, geotargeting school zones when possible, with an aim to reach the following audiences:
‹ Adult drivers
‹ Teen drivers
‹ School officials and parents
The campaign ran April 7 to May 18, 2025, to conclude before the last week of school and align with National Bike & Roll to School Day on May 8.
6Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 761 -
Figure 1 • Let Kids Cross Original Artwork Figure 2 • Deja Que Los Niños Crucen Original Artwork Take the quiz & commit to safety
ModestoSafeStreets.com/Quiz
Don't rush the walk.

ModestoSafeStreets.com/Quiz-Es
No apresures su caminar.

Messaging and Design Process
The City collaborated with the Safety Task
Force, which consisted of City officials, safety
advocates, public health practitioners, school
district officials, and other stakeholders,
to support the development of campaign
messaging and design. With the help of the
Safety Task Force, the City selected a photobased campaign design and the following messages, which were used to develop
materials in both English and Spanish:
‹ Headline: Let Kids Cross / Deja Que Los
Niños Crucen
‹ Subheadline: Don’t Rush the Walk /
No Apresures Su Caminar
Campaign materials are described in detail in
the Community Engagement and Outreach
section. Figures 1 and 2 include the primary
campaign designs in English and Spanish.
7Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 762 -
Campaign Strategies,
Activities, and Outputs
The campaign included a mix of paid media and
community engagement strategies intended to
maximize the campaign’s reach and impact with
the funds available. Paid media included advertising
with local publications as well as targeted digital and streaming ads. Community engagement included a
campaign quiz and pledge, distribution of campaign
materials, ongoing communications, and a tabling event.

Paid Media Advertising
The project team analyzed the media use of the focus audiences to determine appropriate promotional and communications channels, which resulted in the outlets described in this section. A summary of key metrics and a description of each outlet are provided in Table 1 on the following page.

Paid Media Key Results
The campaign’s paid media strategy achieved
strong local reach and effective message delivery:

Modesto Bee and Stanislaus Magazine
placements provided high local visibility
and leveraged trusted, community-based
news sources to build credibility and
reinforce campaign messages.

Digital out-of-home ads contributed to
broad exposure across key locations,
increasing campaign recognition and
message recall.

Radio and Spotify ads reached drivers
while they were actively on the road,
making the message timely, relevant, and
more likely to prompt behavior change.

Spotify targeting allowed the campaign to
reach residents aged 13 to 17, including
many of Modesto’s new drivers. This helped
reinforce the social norm that everyone is
expected to drive safely in Modesto.
8Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 763 -
Table 1 • Paid media outlets overview and key metrics

OUTLET AND DESCRIPTION BUDGET AND

DONATED VALUE

NUMBER OF ADS
PLACED

LANGUAGE

KEY METRICS
EN ES
Modesto Bee
Eye-catching, targeted banner ads placed in local
print and digital publications
$12,500
6 website ads
1 e-newsletter ad
◆
Total reach: 374,295
Cost per ad: $1,785.71
Stanislaus Magazine
Full-page ad placed in local magazine publication
$3,200 + $1,600 in
donated value 6  ◆
Readership: 100,000
Cost per ad: $533.33
Digital out-of-home ads
Static, eye-catching ads placed at gas station
pumps and other digital kiosks in targeted corridors
$8,000
EN: 212,771
ES: 67, 531*
◆ ◆
Total reach: 280,302
Cost per ad: $2.85
CapRadio
Short, compelling audio message with a clear call to
action heard during peak commute times
$15,750  63  ◆
Est. total reach: 68,900
Cost per ad: $250
Spotify
Short, compelling audio message with a clear call to
action heard during peak commute times
$7,700  1,009,919  ◆
Total reach: 831,786
Completion rate:

90.62%
Cost per 100 ads: $0.76
StanRTA interior bus ads
Static banners inside local transit agency buses
Donated  150  ◆ ◆
Est. total reach:
489,303
Social media ads (Facebook and Instagram)
Graphics and content posted on City of Modesto
social accounts
$489.69  2  ◆ ◆
Total reach: 52,568
Total clicks: 1,086
TOTAL BUDGET:
$49,240
TOTAL REACH:
2,197,154
9Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 764 -
Paid Media Recommendations
and Lessons Learned
The following recommendations and lessons learned for
future safety campaigns are based on campaign staff
implementation experience and paid media results:

Set up trackable QR codes for all campaign
materials. Not having trackable QR codes made it
difficult to understand which materials were most
effective in driving people to the quiz.

Use language-specific media to effectively reach
non-English speaking audiences. Partnering with
media outlets that serve only Spanish-speaking
listeners or readers can help reach a larger share of
the local Spanish-speaking community than general
media placements alone.

Confirm radio station ad requirements before
developing scripts. Some stations have restrictions
on wording and format or require ads to be read live
rather than pre-recorded. Clarify these details during
contracting to avoid script revisions later and ensure
smoother production.

Explore other ways to reach drivers while driving.

Radio had the highest cost per impression and
lowest overall reach. Other close-to-road placements
like Spotify ads, bumper stickers, signs, billboards, or yard signs might yield a better result for a lower cost.

Community Engagement and
Outreach
Community engagement and outreach efforts were intended to deepen engagement with campaign viewers through individualized messaging, educational resources, and opportunities to take direct action. Each community engagement tactic was designed to make it easy for people to learn, get involved, and take specific actions to increase pedestrian safety in school zones. The community engagement efforts helped share important traffic safety messages with parents, students, and drivers in Modesto, helping build momentum for lasting change.

Print Materials
Print materials developed for the campaign included posters, yard signs, stickers, fence banners, and informational handouts, as described in Table 2 on the following page. The City distributed materials to partners and at events, placed yard signs in City right-ofway, and placed fence banners at select schools. Community members could also pick up materials at City Hall.

The distribution of campaign materials in public and familiar places in Modesto served to support social diffusion of the campaign message and desired behavior through social networks and Modesto’s school communities.

Examples of campaign materials can be seen in Figures 3 through 6 on the following page.
10Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 765 -
Table 2 • Print material details
COLLATERAL PIECE  LANGUAGE  DIMENSIONS  QTY PRINTED  COST  QTY DISTRIBUTED Poster  English & Spanish  17" x 11"  250  $183  90
Yard sign  English & Spanish  18" x 24"  500  $4,045  210 Handout  English & Spanish  8.5" x 11"  800  $312  675
Sticker  English  6" x 4"  500  $757  465
Fence banner  English & Spanish  6' x 4'  10  $660  6
TOTAL 2,060  $5,957  1,446
Los conductores que disminuyen
la velocidad y se detienen en los
pasos peatonales contribuyen a
prevenir lesiones y a salvar vidas.

A 20 mph
9 de cada 10 peatones
sobreviven a un accidente.

A 40 mph
solo 2 de cada 10
sobreviven.

Exceder el límite de velocidad es
conducir a una velocidad superior al
límite señalado o demasiado rápido
para las condiciones de la carrzetera,
incluso si está por debajo del límite.

Conoce los hechos
Los límites de velocidad en
zonas escolares varían entre
15 y 25 mph. Consulta las
señales indicativas para
conocer el límite de velocidad.

Es ilegal adelantar a un
autobús escolar detenido
cuando su señal de parada
está extendida.

La ley de California exige
que los conductores se
detengan por los peatones
en todas las intersecciones,
ya estén marcadas o no.

Exceder el límite
de velocidad en una zona
escolar puede resultar
en una multa de hasta $485.

No apresures su caminar.

Consejos para conducir seguro:

La ley de California exige que los conductores se
detengan por los peatones en todas las intersecciones,
ya estén marcadas o no.

Es ilegal adelantar a un autobús escolar detenido
cuando su señal de parada está extendida.

Exceeding the speed limit in a school zone can result
in a fine up to $485.

Exceder el límite de velocidad en una zona escolar
puede resultar en una multa de hasta $485.

Know the Facts
Cada año, demasiados peatones y ciclistas en Modesto se ven involucrados en accidentes y casi accidentes. Caminar y andar en bicicleta, especialmente en zonas escolares, debería ser seguro, no aterrador. Los conductores que reducen la velocidad y se detienen en los pasos de peatones ayudan a reducir los accidentes, las lesiones y las muertes. ¡Unámonos para garantizar la seguridad de nuestros niños! ModestoSafeStreets.com/Quiz
No apresures su caminar.

Exceder el límite de
velocidad significa conducir
a una velocidad superior al
límite establecido o demasiado
rápido para las condiciones
de la carretera, aunque esté
por debajo del límite.

A 20 mph 9 de cada 10
peatones sobreviven
a un accidente.

A 40 mph solo
2 de cada 10 sobreviven.

Los límites de velocidad en zonas escolares
varían entre 15 y 25 mph. Consulta las señales
indicativas para conocer el límite de velocidad.

Únete a la campaña "Deja que los niños crucen"
del 7 de abril al 18 de mayo, participando en el quiz para tener la oportunidad de ganar una bolsa promocional de la ciudad en:
¡Reduce la velocidad! Respeta
los límites de velocidad
establecidos y prepárate para
reducir la velocidad,
especialmente cerca de
escuelas y pasos de peatones.

Mantente alerta reduciendo
distracciones, como el uso del
teléfono, y prestando atención
a los niños que crucen la calle.

Deja que los niños crucen
deteniéndote en todas las
intersecciones, tanto para
niños como para adultos,
incluso si el paso de peatones
no está marcado.

Planifica con anticipación y
deja tiempo adicional durante
las horas escolares para evitar
tener que apresurarte.

Figure 3 • A yard sign in Spanish along
Virginia Corridor at Orangeburg
Figure 5 • Poster in
English and Spanish
Figure 4 • Campaign
yard sign in English
Figure 6 • Informational handout
in English and Spanish
11Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 766 -
Quiz and Pledge
The project team developed an online
quiz to educate the public on traffic safety
issues, speed limits, and laws in and near
school zones. The quiz included an option to
sign a pledge and opt in to an opportunity
raffle for promotional items from the City.

The informational handouts included
traffic safety information directly related
to the quiz questions, and all materials
and communications directed community
members to the quiz web page.

The quiz served as an educational opportunity
for campaign viewers to learn more about the
traffic safety issues at hand. The pledge gave
engaged viewers a clear way to take action,
helping deepen their personal commitment
and encouraging word-of-mouth sharing and
social norm shifts within their communities.

The quiz was taken 233 times, and 150 people
signed the pledge, resulting in 109 email
contacts.

Figure 7 includes the quiz questions and
answer options. The correct answers are
highlighted in green, and the percentage of
people who selected each answer is included
next to each option.

Figure 7 • Quiz questions and answers

1. What is a speed limit?
´ A recommendation for
how fast you should
drive on a given road,
but it’s OK if you go
5–10 MPH faster. (14%)
f The maximum speed
you can legally drive at
on a given road under
ideal conditions. (67%)
´ The exact speed you
should drive at on a
given road under any
conditions. (18%)

2. Speed limits exist to
protect children in school
zones. In Modesto, what is
the speed limit within 500
feet of a school zone when
children are present?
´ 15 mph (24%)
´ 20 mph (6%)
´ 25 mph (24%)
f All of the above. School
zone speed limits vary
in Modesto. Refer to
posted signs for the
speed limit. (46%)

3. Speeding in school zones
isn't just dangerous—
it’s costly. What’s the
maximum fine for driving
1–15 mph over the posted
speed limit in a school
zone in Modesto?
´ There is none. (9%)
´ $85 (5%)
´ $285 (34%)
f $485 (52%)

4. Speed makes a difference:

When a driver hits a
person walking at 20 mph,
9 out of 10 survive. At 40
mph, how many survive?
f 2 out of 10 (57%)
´ 4 out of 10 (24%)
´ 6 out of 10 (9%)
´ 8 out of 10 (11%)

5. Imagine approaching an
intersection in Modesto.

According to California
law, when must drivers
stop for pedestrians?
f Drivers must stop for
pedestrians at every
intersection whether
there are crosswalk
markings or not. (73%)
´ Drivers must stop for
pedestrians only if there
are crosswalk markings.
(16%)
´ Drivers must stop
at every crosswalk
whether there is a
pedestrian waiting to
cross or not. (12%)

6. A school bus ahead of
you has stopped and
extended its stop sign.

What should you do?
´ Yield, then pass
slowly. (3%)
´ Allow at least three
feet of space when
passing. (4%)
´ Pass as quickly as
possible. (5%)
f None of the above; it’s
never legal to pass a
stopped school bus
that has a stop sign
extended. (87%)
Quiz respondents performed well on questions 1, 5 and 6, showing a strong understanding of key safety messages. However, fewer respondents answered questions 2, 3, and 4 correctly, indicating an opportunity for targeted public education. Quiz results indicated that it was successful at both reinforcing key safety messages to respondents and educating respondents on traffic safety facts that were less known and pertinent to safe driving behaviors.
12Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 767 -
E-Newsletters
Seven e-newsletters were sent throughout
the campaign to recipients that expressed
interest or shared their information in the
campaign quiz/pledge. Over 100 new contacts
subscribed by the end of the campaign.

Table 3 includes a summary and metrics for
each e-newsletter.

The campaign e-newsletters delivered
individualized content to people who
engaged with the campaign. Individualized
communications can support social diffusion
and social norming as community members
become more knowledgeable about the
issues at hand and how to take action.

All English e-newsletters, except for the postsurvey promotion, exceeded Mailchimp’s average open rate across all industries,
suggesting strong engagement from an
audience that had already taken the quiz
and opted in to receive updates. The week
2 newsletter, in particular, significantly
outperformed the average click rate. This
strong performance was likely due to its early
timing in the campaign, the high level of
interest from an already engaged audience,
and the inclusion of a clickable link to the
educational handout. Overall, readership
remained strong throughout the campaign,
indicating that this contact list could be a
valuable resource for future outreach and
continued engagement.

Table 3 • E-newsletter summary and metrics

TOPIC DATE SENT

NUMBER OF
RECIPIENTS  OPEN RATE*  CLICK RATE*
EN  ES  EN  ES  EN  ES
Rolling Quiz
Thank-You  Weekly on Fridays  102  3  54%  33.3%  0  0
Week 2 Newsletter  April 14, 2025 20  --  50%  --  15%  -- Week 3 Newsletter   April 21, 2025 75  3  53.3%  33.3%  2.7%  0 Week 4 Newsletter  April 28, 2025 94  --  46.2%  --  2.2%  -- Week 5 Newsletter  May 2, 2025 102  3  44.6%  33.3%  1%  0 Week 6 Newsletter  May 12, 2025 109  3  42.1%  33.3%  0  0 Post-Survey   May 22, 2025 110  3  26.4%  0  8.2%  0
* According to Mailchimp, the average open rate across all industries is 35.63%, while the average click rate is 2.62%.
-- indicates that email was not sent due to a delay in receiving Spanish translations. 13Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 768 -
Tabling
To spread the word about the campaign and
other City safety initiatives, two members of
the project team attended Love Modesto on
April 26, 2025, a community-wide volunteer
day. The project team engaged with event
attendees, handing out campaign materials
and inviting them to scan a QR code to take
the quiz. Several hundred volunteers visited
the morning breakfast session and the City
was able to engage with approximately 350 of
them. Photos from the event can be seen in
Figure 8.

Tabling provided an opportunity to provide
direct, individualized information to people
in the community. Some volunteers who
had already noticed campaign materials
around the City schools and parks were
able to provide some verbal feedback
and supported the campaign by taking a
flyer or a sticker. This supported increased
awareness, education, and action on the part
of community members.

Figure 8 • Photos from Love Modesto
14Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 769 -
Community Engagement Recommendations
and Lessons Learned
The following recommendations and lessons learned are a result of a campaign debrief discussion with primary campaign staff:

Use multiple phases of engagement:

Plan for phased outreach to keep the
community informed and involved
throughout the project life cycle and
build early buy-in.

Develop an organic communication
strategy: Incorporate communityspecific messaging in advance to build trust and interest before
launching more formal marketing.

Connect the campaign to broader
goals and data: Clearly communicate
how the campaign ties into other
initiatives and use data to explain why
it matters.

Balance calls-to-action with
informative content: Ensure the
campaign includes both clear actions
for the audience and educational
messaging to build understanding.

Engage community partners as
ambassadors: Involve schools,
community-based organizations, and
trusted local leaders to expand reach
and credibility.

Leverage local influencer voices:

Create videos or other content
featuring local influencers or wellknown figures to personalize the campaign and share diverse
perspectives.

Offer more ways to sign up for the
newsletter by including the option on
the project home page and bringing a
sign-up form to events.
15Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 770 -
Evaluation
Public Survey Results
To evaluate the campaign’s effectiveness and learn about respondents’ experience with the campaign, the project team conducted one online survey after the campaign that asked about changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior due to the campaign.

The survey was distributed electronically and promoted through the campaign contact list and the City of Modesto’s social media channels. The survey was offered in English and Spanish, but did not receive any Spanish responses.

This section summarizes key findings from the post-campaign survey. Although the survey received only seven responses and is not statistically significant, the results still provide valuable insights and perspectives to inform future efforts.

Demographics
The survey had a majority of female respondents (it is common in surveys for women to be over-represented), and mostly reached white respondents in the 45 to 64 age range.

Campaign Participation
The top ways survey respondents heard about the campaign were yard signs (6 of 7), followed by word of mouth (3 of 7), and other means (3 of 7). Other responses included the Safety Task Force and a school meeting.
16Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 771 -
Outcomes
The post-survey responses reveal that progress
was made toward the desired campaign
outcomes. The section below summarizes key
survey findings relevant to each outcome.

Increase adult and teenage
driver adherence to speed
limits citywide
Most survey respondents agree they are more likely to obey traffic laws because of the campaign:
‹ 6 out of 7 agree or strongly agree that they are more likely to drive the posted speed limit.
‹ 6 out of 7 agree or strongly agree that they are more likely to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks.

Increase public awareness of the
dangers of speeding, especially
around schools, and the benefits
of compliance with speed limits
and crosswalk laws
Most survey respondents agree they are more familiar with speeding fees and crosswalk laws because of the campaign:
‹ 5 out of 7 agree or strongly agree that they are more familiar with fees associated with speeding, particularly around schools.
‹ 5 out of 7 agree or strongly agree that they are more familiar with the California law that requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, whether they are painted or not.

Most survey respondents see value in Modesto drivers obeying traffic safety laws because of the campaign:
‹ 4 out of 7 strongly agree that they see value in Modesto drivers obeying the posted speed limit.
‹ 5 out of 7 agree or strongly agree that they see value in Modesto drivers stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, whether they are painted or not.

Objectives Outcomes
17Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 772 -
Conclusion and Recommendations
for Future Campaigns
The campaign evaluation findings and key
outputs demonstrate that the campaign
supported its objectives to increase
adherence to speed limits and crosswalk
laws, and awareness of the dangers of
speeding. The overarching goal of reducing
pedestrian-involved crashes in school zones
should be measured over the long term as
the availability of data does not line up with
the short-term campaign evaluation period.

When crash data is considered, it is also
important to recognize that outcomes cannot
be solely attributed to campaign activities due
to factors outside the campaign’s control that
influence crash rates.

As the City of Modesto continues to advance
its safety efforts, safety campaigns should
be considered a proven strategy alongside
other strategies identified in the SS4A Action
Plan. Combining educational campaigns
with infrastructure and enforcement
improvements can increase the effectiveness
of each strategy and foster a sustained culture
of traffic safety in the community.

When designing future campaigns, it is recommended that the City:

Proactively identify future campaign topics
by gathering input from community members
and partners, and aligning with data-driven
priorities and recommended actions in the
SS4A Action Plan. Early engagement helps
build community buy-in and increases
campaign relevance.

Maintain consistent campaign elements,
such as design and branding, to strengthen
recognition and trust. Consistency makes
campaigns more memorable and recognizable
in a typically crowded advertising environment.

Consistency also signals professionalism and
reliability, leading viewers to become engaged
supporters of the campaign’s cause.

Invest in dedicated staffing, such as a
Vision Zero Coordinator, to provide ongoing
leadership, oversee campaign delivery, provide
cross-agency safety-focused collaboration,
and build and maintain strong community
relationships.

Leverage diverse funding sources to support
future safety campaigns, including:
‹ Federal:
f The SS4A Implementation Grant
eligible project types include
implementing projects and strategies
identified in an Action Plan that
address roadway safety problems.
f The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s Highway Safety Grant
Program funds behavioral safety
initiatives such as distracted driving
education, pedestrian and bicycle
safety, and public outreach campaigns.
‹ State: The California Active Transportation
Program (ATP) includes a combination
of state and federal funding that can be
used for non-infrastructure activities that
further the goals of the ATP.
‹ Local: The City of Modesto Measure L
distributes funding for transportation
and roadways projects, including safety
improvements.
18Let Kids Cross Traffic Safety Campaign Final Report
#19..
- 773 -
PREPARED BY:
#19..
- 774 -

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Modesto
To: City of Modesto
From: Alta Planning + Design
Date: August 13, 2025
Re: Modesto Safety Demonstration Guide
Modesto Safety Demonstration Guide
Contents
Modesto Safety Demonstration Guide............................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Purpose of the Guide............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 What is a Safety Demonstration Project? ............................................................................................................ 3

2. Planning Your Safety Demonstration Project............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 – Funding.............................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 – Assembling the Project Team..........................................................................................................................10

2.3 – Setting and Communicating Project Goals......................................................................................................11

2.4 Identifying and Prioritizing Locations ................................................................................................................13

3. Project Design and Implementation.........................................................................................................................16

3.1 Demonstration Toolkit .......................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Events, Engagement, and Communication ........................................................................................................22

4. Evaluation and Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................27

4.1 Evaluating According to Objectives................................................................................................................27

4.2 Reporting and Sharing Results ...........................................................................................................................30

5. Appendices...............................................................................................................................................................32 A. Template Partner Engagement Calendar.............................................................................................................32 B. Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................................................................33 #19..
- 775 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Modesto
Students and parents cross safely using a demonstration high-visibility crosswalk near an Elementary School in Rialto, CA. Source: Alta.

1. Introduction
This Safety Demonstration Guide is designed as a practical, action-oriented resource for the Lead Organization spearheading a community-based safety demonstration project in Modesto. The Lead Organization may be a city department, non-profit organization, school, advocacy group, or other local partner committed to improving transportation safety. Whether working independently or in collaboration with others, the Lead Organization plays a central role in shaping, implementing, and evaluating safety demonstrations, both under the Safe Streets for All program and in other contexts.

Drawing on national best practices and lessons from prior demonstration projects, this guide outlines a flexible and adaptable framework that Lead Organizations can use to plan projects aligned with local priorities. It begins by defining the purpose of the guide and what constitutes a safety demonstration project, followed by guidance on how a Lead Organization can effectively use the resource at different stages of project development.

Subsequent sections walk through each phase of the process, including securing funding, forming inclusive teams, setting measurable goals, engaging community members, and selecting sites with an emphasis on equity and safety impact. Later chapters provide more detailed support for project design, implementation, and evaluation—ensuring that efforts are data-informed, replicable, and responsive to community needs.

Although the primary focus is on temporary demonstration projects, this guide also acknowledges that many interventions may lead to “quick-build” or more permanent safety improvements. The overall approach is intended to #19..
- 776 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Modesto
be scalable and useful regardless of the project’s size or permanence, providing a strong foundation for advancing safer streets throughout Modesto.

1.1 Purpose of the Guide
This guide is designed to support agencies, community organizations, and local partners in developing, implementing, and evaluating safety demonstration projects that are community-centered, data-informed, and action-oriented. The sections outlined here follow a logical planning-to-implementation sequence that reflects how demonstration projects typically evolve, from concept and funding to team building, community engagement, project execution, and performance evaluation.

The guide will also provide practical tools, considerations, and examples for each key phase to ensure clarity, replicability, and equity in both planning and outcomes. While tailored to support applications for federal demonstration funding like SS4A, the framework is also intended to be adaptable to state and local initiatives or privately funded efforts.

1.2 What is a Safety Demonstration Project?
A safety demonstration project is a short-term, low-cost, and temporary initiative designed to test and evaluate potential solutions for improving roadway safety. Usually with a focus on active transportation and vulnerable road users, these projects allow cities and community partners to pilot new designs, potential operational changes, or technologies using materials and methods that can be quickly installed and easily modified. Typical examples include temporary curb extensions, crosswalk enhancements, or traffic-calming measures implemented with paint, cones, planters, or other removable elements. A primary goal is to test solutions by gathering real-world data on how these interventions affect behaviors, such as vehicle speeds and pedestrian crossing rates, as well as to engage the community and build support for more permanent safety improvements. Importantly, safety demonstration projects serve as a valuable tool to inform long-term planning and investment decisions, helping people affected by future projects understand what works best before committing to more permanent infrastructure changes.

Though the words are sometimes used interchangeably, for the purposes of this document the terms “demonstration” and “quick-build” are disambiguated in the table below. These definitions are based on the Caltrans guidance1
. This document will focus on demonstration projects, however, quick-build projects are very similar and many of these recommendations in this document will apply equally to them. 1 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/atp/cy5/quick-build-guidance.pdf #19..
- 777 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Modesto
Table 1. Demonstration vs quick-build projects
Demonstration (Pop-Up) Project Quick-build Project
Definition A demonstration (or pop-up) project is a
community-oriented, small-scale, low-cost,
temporary placemaking or street improvement
project that aims to improve aesthetics, safety,
and access for walking, bicycling, and
micromobility.

A quick-build project is a semi-permanent
capital improvement project that uses low-cost
materials to install safety improvements rapidly.

Goal Help to evaluate potential impact and community support for long-term design changes.

Timeframe One day to weeks
Often includes a community event
Months to 5 years
Lead Organization Either the City or community groups in cooperation with a City approval process
The City
Materials Temporary and removable materials. Site should be able to be restored to its original
configuration quickly.

Semi-permanent, durable materials such as
epoxy gravel, thermoplastic striping, delineator
posts; intended to last 1-5 years.

Example Projects Intersections: pedestrian crossings, refuges, curb extensions, traffic circles, temporary closures Segments: protected bike lanes, bus boarding islands, slow/shared streets Traffic Calming: chicanes, speed humps, pinch points, partial closures Placemaking: artistic treatments, parklets, accents and painted intersections, wayfinding signage Evaluation Limited before/after data collection. Often
focused on basic observational data and quick
community impressions.

Recommended to include a robust, measurable
evaluation tied to project objectives.
#19..
- 778 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Modesto

2. Planning Your Safety Demonstration Project
Community members convene a stakeholder meeting. Source: Alta.

2.1 – Funding

2.1.1 Overview of Grant Opportunities
Many demonstration projects can be funded through local, state, and federal grants, in addition to private and nonprofit sources. Government grants provide substantial funding opportunities, but the timeline for disbursement may be lengthy. Therefore, it is best to either plan far ahead of time or work to identify local or private funding opportunities that allow for quicker funding.

The following funding sources were compiled from best practices and research. Given that funding opportunities vary by location, involved partners, and availability from year to year, this list is not intended to be exhaustive. #19..
- 779 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Modesto
Table 2. Potential funding sources
Funding Source Notes
Local Sources
City funds, such as the General
Fund or Surface
Transportation Funds
The City may allocate funds from the General Fund or other discretionary funds. These monies may be particularly useful for small projects or matching grants from other sources.

Community Facilities Districts
(CFDs, Mello-Roos Districts)
CFDs within the City of Modesto provide funding and reimbursement for public facilities within their district boundaries. Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, CFDs may purchase, construct, expand, rehabilitate or acquire public improvements, or provide public services.

Local Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ)
CMAQ and CRP are both Federal programs, but are administered locally by StanCOG. Funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, both programs are funded through FFY 2026 but face an uncertain future after that. These grants are awarded to projects that reduce congestion and emissions, including Active Transportation and Road Safety projects.2 Local Carbon Reduction Program (CRP)
Measure L “Local Roads First”
Transportation Funding
Measure L funds can be used for a wide range of transportation-related projects, including bike and pedestrian improvements and school safety projects. Funding under Local Control, such as Bike and Pedestrian Improvements (5%) and Traffic Management (10%) allocations, may apply to road safety demonstrations or quick-build projects.3 State & Federal sources
Active Transportation Program Funding for active transportation projects across the state. Since 2020, quick-build projects (semi-permanent projects that persist for 1-5 years) have been eligible. “Demonstration projects” (temporary projects) are ineligible. 4
Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grant
Includes funding for demonstration project plans or studies.5 Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Demonstration projects may be eligible if they address an identified hazard or are part of a safety evaluation.6
Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A)
See Section 2.1.2 SS4A Demonstration Grant Highlights.
2 https://www.stancog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1876/CMAQ-Guidelines---Winter-2024---Adopted-1-17-24-V2 https://www.stancog.org/DocumentCenter/View/2035/Final-Local-Carbon-Reduction-Program-Guidelines- 3 https://www.stancog.org/DocumentCenter/View/864/Transportation-Ordinance-and-Expenditure-Plan-PDF 4 https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 5 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/division-transportationplanning/regional-and-community-planning/sustainable-transportation-planninggrants/finalfy202425stpgapplicationguide1a11y.pdf 6 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip
#19..
- 780 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Modesto
Funding Source Notes
Other Federal Highway
Administration grant programs
• RHCP (Railway-Highway Crossings Program): Funds safety improvements at public rail crossings, including demonstration projects. Funded by the IIJA through FFY2026. • STBG (Surface Transportation Block Grant Program): Offers broad eligibility for street safety infrastructure, including demonstration and quick-build projects aligned with Complete Streets strategies.
• TAP (Transportation Alternatives Program): Funds pedestrian, bicycle, and Safe Routes to School projects; demonstration projects are eligible when tied to safety, ADA, or public engagement objectives. Funded by the IIJA via a set-aside from the STBG through FFY2026.
• RTP (Recreational Trails Program): Supports trail and trailhead projects; demonstration projects may be eligible when improving access, safety, or community awareness of trail networks.7 Funded by the IIJA via a set-aside from the STBG through FFY2026.

Other sources
AARP Community Challenge Small grants to fund quick-action projects that can help communities become more livable for people of all ages. 8
Bloomberg Asphalt Art
Initiative
Grant program supporting pilot projects in U.S. cities to demonstrate the impact of asphalt art projects and encourage cities to develop their own processes for implementing these lowcost activations effectively. 9 National Association of
Realtors Placemaking Grant
Provides technical and financial assistance to help REALTOR® Associations, and their members, become engaged in placemaking in their communities.10 National Association of
Realtors Smart Growth Grant
Funds state and local REALTOR® Association’s land-use and transportation-related activities that have an impact on public policies that support one or more of the 10 Smart Growth Principles. 11
PeopleForBikes Community
Grant Program
Funding for bike paths, lanes, trails and programs that transform city streets, such as Ciclovías or Open Streets Days, or Campaigns to increase investment in bicycle infrastructure. 12 Private sponsorship As an example, Blue Cross Blueshield sponsors Divvy Bike in Chicago, and part of that funding goes to quick-build projects.

Spin Streets Support for a street safety, livability, or justice issue. 13 TransitCenter Grants Supports efforts to build community power in service of more useful, equitable transit service that increases access to opportunity in cities across the US. 14

2.1.2 SS4A Demonstration Grant Highlights
While many potential funding sources exist, the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program is one of a few that explicitly mentions demonstration projects. This makes SS4A a potentially valuable resource for cities like Modesto that are working to transition from planning to implementation. 7 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.pdf 8 https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/community-challenge/ 9 https://asphaltart.bloomberg.org/ 10 https://www.nar.realtor/grants/placemaking-grant 11 https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/smart-growth 12 https://www.peopleforbikes.org/grant-guidelines 13 https://www.spin.app/streets 14 https://transitcenter.org/grants/ #19..
- 781 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Modesto
Demonstration activities are defined by the USDOT as “temporary safety improvements that inform comprehensive safety action plans by testing proposed project and strategy approaches to determine future benefits and future scope.”15 Demonstration activities supported by SS4A grants must include data collection and a before-and-after evaluation to assess impacts. Impacts may include crash rates, vehicle speeds, driver behavior, and public perception.

Eligible demonstration activities include (but are not limited to) 4 types of programs:

1. Feasibility studies using quick-build strategies. Modesto could deploy temporary materials such as planters, plastic delineator posts, and paint to test traffic calming and other improvements. These studies are quickbuild, low-cost projects that demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of the intervention studied.

2. Traffic engineering studies. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends that the application of many traffic control measures requires an engineering study, the standards for which are included in the MUTCD. For instance, a study could assess whether specific intersections meet the warrants for all-way stops or mid-block crosswalks. Or a study could assess the setting of safe speed limits, in accordance with new discretion under AB43.

3. Behavioral or operational activity pilots. For example, the city may pilot education campaigns (e.g., targeting speeding or distracted driving), pop-up safety demonstrations (e.g., an open streets pilot event), community engagement programs, ride share or alternative transportation programs, Safe Routes to School, and emergency medical services operational plans.

4. New Technology Pilots. These technologies must be commercially available but not yet adopted in the community. Examples include speed safety cameras or adaptive signal timing. These pilots would demonstrate the effectiveness of an emerging tool before broader implementation.

Details can be found in the 2025 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)16, which is concisely written and worth reading. However, the NOFO is likely to change for the 2026 grant year. Here are a few relevant features from the 2025 edition to summarize the process:
• Demonstration projects are combined with planning projects into one category; it’s not a standalone program.
• Applications may include both a Demonstration and an Implementation component. This could be a very valuable synergy for cities, allowing both phases of the project to be funded with one application. • The grant will be evaluated on 3 main criteria: Safety Impact (roadway fatality rate), Underserved Communities (proportion of population within Areas of Persistent Poverty17), and Additional Safety Context (narrative). Additional considerations include budget costs, fatality rates, and prior SS4A funding. • The narrative is short: maximum 2-3 pages. Within it, focus on the safety problems in the existing conditions, and the safety improvements that are proven or hypothesized to allay them. 15 https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/planning-and-demonstration-activities 16 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/SS4A-FY25-NOFO.pdf 17 It hasn’t been updated in the main text of the NOFO, but Underserved Community has been redefined to mean APP. See pages 4 and 5.
#19..
- 782 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Modesto
• Consider pre-selecting a site before applying for the grant. This can make the grant application more concrete and allow you to cite specific hazards, including crash rates. • The final deliverable is an assessment of the demonstration activities and an updated Action Plan that incorporates the information gathered from the demonstration activities. • A 20% local match is required, though the match may include in-kind contributions such as staff time.18 • Applicants are not required to submit detailed design or engineering documents. Only a simple PDF/KML map is required.
• 2025 timeline:
o May 29: Pre-application Q&A closes
o June 26: Application deadline
o Fall: Award Announcements
o Winter: Grant agreements signed
o Within 18 months of executing the grant agreement: Demonstration installation

2.1.3 SS4A Program Status
The Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years, 2022-2026. As of Spring 2025, $2.9 billion has been spent, and almost $2 billion remains appropriated by Congress for the program’s final two years.

Congress retains the ability to rescind or reallocate these funds at any time. The USDOT likely lacks the legal authority to “impound” the appropriated funding and must spend it19 consistent with the IIJA. However, the USDOT has the discretion to change the program in many ways, including the eligibility requirements.

The 2025 SS4A grant cycle was completed with some policy changes. The program’s selection criteria have been revised20. For example, equity impacts are now more specifically defined using the FTA designation for Areas of Persistent Poverty, and projects that reduce lane capacity for vehicles will be viewed less favorably. The USDOT may also apply order 2100.7 to the program, giving grant selection preference to communities with high marriage and birth rates, among other criteria21.
18 More guidance on matching: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/match 19 See Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. 20 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/SS4A-FY25-NOFO.pdf 21 USDOT Order 2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, Programs and Activities
#19..
- 783 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Modesto

2.2 – Assembling the Project Team
A community meeting, Long Beach, CA. Source: Alta.

2.2.1 Public Agency and Community Partners
The success of the demonstration project depends on a Project Team built around the Lead Organization, which is either the City or a partner nonprofit. The Lead Organization is the primary responsible party and serves as the primary point of contact for the project.

However, other groups and individuals can also be part of the Project Team. To build a strong team around the Lead Organization, consider the location and desired outcomes of the project. Which people, groups, or businesses have an interest in those places or outcomes?
Recommended partners include:
• Neighborhood associations and resident groups
• City councilmembers and advisory board representatives • Community-based organizations, non-profits, and media outlets • Transportation and public health advocates
• Educational institutions, faith-based groups, and cultural organizations • Local businesses, business associations, business districts, and service providers #19..
- 784 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Modesto

2.2.2 Inclusive Team Building
It is important to look at the list of initial team members and consider “who is not at the table?” The Project Team should be approximately representative of the community. If many Project Team members have common characteristics such as race, gender, profession, or neighborhood, consider establishing a more diverse team.

Check that the format, messaging, and power dynamics of the team are fair and respectful and do not perpetuate inequality or biases.

2.2.3 Optional Subcommittees and Specialized Roles
Not every Project Team member needs to be involved with every step of the process. Some may assist with the application process, while others may have more interest in the design of the project. Convening multiple teams or committees for a project will allow greater involvement and distribute responsibilities and time commitments more widely among participants. Start with a core team that all committee members report to, and then develop smaller committees based on the project's needs.

Here are some examples of subcommittees22:
• Activation and Programming
• Site Plan and Street Changes
• Logistics and Implementation
• PR and Media
• Budget and Sponsorship
• Volunteers
• Cultural History and Neighborhood Qualities
For small-scale or low-resource projects, not all these committees will be necessary. Don’t spend more time in meetings than on the street — keep the structure of the project lean and focus on getting things done together.

2.3 – Setting and Communicating Project Goals

2.3.1 Aligning with the Safe System Approach
This guide is part of the City of Modesto’s Safe Streets and Roads for All planning process, which is grounded in the Safe System Approach, a series of strategies for eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The Safe Systems Approach acknowledges human fallibility and vulnerability and seeks to reduce death and serious injuries by designing transportation systems that anticipate errors and minimize crash impacts23. USDOT’s implementation of the approach features five elements, including designing roads to reduce crash risk and injury severity and managing speeds to increase survivability.
22 MemFix Manual (2014), page 6 23 Seth LaJeunesse, Rebecca B. Naumann, Laura Sandt, Camden Spade and Kelly R. Evenson. Guide to Developing a Vision Zero Plan. (2020). Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety; project R17. https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/research/projects/2018r17 #19..
- 785 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Modesto
By that definition, this guide is inherently aligned with Safe System principles. Demonstration projects can be used to test safety improvements, build community support, and inform long-term investments.

Demonstration projects are well-suited to advance Safe System goals. For example, demonstration projects could promote safer speeds by piloting speed humps and curb extensions, or reduce conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists by installing crossings and bike lanes.

2.3.2 Setting Project Objectives
Clearly defining project objectives is essential for
any transportation initiative, but it is especially
critical for demonstration projects. Because
demonstration projects are temporary and
exploratory by nature, their success relies heavily on
measurability. Having well-defined objectives before
project launch ensures that the project is designed
with the objectives in mind.

To translate the overarching goal of safer street
design into action, each demonstration project
should define 2 to 5 clear objectives. These
objectives provide clear direction for
implementation. Example objectives:
• Increase biking on Main Street.
• Include public input to help guide the corridor
redesign.
• Improve vehicle compliance, including
stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks.
• Test the feasibility of a protected bike lane.
• Reduce speeds through the intersection.

2.3.3 Preliminary Communication Strategies
It is critical to gather support from the surrounding community early, before finalizing the project details. To gather community input, consider hosting a brainstorming session or walk audit with anyone in the community who may have an interest. Include property and business owners, residents, neighborhood institutions, community activists, and nonprofit organizations.

Being open and inclusive during early engagement helps ensure the project reflects the community’s needs and values and reduces the likelihood of resistance during installation.

Ideas for preliminary outreach and support-building:

Goals, Objectives, and Metrics
A standard approach in urban planning is organizing a
project’s intent as a hierarchy of broader to narrower
goals. In this document, we use a three-tiered structure:
• Goal (1 per project): The overarching mission
statement of demonstration projects in general.

Per the Safe Systems Approach, the goal should be
something like: “reduce fatal and serious injury
crashes through testing safer street design, safer
speeds, and more inclusive mobility options.” See
Section 2.3.1 Aligning with the Safe System
Approach.
• Objectives (2-5 per project): Specific aims that
define what success looks like. See Section 2.3.2
Setting Project Objectives.
• Metrics (4-10 per project): The tools and
measurable indicators used to assess the
performance of the objectives. See Section 4.1:

Evaluating According to Objectives.
#19..
- 786 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Modesto
• Conduct a neighborhood walk or site visit. Invite interested parties to walk the proposed site alongside members of the project team. These informal “walk audits” provide an opportunity to not only see firsthand how people use the space, but also to open a dialogue about community needs, concerns and ideas. By actively listening and remaining open to new perspectives, the Project Team can build stronger local support and increase credibility.
• Host a brainstorming or visioning meeting. Organize a casual community meeting to introduce the idea of a demonstration project. Present a simple overview of the Safe System goal and ask open-ended questions. • Distribute simple outreach materials. Use flyers or social media to let people know about the project’s goals and objectives, and how they can help.
• Document early support. Collect names, quotes, pictures, or letters of support from community members.

These endorsements demonstrate community interest and can be helpful in later stages of the project.

2.4 Identifying and Prioritizing Locations
Workers paint temporary striping, St. Louis, MO. Source: Alta.

The right location is critical. A well-chosen site can maximize visibility, generate useful data, and please the stakeholders. Demonstration projects are at their most impactful when their location supports the project goals and community needs.

Demonstration projects are by nature temporary, but the process behind them should be ongoing, structured and repeatable. A systematic and well-documented method provides a template for selecting future demonstration sites and informs decisions about where and how to scale up temporary projects into permanent infrastructure.

2.4.1 Using the Safety Action Plan as a Starting Point
Many safety improvement locations have already been identified in the Modesto Safety Action Plan. Using the preexisting proposed project locations can leverage data analysis and stakeholder engagement that have already been #19..
- 787 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Modesto
performed. Alternatively, one can use the Action Plan’s high-injury network and/or collision profiles to find particularly hazardous areas.

See Section 3.1.1, Using Countermeasures from the SS4A Process.

2.4.2 Criteria for Location Selection
Not all locations are well-suited for demonstration or quick-build projects. When considering project site options, prioritize locations that:
• Are central or urban with existing pedestrian or bicycle traffic. • Offer a natural gathering space (“living room”) such as near schools, parks, commercial districts, or transit hubs.
• Have an appropriate traffic context; depending on the type of project, consider limiting candidate streets to those with posted speeds under 30mph or low-to-moderate traffic volumes. • Have a minimal impact on transit, waste collection, and emergency vehicle response routes. • Are not already under construction or slated for reconstruction. #19..
- 788 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Modesto

2.4.3 Equity Considerations and Data Sources
Areas of Persistent Poverty near Modesto. Source: United States Department of Transportation24 Streets in historically underserved communities are more likely to lack basic infrastructure such as sidewalks and are disproportionately affected by traffic violence. Your demonstration project can be part of the solution: it can highlight these disparities and promote a more equitable future.

Use the following tools to guide equity-informed site selection:
• The Modesto Safety Action Plan, which includes collisions in underserved communities. • USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP), which is also a selection criterion for SS4A and other federal grants.
• CalEnviroScreen or other environmental justice mapping tools. • Census data on income, race, age, and language ability. • Supplemental crash data from local sources such as law enforcement or hospitals. • School and transit access maps (e.g., those available in the Modesto School Safety Program Study). 24 https://maps.dot.gov/BTS/GrantProjectLocationVerification/ #19..
- 789 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Modesto

2.4.4 Documenting the Site Selection Process
Be sure that your rationale for selecting the site is clear and well documented. A transparent and defensible selection process builds trust and credibility. Additionally, a transparent process helps ensure a well-selected site that is most likely to result in meaningful safety benefits.

Site selection documentation should include:
• A written explanation of why the location was chosen
• A summary of relevant data (e.g., crashes, traffic volume, community input) • A map or photos of the proposed site
• Notes from field visits or stakeholder meetings
• Evidence of alignment with the Safety Action Plan

3. Project Design and Implementation

3.1 Demonstration Toolkit

3.1.1 Selecting a Demonstration Project Type
There are two approaches one could take when selecting a demonstration project type: piloting a site-specific recommendation or set of recommendations from existing plans or demonstrating a novel safety intervention.

Piloting a Recommendation from an Existing Plan
One approach is to draw directly from the Modesto Safety Action Plan, Nonmotorized Transportation Plan (NMTP), School Safety Program Study (SSPS), and Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) using demonstration projects to test site-specific recommendations that have already been identified. This leverages the data analysis and stakeholder engagement that have already been performed.

Some proposed improvements from the Safety Action Plan may benefit from further evaluation to understand their support and performance in the real world. Temporary demonstration projects allow a practical way to test concepts that may require broader community or political support before permanent implementation. The pilot can also help identify areas where additional input from City departments or stakeholders is needed to align with budget, maintenance, or operational priorities.

Table 3. Draft recommendations from the Modesto Safety Action Plan that could be appropriate for a pilot demonstration project.
#19..
- 790 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Modesto

ID STREET FROM

STREET TO STREET COUNTERMEASURE DIREC-TION
LENGTH
(MILE) RECOMMENDATION
30117 RUMBLE RD No PEMBROKE
DR
Roundabout All 1 Mini roundabout, using modular
materials if possible to reduce
cost.
30084 STANDIFOR
D AVE
No DALE RD &

SISK RD & SR
99 RAMP
Roundabout All 6 Convert to system of
roundabouts per PSR report
from City in order to rebalance
traffic.
30097 STANDIFOR
D AVE
No PRESCOTT
RD
Transit Spot or stop
improvements
Consider shared bus/bike bay.
30132 TULLY RD No STANDIFOR
D AVE
Daylighting, Curb
extension, radius
reduction, or truck
apron
All 4 Install truck apron on all corners.
30101 STANDIFOR
D AVE
No CONANT
AVE
Bikeway intersection
improvements
E, W 2 Add bike conflict markings
through intersection. Add bike
left turn box to make turns onto
Conant.
20042 H ST 5TH ST 1ST ST Road diet SW 0.29 Reduce roadway footprint and reallocate space to wider
sidewalk and bikeway. This
project is supported by
Downtown Master Plan.
20041 RUMBLE RD PRESCOT
T RD

SHERWOOD
AVE
Traffic Calming Bidirectional1.84 Horizontal deflection treatments only - add median chokers and
curb bulb outs. Add more
frequent midblock crosswalks.

Supported by SSAR (Project ID
8). This traffic calming
recommendation supports the
Class IIIB project proposed in the
Modesto NMTP (Project ID 427).

Demonstrating a Novel Safety Intervention
Demonstration projects also provide a chance to pilot novel interventions that are aligned with the Safe System Approach but have not yet been tried extensively in Modesto or in a particular area. These may include:
• Traffic calming treatments such as mini-roundabouts or chicanes. • Protected intersections.
• Striping changes, such as red bus lanes or super-sharrows.

This approach helps Modesto build its toolbox of interventions, while simultaneously collecting community feedback, so that it can deploy these countermeasures systematically in the future. #19..
- 791 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Modesto

3.1.2 Material Selection
Surface-mounted flexible guide posts installed in a quick-build project. Source: Alta.

When selecting materials, make them context-specific to the site and type of project. The right materials ensure that the installations are safe, cost-effective, weather-resilient, and easily removable. As demonstration projects are intended to test design ideas, all materials must be temporary, modular, and appropriate to the project’s duration and location.

Before purchasing materials, consider using existing sources that the project team members, neighbors, or the City may have access to. If the project is left in place longer than one day, the materials should be durable enough to resist wind, rain, and theft.
#19..
- 792 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Modesto
Table 4. Possible materials for quick-build and demonstration projects.

Item Details Cost Level
Astroturf or Felt Can be used to create a green/grass effect in a parklet or to simulate a grassy median .

Medium
Bike Lane Stencil Stencil should conform to State/local design guidelines . Low Bollards Aim for movable, reflective, waist-high bollards - they are ideal for creating a visual barrier and channelizing traffic .

High
Duct Tape Cheapest tape option for striping, easy to source and work with. Not appropriate for overnight or extended use as it is not reflective or durable.

Low
Free Standing
Delineators
Used to separate travel modes and/or parking. Only use for short-term projects. Low Jersey Barrier Heavy-duty modular barriers for protection between travel modes or traffic control. Requires equipment for installation/removal.

High
Paint - Cornstarch Very washable, non-toxic. Requires a minimum of 30 min. to dry. Low Paint - Tempera Diluted tempera can be used in place of or to enhance corn-starch paint. Tempera paint will last longer than cornstarch paint.

Low
Paint Diluted tempera can be used in place of or to enhance corn-starch paint. Tempera paint will last longer than cornstarch paint.

Low
Planter Boxes Simple wooden boxes will suffice. Medium
Planters Plants add beauty to projects, but also require careful transport, watering, etc. High Plastic Curb Barriers Used for spatial separation and as a barrier for bikeways. High Seating Comfortable, movable seating can be created using benches, milk crates, hay bales, and more.

Varies
Sidewalk QR Codes Printed or stenciled QR codes on sidewalks directing users to surveys or project information pages. Encourages engagement and feedback
Low
Stencils Pre-cut templates used to apply symbols or markings (e.g., bike lane icons, arrows, crosswalks) in paint or chalk
Low
Surface Mounted
Flexible Guide Posts
Used for bikeway separation. Typically needed for demonstration projects that will be in place longer than one day.

Medium
Spray Chalk Eco-friendly spay-able chalk. May require a power washer to remove. Medium Straw Wattle Creates a curb-level barrier - easy to install and morph into the shape needed. Medium Traffic Cones Movable, reflective - can be used to create a visual barrier and/or channelize traffic.

Medium
Traffic Tape Higher durability tape, reflective. Purchase 4” wide if possible. High Wayfinding Sign Signage directing users to nearby destinations Low- Medium Wood Pallets Use pallets to make chairs, benches, tables, planters, a stage, parklets, a bike rack, and more.

Low
#19..
- 793 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Modesto

3.1.3 Site Maps
A site plan for a quick-build Class I bike lane in Oakland, CA. Alta.

A clear site map is an important part of the planning process of a demonstration project. It helps determine that the proposed design is feasible within the physical space and accounts for existing conditions.

Site maps may not need to be professionally drawn, but should be roughly to scale, accurately show lane widths, paint, barriers, signs, and any other temporary treatments. Identify existing features such as bike lanes, signals, or utilities that may affect the layout. Be sure to visualize pedestrian and bicycle movements, traffic control needs, and maintenance of traffic considerations.

Free tools such as StreetMix (streetmix.net) or Sketchup can assist, but trace paper and a marker may suffice. For more complex projects, an engineer may be required.
#19..
- 794 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Modesto

3.1.4 Implementation Logistics (Permits, Equipment, Labor) Before implementation, all demonstration projects must secure approval from relevant agencies. The City should adopt a streamlined demonstration permitting process (such as the one adopted by Burlington, VT) that includes:
• Pre-application consultation: early meetings with city staff to review the scope, objectives, and preliminary plans. • Permit application: submission of a permit application, including site maps (see section 3.1.3), project timeline, materials list, and a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) if applicable. • Insurance: Depending on the project’s size, phase (e.g., setup, maintenance, removal), and level of public
interaction, the type and amount of insurance required
may vary.
• Site inspections: Conducted before and after installation to ensure adherence to the plan.

The process should ideally be completely online to best serve applicants.

Access to materials and tools is essential for implementation.

Modesto can help facilitate project success by maintaining a Citysupported materials library for quick-build and demonstration materials such as traffic cones, paint, signage, and delineators.

Safety gear, such as high-visibility vests, may also be loaned by the City.

Demonstration projects often rely on volunteers. To coordinate labor efficiently, be sure to assign clear roles, schedule limited volunteer shifts (2-3 hours at most), give precise safety training, and track hours and contributions.

3.1.5 Maintenance and Removal Planning
Ongoing maintenance of a demonstration project will depend on the project’s duration and the nature of the project. For brief demonstration pop-up events, maintenance may be minimal to none. But for longer-term “quick-build” projects, the level of maintenance required should be a primary consideration when the project is planned.

After identifying the maintenance requirements, a maintenance plan should be developed, identifying the entities responsible for each maintenance aspect. An agreement may be made with the City to maintain the installation, and in that case, a fee may be negotiated.

Burlington’s Permit Application
#19..
- 795 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Modesto
Often, the community group will wish to maintain the installations. In that case, assign specific team members to check on the site at scheduled times. Maintenance may include: touching up markings, sweeping, watering of plants, repositioning of elements that have moved, ticketing vehicles parked within the demonstration area and removing stickers and graffiti. Be sure that these activities are adequately insured.

Once the project reaches its planned conclusion, it must be fully removed and the street returned to its original design. The project may also be removed early if it becomes clear that the demonstration is not working. The permit or maintenance plan should determine who is responsible for removal. Consider retaining the removed materials for reuse in future demonstration projects.

3.2 Events, Engagement, and Communication

3.2.1 Engagement Objectives
Effective engagement and public communication will ensure that demonstration projects are community-centered, transparent, and well-received. Engagement efforts for demonstration projects should aim to:
• Inform the public about the demonstration’s purpose, timeline, and expected outcomes. In particular, notify all nearby businesses that may be affected by the demonstration, and provide clear, early communication about any temporary changes to access, parking, or visibility. • Involve anyone with an interest in the project in contributing time or materials. • Empower historically underserved or marginalized people or neighborhoods. • Evaluate the response to the project (through surveys, informal dialogue, etc.). • Build momentum for permanent improvements and future demonstrations elsewhere.

3.2.2 Event Planning and Programming Tips
Hosting an event at a demonstration project, or even during its installation, can be a powerful tool for community engagement. Events draw attention, attract volunteers, and give participants a direct experience of the street improvement.
• Consider aligning the event theme and activity with the project goal. For example, if the project is focused on pedestrian safety, include crosswalk simulations. If it’s about placemaking, include music, public art, or community mural activities that invite people to linger. • Select a date and time that maximizes community attendance, such as evenings or weekends. Be sure to consider religious and cultural observances to avoid conflicts. • Coordinate, or consider combining, with an existing event. Partner with a farmer’s market, art walk, school fair, or open streets event. This can boost visibility and participation without needing to create an audience from scratch.
• Determine if additional insurance or permits are required. Depending on the nature of the event, you may need extra liability coverage, street closure permits, or health permits. • Ensure accessibility for all ages and abilities. Design the event layout and programming so that people of all abilities can participate. Provide clear, level access paths, ADA-compliant seating, and translated signage or interpretation services where needed.
#19..
- 796 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Modesto
• Prepare a weather contingency plan. These events are outdoors, so plan for rain, excessive heat, or wind.

Plans may include backup materials such as tents or umbrellas or simply rescheduling. • Check street maintenance schedules, including trash collection and street sweeping. • Consider using incentives. Encourage participation by offering free helmets, bikeshare promo codes, raffle prizes, bike repair services, food vouchers from local businesses, or branded event merchandise.

Programming ideas:
• Street painting or chalk art: Invite attendees, especially local artists or children, to decorate the demonstration area with art that reflects the local area or community identity. • Build-a-crosswalk stations: Allow attendees to help create temporary crosswalks using tape, paint, or stencils.

This gives them a sense of ownership and can be a legal form of tactical urbanism. (The street should be free of vehicle traffic.)
• Try-a-bike lane demos: Set up short protected bike lanes and allow attendees to ride on them. • Interactive feedback boards: Allow attendees to respond to prompts such as “I feel safe here because…,” “I would change…” using sticky notes, chalk, or markers.
• Traffic safety games and scavenger hunts for children: Offer playful, educational activities that teach kids about safe street use.
• Bike rodeos or helmet fittings: Partner with a community organization to teach bike handling skills or distribute properly-fitted helmets to children and adults. • Play areas or traffic gardens: Design mini street courses with cones, signs, and markings. • Live local music or other performances: Invite musicians, dancers, or cultural groups to perform. This will attract a crowd and create a festive atmosphere.
• Booths for local nonprofits or City departments: Give community organizations and city agencies space to share information, collect feedback, or promote programs. • Food trucks and neighborhood vendors: Encourage local businesses to participate. #19..
- 797 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 24 City of Modesto
Examples of different types of demonstration and quick-build projects. Source: Alta.

Community members have fun at an open streets event in South Los Angeles. Source: Alta. #19..
- 798 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 25 City of Modesto

3.2.3 Project Team Member Roles and Points of Contact
Loading quick-build materials into a pickup truck. Source: Southern California Association of Governments.

Once the project team has been assembled, it’s important to assign roles and responsibilities. Clear role definition avoids confusion and enables accountability. These roles can be filled by City staff, nonprofit partners, or volunteers, depending on the project.

Below is a list of standard event team roles and responsibilities, adapted from the Southern California Association of Governments Go Human Activations Playbook.

Table 5. Standard event team roles and responsibilities.

Role Responsibilities
Event Manager Oversees event operations (installation, staffing, breakdown).

Point of contact for Task Leaders, as well as external persons such as elected officials and media.

Can also serve as Task Leader for smaller events.

Task Leader Leads a specific component of the event (e.g. installation, outreach, data collection, programming).

Manages support staff or volunteers for that task.

Number of Task Leaders depends on project complexity.

Event Support Staff Provide support to the Task Leader as assigned Could be members of the Project team and/or key stakeholders.

Volunteers (Optional) Supplement Event Support Staff as assigned by Task Leader.

It is important to create a contact list of all key team members and responsible parties, especially during the installation and demonstration periods. The contact list should include:
• Name and phone numbers (or radio channel)
#19..
- 799 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 26 City of Modesto
• Role/title
• Assigned responsibilities
The list should be copied to all parties involved in the event. Organizers should consider setting up a group chat, using iMessage, WhatsApp, or a similar messaging service to keep all participants informed.

3.2.4 Promoting and Communicating about the Demonstration or Event A sign indicates temporary changes coming to Grafton. Source: Alta.

Once the demonstration project is planned and staffed, it’s time to promote it. Early and ongoing outreach helps inform and engage the community. Strong communication supports transparency, builds credibility, and increases turnout at events.

Use a variety of communication tools to distribute clear, accessible information ahead of meetings, installations, and events, including:
• Flyers
• Door-to-door outreach
• Social media posts and stories
• Sidewalk decals/stickers
• City and partner email newsletters
• Press releases to local media
• Postcards and printed mailers
• Banners hung at prominent locations
• Neighborhood or business association bulletin boards
#19..
- 800 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 27 City of Modesto
• Community events calendars
• Project or City website
In addition to reaching everyone, it is critical that the materials are also accessible to everyone. Best practices include:
• Use plain language, high contrast, and lots of pictures. • Translate into all languages commonly spoken in the project area. • Offer interpretation services at events and meetings.

Finally, the communication effort should follow a proactive timeline, making sure all paperwork is turned in ahead of schedule. Refer to Appendix A: Template Partner Engagement Calendar, which contains a sample schedule to guide efforts leading up to the demonstration.

4. Evaluation and Outcomes

4.1 Evaluating According to Objectives
A demonstration project’s success is defined by how well it fulfils its goals, objectives, and metrics. As outlined in Section 2.3.2, each project should begin with a clearly defined goal and a set of objectives. To measure the achievement of the objectives, each objective is paired with one or more metrics — the tools for measuring the objectives. This section outlines steps for collecting data for evaluating your project according to its objectives.

4.1.1 SCAG’s Go Human Activations Playbook & Other Referenced Guides The evaluation framework outlined in this section draws from several well-established demonstration project toolkits and planning guides, including SCAG’s Go Human Activations Playbook, the MemFix Manual from Memphis, and the St. Petersburg Demonstration Project Guide.

The Go Human playbook suggests intercept surveys, display boards, and summary reports; it focuses on aligning metrics with project goals and sharing results. The MemFix Manual mentions a brief debrief with vendors, residents and volunteers. The St Petersburg Demonstration Guide balances qualitative and quantitative methods, and enumerates quick methods such as before-and-after photos, simple speed or volume counts, and recap worksheets.

4.1.2 Quantitative Metrics
Quantitative data provides measurable evidence of behavior or environmental change during a demonstration project. These metrics should be designed to be pass/fail, and it should be clear when the metric is reached.

To that end, the quantitative metric should be SMART:
• Specific: Clearly states what is being targeted.
• Measurable: Can be measured with standard, cost-effective measuring tools. • Achievable: Realistic given the project scale.
• Relevant: Aligned with the goal and community needs.
#19..
- 801 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 28 City of Modesto
• Timely: Can be achieved within the demonstration period.

To illustrate the SMART principles, the table below provides several sample objectives with corresponding SMART metrics:

Objective Metric
Increase biking on Main Street. Increase daily bike volumes on Main Street by 25% within the 30-day pilot period.

Measure using an automated bicycle counter.

Include public input to help guide
the corridor redesign.

Collect feedback from 50 residents during the demonstration weekend. Incorporate any feedback that is useful, and write a brief response those that are not.

Improve pedestrian yielding. Improve pedestrian yielding at key crossings from 40% to 70% during the pilot, by traffic observation in person.

Reduce speeds through the
intersection.

Reduce average vehicle speeds by 10%, measured using in-roadway sensors.

Decrease sidewalk bicycling. Decrease instances of sidewalk bicycling by 50%, measured through observations at designated times.

Table 6. Example quantitative objectives and corresponding metrics.

4.1.3 Qualitative Metrics
Surveys can include questions about the specific improvements piloted. Source: Southern California Association of Governments.

Qualitative data provides important insight into perception and community support for the projects. While not precisely measurable, qualitative information is critical for understanding the feasibility of potential permanent improvements. Qualitative metrics are especially useful when gathering feedback on design preferences, identifying potential barriers to community support, measuring how safe or comfortable people feel when using the temporary infrastructure, and building the case for permanent installation. Qualitative tools include:
• Intercept surveys conducted on-site
#19..
- 802 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 29 City of Modesto
• Before and after photos
• Online surveys distributed before and after the event • Display boards or “idea walls” asking open-ended questions • Focus groups or post-event interviews with stakeholders • Quotes, comments, or testimonials gathered during the demonstration.

The table below provides an example of how to pair your existing objectives with specific, observable metrics:

Objective Qualitative Metric
The protected bike lane feels safe
to users.

Document public feedback on comfort, visibility, and perceived safety; record observed vehicle conflicts.

Identify the most and least
appreciated features of the
demonstration
Collect responses to open-ended survey questions or feedback board.

Gauge user comfort at a
redesigned crossing.

Conduct brief surveys asking, “Did you feel safer using the crosswalk today?” Increase engagement with public
space.

Carefully observe how participants sit, linger, travel through, or take photos. Sketch an “activity map” showing where people gathered and for how long.

The public plaza is accessible and
inclusive.

Interview attendees using mobility aids or other assistive devices to assess any barriers or challenges.

Table 7. Example qualitative objectives and corresponding metrics.

4.1.4 Before-and-After Data Collection Guidance
As with any scientific experiment, collecting before-and-after data is essential. This provides a baseline to compare against and reveals the impact of the demonstration project.

Metric Before data collection After data collection
Bicycle volumes Manual counts or automated counters over 2-3 weekdays
Repeat with the same location, time
window, and weather conditions
Vehicle speeds Radar or in-road sensors during peak and off-peak hours
Same location, same duration
Public perception of safety Survey: “How safe do you feel walking and biking here?”
Same question, during or after the
demonstration project.

Table 8. Example metrics and corresponding data collection methods.

Be sure to consider possible confounding variables: external factors that influence the results of your data collection.

Confounding variables include:
• Weather conditions: rain, heat, and wind can significantly impact walking, biking, and driving behavior. • School or business schedules, including school breaks or special events. • Days of the week: recent work from home trends have resulted in different weekdays having very different commute traffic volume.
• Nearby construction or road closures.
#19..
- 803 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 30 City of Modesto
• Enforcement presence.

To ensure consistent and reliable results, it’s important to assign trained observers or volunteers who understand the methodology. To standardize the collection, use mobile survey apps (such as Esri Survey123) or Excel tally sheets.

Ensure that the equipment and protocols are the same in both periods.

4.2 Reporting and Sharing Results

4.2.1 Debrief and Lessons Learned
After the project has concluded and the installation removed, reconvene the project team to debrief, reflect, and identify lessons learned. Hold this meeting within one week of the removal, while the experience is still fresh. The conversation should focus on what worked well and what could be improved.

And be sure to thank everyone involved. Express gratitude to volunteers, city staff, partners, and sponsors through emails, social media posts, and community newsletters. Acknowledging these contributions will strengthen these partnerships.

4.2.2 Summary Reports and Visuals
A person using an electric scooter at a demonstration protected intersection in Salt Lake City, UT. Source: Alta.

Once the debrief has been completed, use notes from that meeting to begin work on a concise summary report. This document should include:
• The project’s goals, objectives, and metrics
• Before-and-after photos and maps
• Metrics results (quantitative and qualitative)
• Participant feedback and quotes
• Lessons learned and recommendations going forward
#19..
- 804 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 31 City of Modesto
A picture is worth a thousand words, so focus on using images to tell a story. Well-composed photos, heat maps, and diagrams make the findings more compelling and accessible to a wider audience.

The Southern California Association of Governments Go Human cutsheet below is an excellent example. It includes attractive, dynamic photos of the community, along with a clear design that guides the eye to a few selected metrics.

Consider creating a template report that can be recycled for future projects. As part of the Safety Action Plan, Alta will create 3 templates for reporting progress on that plan. These might be a good basis for a demonstration project summary report, particularly the Before/After template.

Summary report from an open streets event in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Source: Southern California Association of Governments.

4.2.3 Identifying Next Steps
Use this opportunity to build capacity for future projects. Maintain your contacts and working relationship with the Project Team. Document practical tips like low-cost materials, sourcing strategies, installation techniques, or community engagement strategies.

If the demonstration was considered a success, consider working on a permanent installation. The demonstration phase offers proof that the countermeasure works, and this may help to achieve funding and prioritization of the permanent project. Use evaluation data, public feedback, and visual documentation to build a compelling case for inclusion in capital improvement plans, grant applications, or work programs. #19..
- 805 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 32 City of Modesto
Now it’s time to move on to the next demonstration project. By now, you have already assembled a list of potential locations, partnerships with key stakeholders, and a growing inventory of materials. This means the next project will be easier. Each project builds internal capacity, making future demonstrations easier to plan and quicker to deploy.

4.2.4 Sharing with Stakeholders, Funders, and the Public Share the report with the City Council, stakeholders, local media, and the public. A well-crafted summary will highlight the value of the project and build support for future demonstration efforts or permanent installation.

Materials to distribute may include:
• The final summary report (PDF or webpage)
• A project photo album or short video
• Before-and-after data visuals
• A one-page “lessons learned” handout

5. Appendices
A. Template Partner Engagement Calendar
Stage Timeframe Key Activities Who Might Be Involved?

1. Project Initiation
& Scoping
Demo Day – 16 to
14 weeks
Identify lead organization, define
goals, preliminary site selection, initial
feasibility
Lead Org, City Departments, Potential
Community Partners, Key Local
Stakeholders

2. Funding
Identification
Demo Day – 14 to
12 weeks
Confirm funding Lead Org, City Finance, Grant
Managers, Private Funders, Relevant
Agencies

3. Team Formation &
Stakeholder Map
Demo Day – 12 to
10 weeks
Assemble implementation team,
identify & invite partners and
stakeholders
Lead Org, City Depts, CBOs, Schools,
Advocacy groups, Consultants

4. Community
Engagement
Planning
Demo Day – 10 to 8
weeks
Outreach/engagement plan, schedule
meetings, plan outreach to
underserved
Core Team, CBOs,
Youth/Senior/Neighborhood Reps

5. Site Assessment &
Data Collection
Demo Day – 8 to 6
weeks
Collect/analyze crash & traffic data,
site visits, walk audits, prioritize sites
Core Team (planners/engineers), Data
Analysts, Community Reps, Subject
Experts

6. Concept Design &
Feedback
Demo Day – 6 to 4
weeks
Develop draft concepts, host
workshops/open houses, gather
feedback, revise design
Designers/Engineers, Lead Org, City
Staff, Advocacy, Impacted Residents

7. Final Design &
Permitting
Demo Day – 4 to 3
weeks
Refine concept, obtain
permits/permissions, final
notifications
Lead Org, City Engineering/Permitting,
Public Works, Impacted Businesses &
Residents

8. Implementation
Logistics
Demo Day – 3 to 2
weeks
Procure materials, assemble logistics
plan, coordinate volunteers
Logistics Coordinator, Procurement,
Volunteers, Public Works, Event
Planners
#19..
- 806 -
July 18, 2025
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 33 City of Modesto

9. Installation &
Demo Event
Demo Day – 0
(Event)
Install interventions, host demo
event/workshops, document &
publicize
Core Team, Volunteers, Traffic
Enforcement, Community, Media (if
appropriate)

10. Data Collection &
Evaluation
Demo Day + 1 to 3
weeks
Observe/record, post-installation
data, survey community, preliminary
analysis
Evaluation Lead, Data Analysts,
Community Feedback Teams, Local
Researchers, Area Stakeholders

11. Reporting & Next
Steps
Demo Day + 3 to 5
weeks
Present findings, debrief, discuss
permanent options
Lead Org, City Decision Makers,
Community Partners, Funders,
Broader Public
Table C: Template Partner Engagement Calendar
B. Glossary of Terms
Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP): A USDOT methodology and tool that maps census tracts where poverty rates have remained high for decades.

CalEnviroScreen: A California tool that maps environmental, health, and economic burdens by census tract.

Community-Based Organizations (CBOs): Local nonprofits or advocacy groups Countermeasure: A design feature or programmatic change intended to improve road safety.

Crash Data: Information about the location, type, and severity of traffic collisions.

Daylighting: Removing visual obstructions near intersections to improve sightlines.

High-Injury Network: A set of roadway segments with a disproportionate number of crashes.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law/Bill, this 2021 federal law funds transportation and infrastructure projects, including SS4A.

Lead Organization: The main group or agency responsible for managing a demonstration project.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A): A United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) federal grant program funding local programs preventing roadway deaths and serious injuries.

Safe System Approach: An industry-standard road safety framework that designs roads to minimize the risk of death and serious injury, even when users make mistakes.

Safety Demonstration Project: A short-term, temporary installation used to test a street safety improvement.

Traffic Calming: Changes to a roadway designed to slow vehicle speeds.

Traffic Control Plan (TCP): A plan for how traffic will be safely managed during a project or road change.

Walk Audit: A guided site visit to assess conditions.
#19..
- 807 -
Memo
Date: February 10, 2026
To: Max Navarro, City of Modesto
From: Meghan Mitman, AICP, RSP2I and Ashlee Takushi, RSP1 Subject: Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan
The Five-Year Implementation Workplan for the Modesto Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Plan translates the Plan’s highest-priority strategies into a feasible, phased program aligned with the City’s staffing, funding, and delivery capacity. Each action is labeled with a short code (for example, SR-2c) that ties to specific Safe System objectives0F
1 and strategies identified in Chapter 4: Policy and
Programmatic Strategies.

Programs and programmatic strategies included in this workplan were selected because they can reduce the severity of crashes by addressing speed and other risk factors through a Safe System lens.

They build on the work the City has already begun, advancing early safety benefits within current staffing and funding capacities, and helping to embed safety into everyday decision-making. Actions are organized in phases to support steady progress while allowing flexibility to respond to new funding opportunities, evolving conditions, and lessons learned through implementation. The workplan emphasizes a balanced mix of policy and programmatic actions alongside targeted investments and pursuit of high-value implementation grants to maximize safety benefits in areas of greatest need.

The workplan recognizes that achieving Modesto’s goal to halve traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2045—and ultimately eliminate them—will require sustained commitment over time. By focusing the first five years on realistic, high return on investment actions, the Workplan provides a practical workplan for early progress while laying the groundwork for long-term advancement toward Vision Zero.

Strategy Selection Framework
The following framework establishes the foundation for the Five-Year Implementation Workplan, guiding how strategies and projects are identified, prioritized, and delivered. Together, demand management, speed management, and conflict management provide a framework for reducing exposure to injury risk, lowering injury severity, and minimizing the likelihood of crashes across the transportation system.
1 Safe System objectives include Safe Planning and Culture (SPC), Safe Users (SU), Safe Roadways (SR), Safe Vehicles (SV), Safe Speeds (SS), and Post-Crash Care (PCC). #19..
- 808 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 2
Demand Management
With adoption of this Plan, the City can reduce exposure to injury risk in the transportation system by shortening trips, reducing the number of trips, and shifting trips to modes such as walking, biking, and transit. Land use decisions influence roadway safety by shaping where people live, work, and access daily needs. Density, land use mix, access to destinations, and proximity to transit directly influence trip length, trip frequency, and, therefore, overall exposure to injury risk.

Speed Management
The most important determinant of injury severity when a crash occurs is speed. When speeds exceed a survivable level, which is determined based on the context and users, severe injury or fatalities can occur. This level is known as the contextual target speed. Proactive speed management includes establishing a target speed based on the role of each roadway segment (serving through movement or serving local access) and proactively deploying speed management tools (operational, geometric, and enforcement) where operating speeds exceed the target speed. Speed management will be implemented both as a standalone program and embedded within planned capital and maintenance projects.

Conflict Management
Land use context also informs safer, more appropriate street design. Aligning roadway design and speed management with adjacent land uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and downtown areas helps City engineers and planners design and envision streets for how they are actually used. Context-sensitive design supports narrower lanes, shorter crossings, enhanced pedestrian visibility in areas with high pedestrian and bicycle activity, reducing the likelihood that crashes occur by separating users in space and time, with the greatest separations occurring on the higher speed, higher traffic volume roads.

Focus Areas for Implementation
As detailed throughout the Plan, alignment with the Safe System Approach requires proactive, selfenforcing strategies that acknowledge human error and seek to prevent mistakes from resulting in serious or fatal injuries. The steps outlined below in Table 1 focus on demand management, speed management, and conflict management strategies to guide the City’s actions for the next five years following adoption of the Plan.
#19..
- 809 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 3
Table 1. Five-Year Workplan for Policy and Programmatic Strategies.

Safe System Focus
Area Policy & Programmatic Strategy Year 1 Year 2 – Year 3 Year 4 – Year 5 Lead Department/ Support Department Speed Management
SR-2c: Use the authority granted under
Assembly Bill 43 (AB43), together with
Modesto’s HIN, to systematically
reduce speed limits in Business
Activity Districts and “safety corridors,”
as defined by the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

SS-3a: Follow speed limit setting
methodologies enabled by AB43 to
facilitate potential speed limit
reductions on Modesto’s High-Injury
Network.

Conduct Engineering & Traffic Surveys (E&TS)
on HIN to identify candidates for speed limit
reductions and coordinate with City Council to
make adoption recommendation for speed
setting ordinance based on findings of E&TS.

Coordinate with Caltrans where required.

Conduct a study using big data to
understand before and after speeds of
drivers where speed limit was reduced.

Implement speed management toolbox
(Appendix F) recommendations where
operating speeds continue to be greater
than posted speed.

Adopt permanent speed limit reductions on
prioritized HIN corridors using AB 43
authority.

Deploy speed management treatments at a
defined set of high-priority areas where
operating speed remains above target.

Institutionalize use of big-data speed
monitoring as an annual performance metric.

Update the speed management toolbox
based on measured outcomes and formally
integrate it into project scoping and
maintenance workflows
TED/Public Works
SR-2b: Evaluate intersection design
and control decisions in the planning or
scoping stage for opportunities to
better prioritize reducing traffic speed,
following new FHWA guidance.

SR-3a: Explore designation of
functional class and modal priority for
roadways to pinpoint the most
effective safety countermeasures and
streamline trade-off decisions.

Develop a framework to identify context-based
(land use) speed targets using guidance
documents such as NACTO City Limits,
USLIMITS2, FHWA Safe System Speed
Management Guide, DIB 94.

Conduct a citywide speed study using big data.

Develop a map overlay of target speed
and operating speed (from big data) to
develop “speed deltas” for all road
segments throughout the city. Identify
where the operating speeds are
significantly higher than the target
speeds.

Integrate target speed maps and speed
delta analysis into standard roadway
planning, scoping, and design guidance.

Require speed delta review for all arterial
CIP projects and resurfacing projects on the
HIN.

Secure funding and advance design for the
top tier of prioritized corridors identified
through the speed delta analysis.

TED
SS-1b: Enhance the city's existing
speed-control infrastructure
improvement efforts, such as speed
tables on Paradise Road and citywide
roundabout implementations, by
prioritizing the HIN and incorporating
appropriate safety countermeasures.

Use the speed management toolbox (Appendix
F), with Fire Department buy-in, to deploy
measures at locations along the HIN and areas
identified as part of the proactive risk
assessment.

Use the work completed in the AB 43
analysis and “speed deltas” map to
identify areas that overlap with the HIN
and deploy toolbox strategies at these
locations. This could include quick build
implementation.

Deliver permanent speed-control
infrastructure on corridors where quickbuild treatments demonstrated success.

Standardize approved traffic calming
treatments for repeat deployment without
project-by-project exceptions.

Expand the program to additional HIN
corridors based on documented safety and
speed outcomes.

TED/Fire & Public
Works
Conflict Management
– HIN & Priority
Corridors
SR-1a: Prioritize and implement safety
treatments along priority corridors and
the HIN using treatments that reduce
conflicts, calm speeds, and improve
visibility, such as protected signals, No
Right Turn On Red, clear zones, and
added separation for people walking
and biking.

Apply for Federal and State grants to fund priority
projects identified in the Plan.

Begin construction of safety treatments
for projects that received funding.

Continue applying for priority project grant
funding.

Integrate conflict-reducing treatments
(protected turns, signal timing changes,
separation) into all priority corridor capital
and maintenance projects.

Establish an annual priority corridor
implementation list with other funding
streams, tied to measurable safety
outcomes.

TED/Public Works
#19..
- 810 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 4
Safe System Focus
Area Policy & Programmatic Strategy Year 1 Year 2 – Year 3 Year 4 – Year 5 Lead Department/ Support Department SR-1b: Take steps to complete
infrastructure connectivity for
pedestrians and bicyclists by closing
sidewalk gaps and enhancing network
continuity. Prioritize providing
separation where needed based on
exposure, crash history, and
characteristics of the roadway and
adjacent land use associated with
higher use.

Review the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan
(NMTP) and the School Safety Program and
identify where first phase projects overlap with
upcoming CIP projects, routine roadway
maintenance, etc.

Implement first phase projects from the NMTP
and other spot improvements in the School
Safety Program that align with upcoming CIP
project, routine roadway maintenance, etc.

Build on the sidewalk and crosswalk
inventory completed for Modesto’s
School Safety Program by completing a
citywide audit of missing or noncompliant sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings, and gaps in the bicycle
network and areas where the existing
facility is not aligned with current design
standards, and barriers to continuity.

Develop a scoring system that prioritizes
projects based on proactive risk factors
for severe injury, crash history and
severity, and equity factors.

Identify and implement quick build versions
of the highest scoring projects, with plans to
convert to permanent materials as funding
allows.

Align priorities with upcoming CIP projects,
routine roadway maintenance, etc.

TED/Public Works
SR-1e: Consider prioritizing
maintenance funding toward HIN
corridors and other priority corridors
by integrating improvements as a part
of ongoing maintenance activities,
such as roadway re-striping, sidewalk
repair, streetlight repair, and increased
street sweeping.

Update maintenance policies to require that all
routine maintenance on priority corridors
includes a safety review by TED. A maintenance
and safety checklist will be prepared for items
such as roadway restriping, sidewalk repair,
streetlight repairs, and street sweeping.

TED, Public Works, City Manager, and
other key decisions makers will review
the city’s annual maintenance budget for
safety and multimodal enhancements on
priority corridors.

Implement quick, low cost
improvements that can be bundled into
this years maintenance projects.

Formalize policy requiring priority corridors
to receive first consideration for safety
enhancements through routine maintenance.

Fully integrate safety checklists into Public
Works maintenance work orders.

TED/Public Works &
City Manager
Conflict Management
– Street & Curb
Management
SV-2a: Implement heavy vehicle route
restrictions to prevent trucks from
traveling through high-pedestrian
areas. Consider implementing targeted
traffic safety campaigns to engage
truck drivers, emphasizing safe driving
practices and adherence to designated
routes.

Identify areas where the city’s existing truck
routes overlap with areas of high pedestrian and
bike volumes (downtown, schools, transit hubs,
neighborhood centers) overlap with truck-related
crashes.

Evaluate enforcement of heavy vehicle route
restrictions through road signage, policies, and
enforcement strategies to prevent trucks from
passing through high-pedestrian areas.

Develop and implement traffic safety
education campaigns targeting truck
drivers, focusing on truck routes and key
safety tips to enhance awareness and
compliance.

Adopt updated truck route restrictions in
high-pedestrian activity areas.

Implement permanent signage, wayfinding,
and enforcement protocols.

Institutionalize freight safety education
campaigns in coordination with industry
partners.

TED & Police/Public
Works & Media &
Communications
Reactive measures
Proactive measures
#19..
- 811 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 5
Funding Opportunities
The City has successfully received various federal, state, and local grants to improve safety on Modesto streets. Pursuing competitive grant funding will also be a critical strategy for many of the City’s Safety Action Plan priorities, especially for speed and conflict management.

Funding programs and application cycles listed below in Table 2 reflect typical or recently observed schedules and are subject to change based on agency guidance, legislative actions, or annual Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) releases. The City should verify current eligibility requirements, deadlines, and funding availability directly with the administering agency. #19..
- 812 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 6
Table 2. Funding Opportunities.

Funding Source Administering Agency Purpose & Eligible Uses Speed Management
Conflict
Management Typical Funding Cycle
Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) US DOT
Citywide safety action plans
Speed management strategies
Quick-build and permanent safety infrastructure
Traffic calming
Road diets
x x
Annual Notice of Funding
Opportunity (typically spring; due
late spring/early summer)
Highway Safety improvement Program (HSIP) Caltrans, StanCOG Multimodal & Active Transportation Operations x Annual or biannual programming
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program Caltrans, StanCOG Roads & highways
Multimodal & active transportation
Operations
Transportation planning
Congestion and emissions reduction with safety benefits x
Often biennial or tied to
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) cycles
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) Caltrans, StanCOG
Multimodal & Active Transportation
Operations
Congestion and emissions reduction with safety benefits Transit
Clean Vehicles & Technology
Transportation Planning & Programs
x
Often biennial or tied to
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) cycles/State
Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP)
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) Caltrans, StanCOG
Multimodal & Active Transportation
Operations
Clean Vehicles & Technology
x
Programmed with Surface
Transportation Block Grant /
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality cycles
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) US DOT Large-scale complete streets projectsMultimodal corridor reconstruction x Annual Notice of Funding
Opportunity (typically early
summer)
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Caltrans Multimodal & active transportation Safe Routes to School x x
Multi-year cycles (approximately
every four years); next cycle
anticipated in 2026
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Caltrans, StanCOG Major roadway and multimodal capital projects x Biannual cycle (odd-year submittal, even-year adoption)
Local Partnership Program (LPP) Caltrans Roads maintenance & rehabilitation Complete Streets x
Annual formula allocation or
guideline-driven competitive
cycles
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Caltrans Roads maintenance & rehabilitation x Annual formula allocation Office of Traffic Safety Grants (OTS) OTS
Speed enforcement
Public education & community outreach
Data analysis and evaluation
x Annual cycle (applications
typically due late summer or fall)
Measure L (Stanislaus County Transportation Sales Tax) StanCOG, Local Agency Local roads
Multimodal & Active Transportation
Transit
x x Ongoing / locally programmed
#19..
- 813 -
Appendix M: Five-Year Implementation Workplan | 7
Additional Funding and Implementation Considerations
While grant funding has been and will continue to be a key mechanism for implementation, to achieve lasting reductions in traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries, the City should align their funding decisions and policies so that safety is built into every transportation investment. This approach begins by making safety the first consideration for all transportation spending, including capital projects, maintenance, operations, and citywide programs. Each investment should be evaluated based on its ability to reduce exposure, align speed with contextual targets, and lower the number of conflict points between all users with particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable road users.

By rethinking how funds are used (e.g. incorporating protected bike facilities with a CIP repaving project), the City can implement more safety treatments with routine roadway maintenance.

Maintenance and operations budgets can be leveraged as key tools for advancing safety, particularly in areas along the High Injury Network and other priority corridors. Additionally, projects that could contribute to additional safety risk can be rescoped or reconsidered to allow funding reallocation.

Demand management tools reduce exposure to injury risk by minimizing the need to drive or travel long distances and are typically funded through land use planning efforts, including general and specific plans, transit planning initiatives, capital and operations projects, and development impact reviews and fees. To maximize effectiveness, the City of Modesto should coordinate across departments to align funding decisions and investment priorities with demand management strategies and shared safety outcomes following Plan adoption. #19..
- 814 -
0 000
000
000
000
00 00.0
0 0,000
Major intersections improved
for safety (design initiated
or completed)
Drunk driving enforcement
no-refusal nights
Citations for distracted
driving violations
New ADA sidewalk
curb ramps
Speed humps installed
New pedestrian crossings
built (8 with signals)
Miles of new/improved
bike lanes/facilities
Miles of sidewalks improved
Miles of new urban trails
Miles of new sidewalks
Distracted driving
enforcement operations
DWI arrests
2024

SAFE STREETS

REPORT CARD
We’re working on making Modesto safer
ModestoGov.com/VisionZero

0.0 0.0

0.0 00,000
Traffic safety pledges taken
00 Safe Streets safety-related
outreach events
00+ Media articles
referencing Safe Streets
000+
City of Modesto public information items
referencing Safe Streets

EDUCATION

ENFORCEMENT

ENGINEERING
TEMPLATE#19..
- 815 -
COLLISIONS BY MODE*
2024

SAFE STREETS

REPORT CARD
In 2024, 73 collisions
resulted in a fatality or serious injury
ModestoGov.com/VisionZero
including: 3 bicyclist collisions
17 pedestrian collisions

COLLISION CAUSES
8 9 8 12 9
35 36
21 25 24
74 85
72 64
49 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
3 17
53 *Collisions involving fatalities, severe injuries, and suspected serious injuries plotted by involved mode. Some collisions may have multiple victims, and victims may be any party. Collisions involving both pedestrians and bicyclists are rare (n=1) and are excluded from the chart. **KSI motor vehicle crashes not involving pedestrians or bicyclists. Collision involves other motor vehicle(s), roadside object(s), animal(s), train(s), etc. † Top 5 primary crash factor categories for crashes involving fatalities or severe injuries (KSI), as reported by California Highway Patrol ‡
Percentage change in KSI crashes between calendar years 2023 and 2024 §
Percentage change in KSI crashes between 2019-2023 median and 2024 Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Unsafe Speed
Pedestrian Violation
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
2024
Cause Crashes †
Yearly
Trend
Change
vs 2023‡
Change vs
previous 5 years§
18 11
9 8
7 83%
20%
29%
-20%
-53%
-15%
-31%
-47%
-30%
-22%
Bicyclist Pedestrian Vehicle**
2019 2024
TEMPLATE#19..
- 816 -
Objectives Outcomes
How Drivers Can Help
Don’t rush the walk
Slow Down
Stop for Pedestrians
CityOfModesto
2024

SAFE STREETS

REPORT CARD
“Let Kids Cross”
Education Campaign
Increase
adherence
to speed limits.

Increase
awareness
of the dangers
of speeding.
13 schools
participated
impressions
2,197,154
for safer streets
150 pledges
1,440 materials
distributed
quizzes completed
233 traffic safety
Get
Engaged!
ModestoGov.com/VisionZero
@CityOfModesto
TEMPLATE#19..
- 817 -

CITY OF MODESTO

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:

April 7, 2026
Date: March 18, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Toby Wells, Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer SUBJECT: Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for McClure Meadows Subdivision
CONTACT: Jaspreet Mangat, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected] 209-577-5253
DESCRIPTION:

Consider approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) and Final Map for McClure Meadows subdivision, consisting of approximately 4.15 acres for 38 residential lots, and 0.945 acres of public road right-of-way dedications located at the northwest corner of McClure Road and Yosemite Boulevard Accessor’s Parcel Number (APN) # 033-089-041. (Funding: Developer Fees)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:

The recommended action supports the City’s 2025-2026 Strategic Plan Goal D, provide safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure through proactive community investment, maintenance and sustainability efforts.

BACKGROUND:

On October 20th, 2025, The City of Modesto Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2025-40 which approved the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to facilitate 38 residential lots on Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel Number 033-089-041.

The current owner of McClure Meadows, Self-Help Enterprises, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, has requested the City Council to approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Final Map (FM2025-00004) consisting of a combined total of 38 residential lots on 4.15 acres, and 0.945 acre of public road right-of-way dedications #20..
- 818 -
City Council, April 7, 2026
Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for McClure Meadows Subdivision