Montebello City Council
June 12, 2024

14 OF 49
Human Factors and Personal Attributes
The data indicates that crashes increase during standard morning and afternoon commute times, with the highest volume of crashes occurring between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm (8% of all crashes). Due to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and increases in employees working from home, time-of-day crashes are likely to shift in upcoming years as less people commute to and from work.

Driving under the influence of drug or alcohol (DUI) caused 474 crashes (18%), 14 of which resulted in fatality or severe injury (27%). In order to reduce the rate of DUI-collisions, this typically requires noninfrastructure solutions such as changes in personal perspective regarding intoxicated driving rather than changes to roadway infrastructure.

A total of 574 crashes were reported as hit and run (22%), whereas 8 resulted in a fatality or severe injury (16%). However, hit and run collisions cannot be comprehensively understood from a Citywide analysis as each individual who fled the scene of a crash has unique reasons for their actions.

At least 27% of individuals involved in a crash were reported as using a cell phone at the time of the crash.

This share may be underreported by responding officers as it is not usually feasible to prove someone was using a cellular device and parties involved may not report if they were. According to the National Safety Council, mobile devices are among the top distractions for drivers nationwide, and studies found that talking on cell phones increases risk of being involved in a crash by four times relative to baseline driving.

Detailed crash analysis around human factors, personal attributes, crash types, primary collision factors, and additional variables are included in Appendix B. Crash maps detailing the locations of crash occurrences are included as Appendix C.

Priority Locations
Using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) network screening performance measure from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), a network screening and systemic evaluation of Montebello’s roadway network was completed to identify intersections and segments with the highest crash severity.

The EPDO calculation was performed for all public roadway intersections and roadway segments using the weighting by crash severity shown in Table 2: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type. Sample calculations of crash weights and severity by location type are included in Appendix D.

Table 2: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
Location Type Fatal Severe
Injury
Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property Damage
Only
Signalized Intersection 199.55 119.55 10.70 6.08 1.00
Unsignalized Intersection 190.23 190.23 10.70 6.08 1.00 Roadway 164.66 164.66 10.70 6.08 1.00
A subset of 20 Priority Intersections was identified using the Annualized Crash Severity Scores (ACSS).

Within Montebello, roadway segments generally have lower crash severity scores compared to

15 OF 49
intersections, and roadway segments with the highest severity scores that were located near intersections already identified as priority intersections would likely be addressed with intersection improvements. The City of Montebello had previously identified a set of priority intersections in a 2018 analysis, all of which are included in Table 3: Priority Intersections Based on Annualized Crash Severity Score. Crash volumes by location, severity, and crash severity scores are included in Appendix E.

Needs Analysis
The City of Montebello is committed to supporting Federal and State justice initiatives and promoting equitable outcomes through programs, policies, and practices, including prioritization of roadway improvements in communities that have historically been disadvantaged. The Priority Intersections based on Annualized Crash Severity Score were studied to identify community burden and categorized as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC). Such communities are determined and identified by California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), median household income, qualification for free or reduced student lunches, California Healthy Place Index, areas of persist poverty, and historically disadvantaged communities. Maps illustrating DAC indicators and scores for the City of Montebello census tracts are included in Appendix F.

California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) is a mapping tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to identify California communities that are disproportionally burdened by multiple sources of pollution, and where people are often vulnerable to the effects of pollution. CalEnviroScreen uses state and federal data on environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state of California. The scores are mapped to compare communities, whereas an area with a higher score experiences higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. CalEnviroScreen addresses environmental justice by identifying communities with high pollution vulnerability and identifying communities sensitive to pollution. CalEnviroScreen is used to aid in administering environmental justice grants, promote compliance with environmental laws, prioritize site-cleanup activities, and identify opportunities for sustainable development.

California Disadvantaged Communities
California Senate Bill 535 (SB 535), signed into law in 2012, identifies disadvantaged communities in the state of California to allocate funding for local improvements from the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program.

The investments fund projects and programs that aim to reduce pollution, improve public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is responsible for identifying Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.

Median Household Income
Socioeconomic indicators, such as median household income (MHI), are used to define DACs. Median household income is used as a measure of economic wellbeing of individuals and communities. MHI

16 OF 49
provides information about the financial resources available to households, and is closely tied to employment levels, educational attainment, and health. DACs are defined as communities with an MHI of less than 80% of the statewide MHI and severely disadvantaged communities (SDAC) have an MHI of less than 60% of the State’s MHI. Based on the current Census data, census tracts in city that are identified as DACs have a median income that is less than 80% of the statewide median household income of $78,672.

Student Qualification for Free or Reduced-Price Meals
The United States Department of Agriculture provides funding to support school meal and milk programs to assist schools, districts, and other non-profit agencies in providing nutritious school lunches to students. Students in the state of California may be eligible for one or more of the following programs for free or reduced-price meals: National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program, Afterschool Meal Supplements under NSLP, Special Milk Program, Summer Food Service Program, and State Meal Program. Student qualification for the programs is administered by local educational agencies and is monitored by the California Department of Education. In California, students are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals if students are from households with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the Federal poverty level, if the household participates in CalFresh or CalWORKS programs, and if the student experiences homelessness or is a foster youth. A community is identified as a disadvantaged community if at least 75% of public-school students in the area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program.

At least 75% of the student body of the following schools qualify for the National School Lunch Program:

High Schools
Applied Technology Center
Montebello Community Day
School
Montebello High School
Schurr High School
Vail High School
Middle School
Eastmont Intermediate
School
La Merced Intermediate
School
Montebello Intermediate
School
Elementary School
Fremont Elementary School
Greenwood Elementary School
La Merced Elementary School
Potrero Height Elementary
School
Washington Elementary School
Wilcox Elementary School
California Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a tool developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California providing a composite health score for each of the census tract in the state. The scores are calculated based on 25 health indicators including education, job opportunities, clean air and water, and other significant factors in life expectancy. The higher the score, the healthier the community and scores are converted to percentiles for statewide comparison. HPI scores compare the health and wellbeing of communities, identify health inequalities, and quantify factors that impact health. A census tract must

17 OF 49
be in the 25th percentile or lower to qualify as a disadvantaged community. Data from Healthy Place Index may be used to prioritize investments, resources, and programs in neighborhoods most disproportionately impacted by health and racial inequalities.

Areas of Persistent Poverty
The categorization of an “Area of Persistent Poverty” was developed to support implementation of the Justice40 Initiative, a commitment from the Federal Government to deliver at least 40 percent of the overall benefits from Federal investments in climate and clean energy to disadvantaged communities.

Meeting the definition of an “Area of Persistent Poverty” places a candidate or project in a more competitive standing for receiving federal funding related to various transportation and clean energy grants. An “Area of Persistent Poverty” is defined for the RAISE grant program by the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act. A project is located in an Area of Persistent Poverty for the RAISE grant program if:

1. Located in a County that has consistently had greater than or equal to 20 percent of the population living in poverty during the last 30-year period, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial census and the most recent annual Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates as estimated by the Bureau of the Census or,

2. Located in a Census Tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent as measured by the 2014– 2018 5-year data series available from the American Community Survey of the Bureau of the Census, or

3. Located in any territory or possession of the United States.

Historically Disadvantaged Communities
The United States Department of Transportation developed indicators for historically disadvantaged communities to specify project areas for Justice40-covered grant programs. Historically disadvantaged communities include (a) certain qualifying census tracts, (b) any Tribal land, or (c) any territory or possession of the United States. The USDOT provides online mapping tools and data tables to assist applicants and identifying whether a project is located in a historically disadvantaged community. these tools are available online on the U.S. Department of Transportation's website.

18 OF 49
Table 3: Priority Intersections Based on Annualized Crash Severity Score (ACSS) # Intersection Traffic Control ACSS DAC CalEnviroScreen 1 Garfield Ave/Whittier Blvd Signalized 114.11 Identified 90.1, 73.2, 82.3 2 Beverly Blvd/Garfield Ave Signalized 85.76 Identified 83.8 3 Greenwood Ave/Washington Blvd Signalized 68.56 Identified 90.2 4 Findlay Ave/Via Campo Signalized 60.17 Identified 83.8 5 Montebello Blvd/Washington Blvd Signalized 58.13 Identified 90.2 6 Maple Ave & Washington Blvd Signalized 56.41 Identified 90.2 7 Wilcox Ave/Via Campo Signalized 53.90 Identified 89.6, 80.0 8 Beverly Blvd/21st Street Unsignalized 49.21 Identified 87.2, 83.6 9 4th St/Washington Blvd Unsignalized 48.68 69.0,
10 Vail Ave/Washington Blvd Signalized 48.07 Identified 90.2, 96.6 11 Montebello Blvd/Victoria Ave Signalized 47.34 Identified 83.6 12 Maple Ave/Whittier Blvd Signalized 47.16 Identified 87.2 13 Bluff Rd/1st St/Whittier Blvd Signalized 47.11 Identified 88.8, 94.6 14 Beverly Blvd/Maple Ave Signalized 46.73 Identified 83.6 15 I-5 Fwy Off Ramp/Telegraph Rd Unsignalized 46.17 Identified 99.1 16 Madison Ave/5th St Unsignalized 44.23 Identified 94.6 17 Garfield Ave/Repetto Ave Unsignalized 43.91 Identified 82.3 18 4th St/Whittier Blvd Signalized 42.68 Identified 88.8, 94.6 19 Via Vista/Whittier Blvd Unsignalized 42.62 Identified 82.3 20 Beverly Blvd/Bradshawe St Signalized 42.48 Identified 83.8 21 Washington Blvd/5th St Unsignalized 39.46 69.0
22 Poplar Ave & Eula Drive Unsignalized 38.05 Identified 77.4 23 Montebello Blvd/Avenida de La Merced Signalized 34.87 Identified 80.0 24 Howard Ave/Lincoln Ave Signalized 9.13 Identified 80.0, 83.6

Comprehensive List of Countermeasures
Countermeasures are individual elements that can help improve a location’s overall safety based on the types of collisions experienced over time and existing road characteristics. The challenging aspect of selecting countermeasures is identifying those that will have the greatest benefit for the specific area of interest. Since the selection of improper countermeasures can sometimes result in more harm than benefit, the proposed safety improvements must be reviewed to ensure that they will help reduce the likelihood of future crashes.

The list of countermeasures provided in the LRSM only includes those available in the Caltrans HSIP call for projects. These were the primary countermeasures under consideration for each location to gear the results towards the end goal of obtaining HSIP funding, but additional countermeasures were also considered. The countermeasures are sorted into two different categories: signalized intersections (S) and non-signalized intersections (NS).

Signalized Intersections

1. S01: Add intersection lighting. Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the intersection’s safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers’ perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers’ available sight distances, and (3) improving visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection but also helps drivers see them better.

2. S02: Improve signal hardware, lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number. This item is included specifically related to installation of the retroreflective borders to provide improved visibility of traffic signals, which is a new standard being employed by the state at all Caltransmanaged traffic signals.

3. S03: Improve Signal Timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation). Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, coordinating signals at multiple locations, and implementing resting state (rest in red) during off-peak travel periods. Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.

4. S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn already exists). Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non-motorized road users can benefit from implementation of a protected left turn phase. A properly timed protected leftturn phase can also help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized road users, and the intersections’ safety experience.

5. S08: Convert signal to mast art (from pedestal-mounted). Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of rightangle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change.

6. S10: Install flashing beacons as advance warning (signalized intersection). Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver’s time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head, or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs

7. S12: Install raised median on approaches. Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the intersection’s functional area.

8. S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads. A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk

9. S20PB: Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box). Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk can enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians and allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers.

10. S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). This countermeasure is included for consideration at high pedestrian locations and near schools, parks, civic buildings, and other specific land uses. A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians, (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, (3) increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians, and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

Non-Signalized Intersections

11. NS03: Install signals. Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, leftturn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as installing a traffic signal often leads to increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions; hence, a reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.

12. NS07: Upgrade intersection pavement markings. Intersection visibility and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections, which will provide approaching motorists additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct drivers’ attention to the intersection’s presence. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up and, therefore, make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.

13. NS14: Install raised median on approaches. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the intersection’s functional area.

14. NS18: Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists). Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream reduces the potential for rear-end collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left-turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left-turn maneuver.

15. NS19PB: Install raised medians (refuge islands). Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. Adding pedestrian crossings can enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing, and these markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra," or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing.

Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians.

16. NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features). Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhanced safety features can enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing and incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection.

Roadway Improvements

17. R14: Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes). In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking. Projects that only require new lane markings and minor signalization modifications will have relatively low cost and can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Often road diet projects need a sealcoat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. Resurfacing projects should be considered as an opportunity to lower speeds by modifying striping (lane width, edge line, etc.).

Priority Safety Projects
Using the crash severity scoring and the City’s previously identified priority locations, a total of 17 intersections were identified for some level of review to recommend applicable countermeasures. Three tiers of projects were identified: Level A being those scoring highest in crash severity and most likely to have feasible improvements that would benefit from some preliminary engineering design; Level B being those that scored high in crash severity or City-identified priorities and would benefit from a concept level idea of countermeasures; and Level C which had notable scores in crash severity and will be addressed through future construction related to the planned Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) L Line (Gold) Eastside Extension Phase 2 on Washington Boulevard. Figure 3: Priority Safety Projects Map illustrates the intersection locations within the City of Montebello. Level A and Level B priority locations are documented in Appendix G.

Review of the intersection geometrics, operations, and crash data was completed for each location to determine historical crash trends and potential countermeasures that address those as well as incorporate proactive safety measures. Tables detailing individual crash occurrences and locations at priority locations during the study period are included in Appendix H. For Level A and B locations, a field review was performed to observe traffic patterns and physical characteristics that further refined the appropriate countermeasure recommendations. Countermeasures have been identified (Appendix I) and planning-level concept plans were prepared (Appendix J) to aid in preparation of cost estimates (Appendix K). These resources were applied to calculate HSIP Benefit Cost Ratios at Priority A and B locations (Appendix L). The engineering concept development is provided to the City to position for future grant funding pursuits.

Countermeasures have been identified at the following locations by category:

A. Level A projects: Provision of 30% engineering concept plans and countermeasures:

1. Beverly Boulevard/Garfield Avenue

2. Maple Avenue/Whittier Boulevard

3. Beverly Boulevard/Bradshawe Street

4. Wilcox Avenue/Via Campo

5. Beverly Boulevard/Maple Avenue
B. Level B projects: Provision of high-level concept plans and countermeasures:

1. Beverly Boulevard/21st Street

2. Montebello Boulevard/Avenida de la Merced

3. Northbound I-5 Freeway Off-Ramp/Telegraph Road

4. Bluff Road/Whittier Boulevard

5. Lincoln Avenue/Howard Avenue

6. Eula Drive/Poplar Avenue
C. Level C projects: Provision of list of recommended countermeasures

1. Greenwood Avenue/Washington Boulevard

2. Montebello Boulevard/Washington Boulevard

3. Maple Avenue/Washington Boulevard

4. Vail Avenue/Washington Boulevard

5. 4th Street/Washington Boulevard

6. 5th Street/Washington Boulevard

Figure 3: Priority Safety Projects Map

Level A Projects
A1 Beverly Boulevard and Garfield Avenue
Beverly Boulevard and Garfield Avenue is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial land uses.

This priority Level A location has an ACSS of 85.76, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 83.8.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including traffic signal modifications, raised center medians, median curbs, continental crosswalks with limit lines, and improvement to southeast curb turn radii.

Concept A1 is anticipated to
Cost $365,0001
Save $8,349,6112 Provide BCR of 22.883
Table 4 Countermeasure List for Priority Location A1 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Protected Left Turn Phase S07 30%
Install Raised Median on Approaches S12 25%
Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
1 Includes environmental cost (25% of construction items not including PS&E), and construction engineering cost (10% of subtotal). Modifications may be made to maximize project funding for the City. 2 Project savings is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of safety countermeasures. Total benefit savings account for the life of the safety improvement and historical crash data at the project site.
3 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is an indicator of the relationship between project costs and project benefits. BCR is determined by total benefits and total project cost.

A2 Maple Avenue and Whittier Boulevard
Maple Avenue and Whittier Boulevard is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial land uses and Montebello Intermediate School on the Northwest corner. This priority Level A location has an ACSS of 47.16, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 87.2.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including traffic signal modifications, reconstruction of an existing raised median, upgrades to curb ramps for ADA-accessibility, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Concept A2 is anticipated to
Cost $318,3001
Save $2,026,7382 Provide BCR of 6.373
Table 5 Countermeasure List for Priority Location A2 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
A3 Beverly Boulevard and Bradshawe Street
Beverly Boulevard and Bradshawe Street is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial land uses. This priority Level A location has an ACSS of 42.48, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 83.8.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including a new traffic signal with upgrades from the pre-existing, curb extensions/bulb-outs with high visibility treatments and ADA-accessible curb ramps, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Concept A3 is anticipated to
Cost $738,7001
Save $6,870,2232 Provide BCR of 9.303
Table 6 Countermeasure List for Priority Location A3 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%

A4 Wilcox Avenue and Via Campo
Wilcox Avenue and Via Campo is a signalized intersection, surrounded by commercial land uses on the southerly corners and California Highway 60 with landscaped buffer zone on the northerly corners. This priority Level A location has an ACSS of 53.90, is located within a DAC, and borders two census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores of 89.5 and 80.0.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including traffic signal modifications, leading pedestrian intervals, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Concept A4 is anticipated to
Cost $266,6001
Save $1,606,9312 Produce BCR of 6.033
Table 7 Countermeasure List for Priority Location A4 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Add Intersection Lighting S01 40%
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
A5 Beverly Boulevard and Maple Avenue
Beverly Boulevard and Maple Avenue is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial land uses and residential land uses on the northwest corner. This priority Level A location has an ACSS of 46.73, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 83.6.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including new traffic signals and poles, traffic signal modifications, loop detector replacement, leading pedestrian intervals, continental crosswalks with limit lines, and shortening concrete center medians to provide extra space for crosswalks.

Concept A5 is anticipated to:

Cost $274,2001
Save $6,621,9002 Produce BCR of 24.153
Table 8 Countermeasure List for Priority Location A5 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Provide Protected Left-Turn Phases S07 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%

Level B Projects
B1 Beverly Boulevard and 21st Street
Beverly Boulevard and 21st Street is a two-way stop-controlled intersection surrounded primarily by commercial land uses and one residential land use on the southeast corner. This priority Level B location has an ACSS of 49.21, is located within a DAC, and borders two census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores of 87.2 and 83.6.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including four continental crosswalks with limit lines, installation of pedestrian barricades, and removal of a pedestrian crosswalk across Beverly Boulevard, to redirect pedestrian traffic to the existing High-Intensity Activated crosswalk beacon (HAWK) at the Beverly Boulevard and 20th Street intersection less than 400-feet East. This location was not included in the HSIP BCR Analysis due to the recent installation of a HAWK Signal. Concept B1 is anticipated to provide a BCR of 497.05.

Table 9 Countermeasure List for Priority Location B1 | Top countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings NS7 25%
Install/ Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing NS21PB 35%
B2 Montebello Boulevard and Avenida de la Merced
Montebello Boulevard and Avenida de la Merced is a signalized intersection surrounded primarily by residential land uses and Taylor Ranch Park on the southwest corner. This priority Level B location has an ACSS of 34.87, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen score of 80.0.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including new signal hardware, signal modifications and upgrades, warning sign relocation and upgrades, leading pedestrian intervals, curb extensions, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Concept B2 is anticipated to:

Cost $469,3001
Save $4,604,8032 Produce BCR of 9.813
Table 10 Countermeasure List for Priority Location B2 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Provide Protected Left Turn Phase S07 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%

B3 Northbound I-5 Freeway Off-Ramp and Telegraph Road
Northbound I-5 Freeway Off-Ramp and Telegraph Road is a one-way stop-controlled T-intersection bordered by commercial land uses to the East and Interstate 5 to the West. This priority level B location has an ACSS of 46.17, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen score of 99.1.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including raised medians within the center turn lane to organize vehicle flow, and conversion of the intersection from one-way stop to a signalized intersection. Coordination with Caltrans is required to determine applicable countermeasures for the location.

Concept B3-A in its entirety is anticipated to
Cost $675,9001
Save $14,580,4222 Produce BCR of 21.573
Table 11 Countermeasure List for Priority Location B3 | Top countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Install Signals NS03 30%
Install Raised Median on Approaches NS14 25%
Install Left-Turn Lane NS18 35%
B4 Bluff Road and Whittier Boulevard
Bluff Road and Whittier Boulevard is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial uses with one vacant lot on the southeast corner. This priority Level B location has an ACSS of 47.11, intersection is located within a DAC, and borders two census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores of 88.8 and 94.6.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including new signal hardware, signal modifications, loop detector replacement, new flashing beacon, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Concept B4 is anticipated to
Cost $358,6001
Save $1,935,9642 Produce BCR of 5.403
Table 12 Countermeasure List for Priority Location B4 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Add Intersection Lighting S01 40%
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%

B5 Lincoln Avenue and Howard Avenue
Lincoln Avenue and Howard Avenue is a signalized intersection surrounded by residential land uses.

This priority Level B location has an ACSS of 9.13, is located within a DAC, and borders two census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores of 80.0 and 83.6.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including new signal hardware, signal modifications and upgrades, and continental crosswalks with limit lines. Reconfigured roadway striping on Lincoln Avenue has also been identified to address corridor collisions, such as unsafe speed, improper turning, and pedestrian right of way. Roadway reconfiguration will provide buffered bicycle lanes and reduce vehicle speeds.

Concept B5 is anticipated to
Cost $502,50041
Save $5,095,8792 Produce BCR of 10.143
Table 13 Countermeasure List for Priority Location B5 | Top 3 countermeasures shown in bold text.

Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Provide Protected Left Turn Phase S07 30%
Road Diet R14 30%
Install Separated Bike Lanes R33PB 45%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
B6 Eula Drive and Poplar Avenue
Eula Drive and Poplar Drive is a one-way stop-controlled T-intersection, with an uncontrolled mid-block crossing, surrounded by residential land uses to the West and La Merced Elementary School to the West. This priority Level B location has an ACSS of 38.05, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 77.4.

In 2015, a head-on collision caused by a driver under the influence occurred at Eula and Poplar Drive, in proximity to La Merced Elementary School. The collision involved five individuals, three were youths ages 15 to 18. Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance improvements to pedestrian visibility and safety, especially on-foot school-related traffic, such as sidewalk extension, curb extension, RRFB with signage, ADA ramps, and a realigned crosswalk with shorter crossing distance. Improvements also include student loading zones for passenger vehicles and district school buses. Additional countermeasures to reduce alcohol/ drug related injuries and fatalities, referenced in Emphasis Area 5 of the report, include targeted enforcement in the presence of youths and educational programs about transportation risk behaviors. 4 Cost of striping is revised to $6,000 for the intersection. Assumed cost of striping for the entire corridor is $30,000.

Level C Projects
Recommendations for Level C locations were less tailored to the specifics of the intersection knowing that there are upcoming changes to Washington Boulevard, which is planned to for future construction related to the planned Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) L Line (Gold) Eastside Extension Phase 2. To efficiently dedicate resources to the City, recommended countermeasures were focused on pedestrian and bicycle improvements with the anticipation of increased activity to get to and from the new transit facilities. Vehicle operation recommendations were also included at certain locations based on crash data history or identified potential crash risks of the existing geometry or equipment. Each of the countermeasure recommendations should be considered in the redesign of Washington Boulevard and incorporated where feasible.

C1 Greenwood Avenue and Washington Boulevard
Greenwood Avenue and Washington Boulevard is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial retail uses. This priority Level C location has an ACSS of 68.56, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 90.2.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including improved signal hardware, high-visibility crosswalks, leading pedestrian intervals, and pedestrian scale lighting.

Table 14 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C1
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%

C2 Montebello Boulevard and Washington Boulevard
Montebello Boulevard and Washington Boulevard is a signalized intersection surrounded by commercial land uses. This priority Level C location has an ACSS of 58.13, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 90.2.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including pedestrian support facilities, traffic signal modifications, advanced warning flashing beacons, and advanced stop bars.

Table 15 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C2
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%
C3 Maple Avenue and Washington Boulevard
Maple Avenue and Washington Boulevard is a signalized intersection bordered by commercial land uses. This priority Level C location has an ACSS of 56.41, is located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 90.2.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including traffic signal modifications, continental crosswalks with limit lines, leading pedestrian intervals, and corridor level speed management.

Table 16 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C3
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%

C4 Vail Avenue and Washington Boulevard
Vail Avenue and Washington Boulevard is a signalized intersection surrounded primarily by industrial warehouses. This Level C location has an ACSS 48.07, is located within a DAC, and borders two census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores of 90.2 and 96.6.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including pedestrian scale lighting, signal timing modifications, advanced stop bars, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Table 17 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C4
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Improve Signal Hardware S02 15%
Improve Signal Timing S03 15%
Convert Signal to Mast Arm S08 30%
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB 25%
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals S21PB 60%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%
C5 4th Street and Washington Boulevard
4th Street and Washington Boulevard is a one-way stop-controlled T-intersection surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. The priority Level C location has an ACSS of 48.68, is not located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 69.0.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including directional curb ramps with truncated domes, raised medians on approaches, and continental crosswalks with limit lines.

Table 18 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C5
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%

C6 5th Street and Washington Boulevard
5th Street and Washington Boulevard is a two-way stop-controlled intersection, with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, surrounded by commercial land uses. The priority Level C location has an ACSS

39.46, is not located within a DAC, and a census tract with CalEnviroScreen score of 69.0.

Review of crash history and existing roadway geometry have identified countermeasures to enhance safety at the intersection including advanced warning signage, continental crosswalks with limit lines, directional curb ramps with truncated domes, and corridor level speed management.

Table 19 Countermeasure List for Priority Location C6
Countermeasure (CM) CM Code CRF
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10 30%
Install Advanced Stop Bar S20PB 15%
Install High-Visibility Crosswalks NS21PB 35%

Emphasis Area Strategies
The trends in City of Montebello’s 5-year crash data analysis were compared to statewide crash patterns documented in the California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to identify key areas for focused improvements. Out of 16 challenge areas outlined in the SHSP, three were found to be statistically significant, including Intersections, Pedestrians, and Aging Drivers. One change area, Commercial Vehicles, was notable though not statistically significant.

The four challenge areas confirmed by the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG), following presentation of Crash Analysis results, were identified in the LRSP as Emphasis Areas. The SWG also identified Bicyclists and Improving Incident Response as additional Emphasis Areas for the City of Montebello to investigate. The following section of this Safe Travel Plan outlines a total of six emphasis areas, goals, strategies, and partner agencies involved in increasing safety on the City of Montebello’s local roads.

Emphasis Area 1: Intersections
Intersection crashes—crashes that occur within 250 feet of the intersection in the City of Montebello— were identified as a statistically significant challenge area compared to statewide trends in the SHSP.

Crashes at intersections throughout Montebello generally had higher crash severity scores compared to roadway segments. Unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe crashes because fatal and severe crashes at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average.

The crash analysis identified priority intersections using the annualized crash severity score, and from this data, the top scoring intersections were reviewed to determine priority locations. Establishing natural break points in the crash severity score, the top 20 intersections were identified.

Goals for Emphasis Area 1:
⋅ Reduce annual intersection-related fatalities from 1.6 per year to 0.8 per year or fewer per year by 2030 (50% reduction).
⋅ Reduce annual intersection-related injuries from 249 per year to 187 or fewer per year in 2030 (25% reduction).

Strategies for Emphasis Area 1:

Strategy 1.1 Develop a system to track and evaluate countermeasure effectiveness at high-crash intersections: The SSAR-portion of this Safe Travel Plan identifies countermeasure improvements at 17 intersections on the local roadway network. As the City of Montebello proceeds to implement the proposed strategies, City staff will implement a system to cross-compare the rate of both crashes and injury severity occurring pre- and post-treatment installation. This strategy will help to inform effectiveness of treatment types within the context of City of Montebello and provide guidance on best practices for Citywide roadway and intersection improvements. Brief descriptions of three evaluation methods are included below:

1. Observational B/A Studies: In observational B/A studies, traffic analysts gather and analyze data for the two periods before and after the implementation of a project. May or may not include linear or nonlinear traffic volume correction.

2. Experimental B/A Studies: In experimental studies, comparable sites of similar traffic volume and geometric features are randomly assigned to a treatment or a non-treatment group. The treatment is then implemented at the sites in the treatment group, and crash and traffic volume data are obtained before and after implementing the treatment.

3. Economic Effectiveness Evaluation: Utilization of Benefit/Cost (B/C) analysis, in which the expected change in crash frequency is converted to a monetary value, summed, and then compared to the countermeasure cost. Alternatively, in Costeffectiveness evaluation, the observed change in crash frequency is compared directly to the actual construction cost.

Strategy 1.2 Create intersection safety checklists for existing conditions and new design: The City will develop an intersection safety checklist to identify and prioritize projects for improvements based on the intersection’s current conditions. The checklist will be developed based on existing conditions at intersections with low-volume crash per traffic volumes and can evolve to provide greater citywide coverage and inclusion of identified emerging technologies and findings from Strategy 1.1. An example item for the checklist includes review of the flashing “don’t walk” time provided for pedestrians at traffic signals. Brief descriptions of resources the City can reference are listed below:

1. Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool: The SPICE Tool is a macro-based, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to assess the safety performance of a variety of intersection geometry and control scenarios in terms of predicted crash frequency and severity.

2. Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions (CAP-X) Tool: The CAP-X Tool is a macro-based, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to assess the operational performance of a variety of intersection geometry and control scenarios in terms of volume to capacity ratio and multimodal accommodations.

3. FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool: The Systemic Tool provides a step-by-step process for conducting systemic safety analysis; considerations for determining a reasonable distribution between the implementation of spot safety improvements and systemic safety improvements; and a mechanism for quantifying the benefits of safety improvements implemented through a systemic approach.

Strategy 1.3 Increase public awareness about the emergency notification system sign at rail grade crossings to alert the public on what to do in an emergency at the crossing: Four atgrade rail crossings exist in the City at Vail Avenue, Maple Avenue, Greenwood Avenue, and Montebello Boulevard. Between one and three crashes per year occurred within 250 feet of an at-grade rail crossing. While several crashes were reported close to rail crossings, only one fatal crash at Montebello Boulevard involved a train. This single collision occurred in 2016 and involved a pedestrian and a freight train. The collision was not included in the SWTIRS data; instead, information was gathered from news reports at the time of the crash. Stakeholder Working Group Members identified a need to address at-grade rail crossings during working group meetings. Strategy 1.3 aligns with the Stakeholder interest and California’s SHSP Intersections Challenge Area Initiative 4.

Strategy 1.4 Expand the use of retroreflective backplates: Retroreflective backplates are added to traffic signal heads to improve visibility in both daytime and nighttime conditions. The treatment increases operational safety of signalized intersections and has the added benefit of increasing road user awareness of an upcoming intersection during power outages. Caltrans announced in 2021 plans to install the treatment at over 5,500 signalized intersections throughout the state and implementing the treatment at Citymanaged intersections will promote consistency of treatments throughout Montebello.

Strategy 1.5 Monitor and evaluate crashes and potential improvements around transit stops: Access to transit and other forms of public transportation is a valuable mobility service within the community; however, due to stop proximity to intersections and crosswalks, transit stops can impact passenger vehicle and pedestrian travel patterns creating conflict zones between vehicles and pedestrians. During the five-year study period (2015-2019), 92 crashes involved a bus (18% identified as “school bus” and 82% identified as general “bus”). The City can initiate a system to monitor and evaluate transit stops through a study that will assist in identifying improvements to benefit drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Areas of focus for monitoring and evaluation include, but are not limited to, accessibility of transit stops, crosswalk safety near stops, and the impact of stops on other transportation modes. The City, along with SWG, will identify locations of study, areas of improvement, and work with police department to identify and recommend GISbased collision data software.

Emphasis Area 2: Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Pedestrian-involved crashes in the City of Montebello were identified as a statistically significant challenge area compared to statewide trends in the SHSP. Across the five study years (2015-2019), there were a total of 142 pedestrian-involved crashes, and it was found that pedestrian crashes are 5 times more likely to result in a fatal/severe injury than total reported crashes.

Stakeholder Working Group Members identified a need to address bicycle-involved collisions during working group meetings. Across the five study years (2015-2019), there were a total of 119 bicycleinvolved crashes, and it was found that bicycle crashes are 3 times more likely to result in a fatal/severe injury than total reported crashes.

In both pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes, the most common age group reported includes ages 18 and under (27%). In bicycle-involved crashes, the age group 25-44 was equally as common (27%).

Compared to drivers, pedestrians aged 45 and over are overrepresented, while bicyclists aged 18 to 24 years old are overrepresented in the data. Locations of all pedestrian-involved and bicycle-involved crashes are shown in Figure 4: Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Involved Collisions, 2015-2019.

Goals for Emphasis Area 2:
⋅ Reduce annual pedestrian-involved collisions from 28 per year to fewer than 14 per year in 2030 (50% reduction).
⋅ Reduce annual bicyclist-involved collisions from 24 per year to fewer than 12 per year in 2030 (50% reduction).

Strategies for Emphasis Area 2:

Strategy 2.1 Conduct public education and outreach to motorists to raise their awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety needs: The City will initiate a public awareness campaign to increase driver awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety laws and the importance of safety, due to vulnerabilities, while driving near pedestrians and bicyclists. Specific messaging within the campaign will be determined in a collaborative process by the stakeholder working group representatives.

Strategy 2.2 Conduct periodic roadway safety assessments of locations with growing traffic and pedestrian volumes and locations: Potential assessment locations include locations with documented pedestrian and bicycle safety issues, upcoming roadway or transit station improvement projects, and location identified by local feedback. Assessments will involve site reconnaissance to observe existing conditions and potential impromptu discussions with passerby and local business owners. Challenges for walking and bicycling identified in the assessments will be catalogued and further reviewed for potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions.

Strategy 2.3 Identify opportunities for grant funding: Through roadway safety assessments in Strategy

2.2, the City will identify infrastructure improvement opportunities throughout the local roadway network. Regional, State and Federal grants are available to local agencies to implement improvements, such as the Metro Call for Projects, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Active Transportation Program, Senate Bill 1 Programs, Green California, Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), and the Federal Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA), among others.

Strategy 2.4 Adopt Citywide Complete Streets Policy: The City will develop and adopt a Complete Streets Policy to guide design on future roadway projects and developments ensuring high-quality mobility and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and other modes for people of all ages and abilities.

Figure 4: Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Involved Collisions, 2015-2019

Emphasis Area 3: Aging Drivers
The volume of crashes involving Aging Drivers in the City of Montebello was identified as statistically significant compared to statewide trends in the SHSP. The Aging Drivers Challenge Area includes instances where the driver of a motor vehicle is 65 years or older, and across the five study years (2015- 2019), there were a total of 358 crashes involving a driver of the age of 65 resulting in 192 injuries and 1 fatality. Locations involving a driver aged 65 and over are shown in Figure 5: Crashes Involving an Aging Driver 2015-2019.

In an article by BMJ Publishing Group’s Injury Prevention Journal (2002), drivers over the age of 75 were found to have a fatality rate of 3.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT), a much higher rate than the nationwide average of 1.44 fatalities per 100 MVMT.

Goals for Emphasis Area 3:
⋅ Reduce annual fatalities involving aging drivers 65 years or older from 0.2 per year to 0 (zero) per year in 2030.
⋅ Reduce annual injuries involving aging drivers 65 years or older from 38 per year to fewer than 29 per year in 2030 (25% reduction).

Strategies for Emphasis Area 3:

Strategy 3.1 Develop effective methods to identify at-risk older drivers: Visual processing impairment increases crash risk among older drivers. Many older drivers meet the legal requirements for licensing despite having vision impairments that elevate crash risk. In a 2003 study of aging drivers, participants who had received educational content on vision impairment were more likely to acknowledge that the quality of their eyesight was less than excellent, compared to the control group that received no educational content. The City of Montebello, through the Senior Citizen Center, will develop methods to identify at-risk older drivers through distribution of educational content and providing additional resources for maintaining mobility among the aging population.

Strategy 3.2 Develop enhanced training for emergency service personnel on the proper assessment and triage of older persons at crash scenes: Higher death rates per miles travelled among older drivers is not correlated to unsafe driving but rather a higher vulnerability to injuries that are potentially life-threatening. Triage systems are one of the key principles of accident management, in which patients are prioritized to provide them with proper services and treatments. The City of Montebello will coordinate with ambulance contractors to develop protocols prioritizing treatment and response for older populations involved in vehicle collisions.

Strategy 3.3 Incorporate the FHWA Older Driver and Pedestrian Guidelines into the local design guidelines:

The Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population provides practitioners guidelines in the areas of roadway geometry, operations, and traffic control devices. The Handbook is available online at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/older_users/#training.

Figure 5: Crashes Involving an Aging Driver 2015-2019

Emphasis Area 4: Commercial Vehicles
The volume of crashes involving a commercial vehicle, while not statistically significant, were notable within the City’s crash history. The commercial vehicles challenge area includes instances where the collision involves a truck, truck tractor, school bus, or other bus. Montebello is a leading City in the trucking industry, with one of the nation’s largest concentrations of railroad yards and freight handling equipment within miles of its boundaries, and higher concentrations of commercial vehicles on Montebello‘s roadway network introduces increased opportunities for vehicle-to-vehicle conflict.

Within the study period (2015-2019), a total of 101 collisions involved a commercial vehicle. Locations of collisions involving a commercial vehicle are shown in Figure 6: Crashes Involving a Commercial Vehicle, 2015-2019.

Goals for Emphasis Area 4:
⋅ Reduce citywide crash shares from 20 per year to less than 10 per year in 2030 (50% reduction) Strategies for Emphasis Area 4:

Strategy 4.1 Operation Safe Driver Week: Operation Safe Driver Week is a campaign initiative occurring annually in July to increase safety on the roadway for both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles. During this enforcement effort, officers throughout North America engage in heightened traffic, safety enforcement, and education aimed at combatting risky driving behaviors in both commercial motor vehicle drivers and passenger vehicle drivers. Key focuses of the 2021 campaign included following to close, speeding, and failure to obey traffic control devices. The initiative is designed to promote safe driving all year round, within a week-long focused effort by enforcement officers.

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) provides useful resources and training materials for distribution to the many businesses operating commercial vehicles on the local roadway network.

Strategy 4.2 Brake Safety Week: CVSA’s Brake Safety Month and Brake Safety Week occur annually in the fall and is a campaign to encourage commercial vehicle drivers to thoroughly check all vehicle brake components. During this campaign, commercial motor vehicle inspectors conduct brake system inspections on large trucks and buses throughout North America to identify brake-system violations. System inspections help to ensure all commercial vehicles on the local roadway network are operating according to government regulations and can reduce collisions involving commercial vehicles.

Strategy 4.3 One-day brake safety enforcement initiative: This unannounced event can be held at any time during the year and involves inspectors checking brakes to identify brake violations.

Inspections are conducted by enforcement officers during traffic stops to ensure brake safety compliance by commercial vehicles throughout the calendar year.

Figure 6: Crashes Involving a Commercial Vehicle, 2015-2019

Emphasis Area 5: Driving Under the Influence
Reducing rates of intoxicated driving is supported by creating cultural changes in perspectives around driving under the influence and through use of enforcement. During the study period (2015-2019), a total of 458 collisions occurred where a driver was under the influence of drug or alcohol resulting in 182 injuries and 5 fatalities. The City will increase enforcement efforts to reduce driving under the influence in the community and implement educational campaigns for cultural shifts toward traffic safety. Locations of collisions caused by driving under the influence are shown in Figure 7: Crashes Involving a Driver Under the Influence of Drug or Alcohol, 2015-2019.

Goals for Emphasis Area 5:
⋅ Reduce annual alcohol/drug-related fatalities from 1.0 per year to less than 0.5 per year in 2030 (50% reduction).
⋅ Reduce annual alcohol/drug-related injuries from 36 per year to less than 27 per year in 2030 (25% reduction).

Strategies for Emphasis Area 5:

Strategy 5.1 Increase the number and effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and targeted enforcement:

A sobriety checkpoint is a roadblock set up by law enforcement officers to detect and deter intoxicated driving in locations where there is a high incidence of crashes and fatalities. The City Police Department will focus enforcement efforts on Holidays and typical timeframes of intoxicated driving, which include typical holidays such as Saint Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, Fourth of July, and fall-winter holidays. The City may also examine opportunities in unannounced sobriety checkpoints in historically high DUI areas.

Strategy 5.2 Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences, such as middle-high school students, or the 18-to-34-year-old age group: Impaired driving can involve youths in cars, either as a passenger with the offender or as teen drivers. Students will learn about the consequences of underage drinking and driving and transportation risk behaviors.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported 16% of 15- to 18- year-old drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2019 had been drinking. Educational materials for adults will center around driver’s responsibilities, hazardous road conditions, and the effects of alcohol and drugs.

Strategy 5.3 Create effective media campaigns in both visual and print media: December is National Impaired Driving Prevention Month with it being the deadliest for fatalities involving DUIs. The City will provide outreach to the community using messaging that upholds values around protecting neighbors, alternative options to driving under the influence, and the individual person/ financial risks of intoxicated driving. The City Police Department will identify areas of high DUI arrests to post visual signage. Campaigns can center around ridesharing or appointing a designated driver, and other forms of messaging within the campaign will be determined in a collaborative process by the stakeholder working group representatives.

Figure 7: Crashes Involving a Driver Under the Influence of Drug or Alcohol, 2015-2019

Emphasis Area 6: Improve Incident Response
Based on feedback from stakeholder meetings, there is interest in consistency and streamlined coordination among emergency responders in the City of Montebello. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) cites communication failures as a significant contributor to the loss of life in a roadway accident. Technological areas for improvement include alerting platforms, geographical information systems, and street-level cameras that can continue to address communications issues for emergencies. Traffic incident handling restores the flow of traffic as safely and quickly as possible following a roadway incident. Through the efficient coordination of emergency services, the process to respond to a traffic incident can reduce the duration of traffic impacts and decrease the possibility of a secondary traffic crash.

A quantity of 66 crashes involving emergency responder services (EMS) vehicles was observed over the 5- year study period, indicating improvements to minimize the quantity of crashes between motorists and emergency responders is needed. Crash data includes motorists’ crashing into parked EMS vehicles, and data does not discern if the responders were traveling to an incident with sirens and lights engaged (Code 3). The number of crashes involving emergency vehicles may indicate that there are right-of-way conflicts during emergency response. Adding pre-emption technology to traffic signals or discussing with emergency responders as to why these crashes are occurring may be informational to prevent future crashes involving emergency vehicles.

Goals for Emphasis Area 6:
⋅ Reduce crashes with emergency responder services vehicles from an average of 11 per year to 5 per year by 2030 (55% reduction).
⋅ Reduce crashes caused by construction as a roadway condition from 2.2 per year to 1.1 per year by 2030 (50% reduction).
⋅ Increase average incident clearance time by 25% by year 2030.

Strategies for Emphasis Area 6:

Strategy 6.1 Implement Traffic Signal Pre-Emption System: Traffic signal pre-emption can change the traffic signal to red light illumination for conflicting traffic and provide green light illumination for approaching emergency responder services (EMS) staff when traveling rapidly to respond to a crash or incident. It is recommended the City pursue funding to implement technology to equip the traffic signals and EMS vehicles for emergency vehicle pre-emption. The implementation can be phased with prioritization along major corridors and within proximity to key facilities such as police and fire stations, and medical facilities providing emergency care.

Strategy 6.2 Participate in Crash Responder Safety Week annually in November: Crash Responder Safety Week is an initiative to commit passenger vehicles to safer driving practices for a safer work environment around emergency responders reporting to crash incidents on highways and local roads. Throughout the week, involved agencies will draw attention to the important work of first responders at the scene of roadway incidents, and the campaign celebrates the work of first responders while honoring those who have fallen in the line of duty. The City will support dissemination of the Traffic Incident Management (TIM) training to emergency response teams, which would be made available by the Federal Highway Administration. The City and involved agencies will disseminate daily campaign messaging throughout the week using social media, newsletters, and other outreach channels. Daily campaign messaging includes Slow Down - Move Over, Honoring Veterans, and Traffic Incident Awareness, among others.

Strategy 6.3 Incorporate guidance from the Framework for Improving Cross-Sector Coordination for Emergency Preparedness and Response (Framework): Prepared by the Public Health and Law Enforcement Emergency Preparedness Workgroup (Workgroup), the Framework makes recommendations for action items that are intended to make cross-sectoral collaboration more feasible and productive without duplicating the many existing initiatives designed to streamline emergency preparedness and response. The Framework includes recommendations for improving data and resource sharing, as well as guidance for establishing Citywide guidelines and protocols between emergency responders. Involved agencies will review the Framework and identify opportunities to adopt applicable recommendations.

Strategy 6.4: Adopt the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH): First adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation, WATCH details policies and standards guidelines for common temporary traffic control zones in a work area. Deploying traffic control devices consistent with WATCH guidelines is effective in reducing crashes, expediting traffic flow, and improving public relations. WATCH outlines signage and detour considerations for first responders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists as well as standards for road detour quality. Traffic control noted in WATCH ensures the safety of all parties, and the City and involved partners will deploy traffic control devices consistent with WATCH guidance.

Next Steps
The City of Montebello Public Works Department will coordinate among departments, local agencies, and organizations as needed to apply or co-apply for funding resources or grant opportunities. The City will advance strategies and continue partnership with stakeholders to implement the education, enforcement, engineering, and emerging technology strategies as needed to assist in implementing the vision and goals of this Safe Travel Plan.

Engineering improvements to local roads are implemented according to a typical schedule involving multiple phases, including but not limited to planning, environmental analysis, design, and construction.

Funding must be acquired by the City to proceed with each phase of implementation which will influence the schedule. For example, the HSIP receives project applications only on even years. The strategies identified in this Safe Travel Plan will follow the typical schedule and any additional phases as needed to meet state and federal requirements.

This Safe Travel Plan will be a living document and will be updated as needed by the City of Montebello Public Works Department with input from the SWG representatives; these representatives will attend an annual meeting to confirm the LSRP’s direction, process, and progress. Moreover, an annual SWG meeting will occur annually and a representative from each SWG organization will be invited to attend providing attendees with an opportunity to review status and weigh in upon upcoming year priorities.

The LRSP’s goals will be evaluated as needed (at minimum, every 5 years) to measure success and progress toward the identified goals, to evaluate collision statistics, and to identify any new applicable goals that should be worked toward or arising collision trends.

Typical Schedule
Planning
City staff will develop short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans for implementation. The timeline for planning may be affected by available funding, environmental impacts, adoption in local, regional, and state planning documents, and may last 1-12 months.

Environmental Analysis
Environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required for projects not qualifying for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The timeline for environmental analysis is affected by the scope and complexity of the project.

Design
Design includes preliminary design, final design, right of way acquisition, and may last 1-36 months.

Construction
Construction schedules vary depending on inclement weather, availability of materials, and unforeseen discoveries. The phase may range from 1 to over 36 months.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX A: Letters of Support

APPENDIX A

April 25, 2022
Mr. James Enriquez, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Montebello
1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
RE: Letter of Support for City of Montebello Systemic Safety Analysis Report/Local Road Safety Plan (SSAR/LRSP)
Dear Mr. Enriquez,
On behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) we would like to offer this letter of support for improving transportation safety in the City of Montebello. Metro has been an active participant during the preparation of the SSAR/LRSP led by the City.

Consistent with Metro policies, including Vision 2028 and the Complete Streets Policy, Metro strongly encourages cities within Los Angeles County to assess and consider the needs of all roadway users, with a special emphasis on the most vulnerable users. In January 2021, the Metro Board of Directors prompted the development of a Metro Street Safety Policy, which we are preparing concurrently with Montebello’s plan. Our participation in this process has been instructive for our future collaboration on safety issues with all Los Angeles County cities.

As a stakeholder involved in the SSAR/LRSP, our organization representatives have been involved in review of five years of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle crash history, identification of potential solutions to address trends, and prioritization of strategies aligned with the project emphasis areas. We applaud the City of Montebello’s focus to create a culture of safe travel behaviors and reduce severe and fatal transportation crashes citywide.

To achieve positive outcomes, Metro looks forward to continued collaboration, including potential involvement through:
• Coordinating on messaging and public communication,
• Promotion of safety events and activities to our constituents, • Support for future grant pursuits led by City or other partners for SSAR/LRSP activities, subject to specific consideration for any given project/grant program, and • Attendance at annual SSAR/LRSP Stakeholder Working Group update meeting.

We look forward to continued involvement with the City of Montebello to bring about positive change in the community. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jacob Lieb on my staff at (213) 547-4272, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jim de la Loza
Chief Planning Officer

April 20, 2022
Mr. James Enriquez, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, California 90640
RE: Letter of Support for City of Montebello Systemic Safety Analysis Report / Local Road Safety Plan (SSAR/LRSP).

Dear Mr. Enriquez,
On behalf of Montebello Bicycle Coalition, we would like to offer this letter of support documenting our support for improving transportation safety in the City of Montebello.

Montebello Bicycle Coalition has been an active participant during the preparation of the SSAR/LRSP led by the City. We concur with the project vision dedicated to a roadway network that provides safe travel throughout the City.

As a stakeholder involved in the SSAR/LRSP, our organization representatives have been involved in review of five years of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle crash history, identification of potential solutions to address trends, and prioritization of strategies aligned with the project emphasis areas. We applaud the City of Montebello’s focus to create a culture of safe travel behaviors and reduce severe and fatal transportation crashes citywide.

To achieve positive outcomes, Montebello Bicycle Coalition commits to continued partnership on the SSAR/LRSP, including potential involvement through:
• Input on best methods to promote safety during dedicated campaigns (social media, in-school programs, etc.),
• Incorporate partner-provided safety messaging into communications (as appropriate),
• Promotion of safety events and activities to our constituents, • Written letter of support for future grant pursuits led by City or other partners for SSAR/LRSP activities, and
• Attendance at annual SSAR/LRSP Stakeholder Working Group update meeting.

We look forward to continued involvement with the City of Montebello to bring about positive change in the community. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (323)528-1402, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gilbert Jauregui
Chairperson

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX B: Crash Data Analysis

APPENDIX B

1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is assisting the City of Montebello (City) in preparing a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) to identify roadway improvements and countermeasures to improve systemic safety performance. As part of this effort, Kittelson has prepared this memorandum summarizing crash data, trends, and locations for the January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 period (5 years).

For this memorandum, Kittelson documented the safety data analysis conducted to identify crash patterns and trends, crash risk factors associated with increased crash frequency or severity, and priority locations for potential safety improvements. The information and findings in this memorandum will inform forthcoming countermeasure identification, project development, and goals for the SSAR. The memorandum is organized into the following sections:
 Data Summary
 Citywide Crash Patterns and Trends
 Comparison to Statewide Trends
 Network Screening Analysis
 Next Steps

DATA SUMMARY
Kittelson developed a database of the most recent five years of reported crashes, representing January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, with data from California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Kittelson also initially obtained year 2020 crash data for evaluation. When reviewing the data, it was found that the City has significantly fewer reported crashes in 2020 than the prior four years, which may be due to lower traffic levels, different travel patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic, or crash data processing delays. As a result, year 2020 data was not included in the city-wide analysis and years 2015 through 2019 was the most reliable recent five years of data to use for analysis.

SWITRS crash data is only partially geolocated, while the UC Berkeley TIMS crash data is mostly geolocated. Thus, Kittelson used reference data saved in each crash record for primary and secondary streets and the distance and direction from each intersection to geocode and manually offset crashes. Additionally, crashes that occurred on grade-separated freeways that travel through the city (Interstate 5 and State Route 60) have been excluded from the crash data. However, crashes reported at the ramp terminal intersections that are associated with grade-separated freeways and highways in the City are included in the analysis database. Finally, Kittelson identified and removed duplicate records if multiple entries March 2, 2022 Project# 27001
To:

Homayoun Behboodi
Engineering Department
City of Montebello
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC: Paul Martin, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

RE: City of Montebello Systemic Safety Analysis Report – Crash Data Analysis

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

2 appeared to represent the same crash, as identified by inspection of crash details for entries with the same time and date.

The final dataset includes 2,637 crashes from SWITRS/TIMS.

CITYWIDE CRASH PATTERNS AND TRENDS
This section presents citywide crash patterns and trends and includes a focus on identifying patterns associated with injury and fatal crash outcomes. By analyzing reported crashes together, systemic trends across locations can be identified.

Separating out fatal and severe injury crashes helps identify what type of crashes or locations are most impactful in reducing crashes that have the most severe outcomes. Findings from this analysis will help inform safety countermeasures selected in subsequent project tasks.

All Road Users
The first analysis examined reported crashes across all road users – motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Trends and findings are presented based on the following:
 Crash severity
 Crash type
 Primary crash factors
 Time of day
 Human factors and personal attributes
 Vehicle equipment factors
Following this analysis, bicycle and pedestrian crashes are discussed separately. Additional comparisons that were reviewed but did not result in notable findings nor inform citywide crash patterns and trends are provided in Attachment A.

CRASH SEVERITY
Crashes are classified by severity based on the most severe outcome associated with the crash, with the following reported severities (in descending order of severity): fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO).

Table 1 presents the number of crashes by severity and road users involved (e.g., pedestrian bicyclist, motor vehicle), followed by share percentages of the column. Key findings include:
 Among the reported crashes, 51 (2.4%) resulted in either a fatality or serious injury.  Bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved crashes are over-represented among fatal and severe crashes.  Motorcycle crashes are frequent and commonly result in fatal or severe injury.  Approximately half of reported crashes resulted in property damage only.

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

3 Table 1: Crash Severity by Road User Involved (2015-2019) Road User Involved Fatal
(% of column)
Severe
Injury
(% of column)
Other Visible
Injury
(% of column)
Complaint
of Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total Crashes
(% of column)
Vehicle-Vehicle or
Vehicle-Other
4 (40%) 15 (37%) 239 (66%) 811 (85%) 1228 (97%) 2297 (87%) Pedestrian-Involved 2 (20%) 13 (32%) 44 (12%) 76 (8%) 7 (0.6%) 142 (5%) Bicyclist-Involved 1 (10%) 6 (15%) 52 (14%) 45 (5%) 15 (1%) 119 (5%) Pedestrian- and
Bicyclist-Involved
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%)
Motorcycle-Involved 3 (30%) 7 (17%) 28 (8%) 28 (3%) 17 (1%) 83 (3%) Grand Total
(% of total crashes) 10 (0.4%) 41 (2%) 361 (14%) 958 (36%) 1267 (48%) 2637 (100%) Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and overlap in crashes Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 1 shows reported crashes by year and severity. Other injury includes injuries that are not severe, including “other visible injuries” and “complaints of pain.” As shown in the figure, the number of crashes slightly decreased from 2015 through 2016 and increased from 2016 through 2018 before decreasing again in 2019.

Figure 1: Crash Frequency by Year and Severity
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

CRASH TYPE
The reported crash type provides an indication of the movements most frequently involved in crashes and in severe outcomes. Figure 2 presents crashes by reported crash type and severity, arranged in descending order based on the frequency of total reported crashes.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Crash Count
Year
Fatal Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

4 Figure 2: Reported Crashes by Type and Severity (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

As Figure 2 demonstrates, underreporting and vulnerability of pedestrian-involved crashes is likely occurring due to the discrepancy between the fatal and severe injury crash share and the number of total reported crashes by type.

The three most frequent crash types reported for all crash severities were:
 Broadside (33%)
 Rear end (21%)
 Sideswipe (19%)
The main crash types for fatal and severe injury crashes frequently reported were:
 Broadside (29%)
 Vehicle/Pedestrian (25%)
These two crash types – broadside and vehicle-pedestrian – together account for 54% of fatal and severe injury crashes in the City. Figure 3 compares the proportion of crash types for total reported crashes against fatal and severe injury crashes.

As shown in the figure:
 Vehicle/pedestrian and overturned crashes are overrepresented, and almost five times more likely to result in a fatal or severe injury than the total reported crashes.
 Head-On crashes are overrepresented, and about two times more likely to result in a fatal or severe injury than the total reported crashes.
 Broadside crashes are slightly underrepresented, but almost have an equal likelihood to result in a fatal or severe injury compared to the total reported crashes.

Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Overturned
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Crash Type
Crash Count
Fatal/Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

5 Figure 3: Crash Type for Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes Compared to All Crashes (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

PRIMARY CRASH FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each crash. There are several different PCFs from which they can select. It is up to the officer’s judgement and information available at the scene for them to select the factor that is most relevant. Officers select one from among a list of PCFs based on violations and road user behavior.

Figure 4 presents the ten most frequently cited PCFs for crashes in the city. The figure is arranged in descending order based on the frequency of total crashes. While some crash factors occur more frequently for total reported crashes or the proportion of injury crashes (e.g., improper turning or automobile right-of-way), others like pedestrian violations, unsafe speed, and driving or bicycling under the influence account for larger shares of fatal and severe injury crashes when compared to their overall reporting. As shown in the figure:
 Improper turning was the most frequently cited crash factor (24%), followed by automobile right-of-way (19%) and unsafe speed (16%)
 Automobile right-of-way (9), pedestrian violations (7 crashes), and improper turning (7) are the crash factors with the highest fatal and severe injury crash frequencies, accounting for 45% of total reported fatal and severe injury crashes. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Broadside Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Hit Object Head-On Rear End Other Overturned Sideswipe Crash Share Crash Type
Fatal/Severe Injury All Crashes

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

6 Figure 4: Reported Primary Crash Factor by Severity (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

TIME OF DAY
Figure 5 presents reported crashes by time of day (under all weather conditions). As shown in the figure:
 Crash frequency is higher in the afternoon and through evening commute times.  The hour between 5-6pm has the highest frequency of reported crashes, accounting for 8% of reported crashes.

Figure 5: Reported Crashes by Time of Day (2015-2019)
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Unknown
- Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian Violation
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Primary Crash Factor
Crash Counts
Fatal/Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

7 Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

HUMAN FACTORS AND PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES
 This section focuses reported human factors and personal attributes that may inform countermeasures development.

These factors consist of driving under the influence, hit and run instances, and unsafe speeds.

Figure 6 through Figure 8 show the crash shares of alcohol/drug involved, hit and run, and unsafe speed as the primary crash factor by crash severity. As shown in the figures:
 474 reported crashes (18% of total crashes) involved impaired individuals due to drug or alcohol consumption. Of these crashes, 14 have resulted in a fatality or severe injury (27% of fatal/severe injury crashes).  When alcohol/drugs are involved, crashes are 2 times more likely to result in a fatal or severe injury than total reported crashes.
 574 reported crashes (22% of total crashes) were classified as a hit and run. Of these crashes, 8 resulted in a fatality or severe injury (16% of fatal/severe injury crashes).
 Unsafe speed was recorded as the primary crash factor for 409 crashes (16% of total crashes).  Unsafe speed crashes are slightly underrepresented across fatal/severe injury crashes when compared to the total reported crashes.
 The majority of parties in reported crashes (73%) were reported as not using their cell phone at the time of the crash.

However, the percentage of parties using a cellular device may be underreported by responding officers as it is not usually feasible to prove someone was using a cellular device and parties involved may not report if they were.

Figure 6: Crash Severity as Share of Alcohol/Drug Involved Crashes (2015-2019) 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200 Crash Count
Hour

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

8 Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 7: Crash Severity as Share of Hit and Run Crashes (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 8: Crash Severity as Share of Unsafe Speed Crashes (2015-2019) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Share
Crash Severity
Fatal/Severe Injury All Crashes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Share
Crash Severity
Fatal/Severe Injury All Crashes

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

9 Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

VEHICLE EQUIPMENT FACTORS
This section focuses reported vehicle equipment factors that may inform countermeasures development. SWITRS/TIMS reported data includes information on motor vehicle occupant restraints at the time of the crash.  The majority (66%) of motor vehicle parties (drivers and passengers) in reported crashes used some sort of safety equipment (e.g. lap/shoulder harness, helmet, lap belt).  89% of fatal/severe crashes involved parties that were not utilizing any safety equipment.

Figure 9 shows the shares of the degree of safety equipment used in a crash by severity. As a note, this does not include reported crashes with no reported information pertaining to the use of safety equipment (323 crashes).

Figure 9: Crash Shares of Safety Equipment Used by Crash Severity (2015-2019) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Share
Crash Severity
Unsafe Speed All Crashes

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

10 Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

CRASHES AT AT-GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS
Currently, there are four at-grade rail crossings in the city. These are located at Vail Avenue, Maple Avenue, Greenwood Avenue, and Montebello Boulevard. As shown in Table 2, between one and three crashes per year occurred within 250 feet of an at-grade rail crossing. No crashes occurred at the Greenwood Avenue crossing; and the Vail Avenue crossing had the most (seven crashes). Looking at all of the crossing, no fatal or severe injury crashes occurred, and one bicycle-involved crash occurred at the Montebello Boulevard location. While close to rail crossings, none of the crashes involved a train.

Table 2: Crashes at At-Grade Rail Crossings (2015-2019) Location
Number of Crashes
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Crashes Fatal/ Severe Bike Pedesrian Vail Ave. 1 2 1 2 1 7 0 0 0
Maple Ave. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Greenwood Ave. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montebello Blvd. 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 1 0
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving people walking (pedestrians), bicycling (bicyclists), and riding motorcycles/mopeds (motorcyclists). Across the five study years (2015-2019) there was a total of 142 pedestrian-involved crashes, 119 bicycle-involved crashes, and 83 motorcycle-involved crashes.

CRASH SEVERITY
Figure 10 shows severity as shares of pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle crashes compared to total reported crashes. As shown in the figure:
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Share
Crash Severity
No Safety Equipment Used Safety Equipment Used

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

11  Pedestrian crashes are 5 times more likely to result in a fatal/severe injury than total reported crashes.  Bicycle crashes are 3 times more likely to result in a fatal/severe injury than total reported crashes.  Motorcycle crashes are 6 times tmore likely to result in a fatal/severe injury than total reported crashes.

Figure 10: Pedestrian, Bicycle, Motorcycle and Total Crash Shares by Severity (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

PARTY AGE
Figure 11 shows the age ranges for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers involved in crashes. As shown in the figure:
 The most common pedestrian age group reported is 18 and under (27%).  The most common bicyclist age groups are 18 and under (27%) and 25 to 44 (27%).  The most common motorcyclist age group is 25 to 44 (33%).  Pedestrians are overrepresented in the 45 to 64 and 65 and over age groups compared to drivers.  Bicyclists and motorcyclists are overrepresented in the18 to 24 age group compared to drivers.  Motorcyclists are slightly overrepresented in the 65 and over age group compared to drivers.

Figure 11: Pedestrian, Bicyclist, Motorcyclist, and Driver Crash Shares by Party Age (2015-2019) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Shares
Crash Severity
Pedestrian Crashes Bicycle Crashes Motorcycle Crashes All Crashes

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

12 Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

PEDESTRIAN CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 12 shows crashes involving pedestrians by pedestrian actions. As shown in the figure:
 The most reported pedestrian action is crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection (50%), followed by crossing not in the crosswalk (23%).
 The most reported pedestrian action for fatal/severe injury crashes is crossing not in the crosswalk (47% of fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes).

Figure 12: Pedestrian Involved Crashes by Pedestrian Action (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and over Crash Share Age Range
Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Drivers
Not Stated
Crossing in Crosswalk
Not at Intersection
Not in Road
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk
at Intersection
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Pedestrian Action
Crash Count
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

13 BICYCLE CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 13 shows the breakdown of crash types for bicycle crashes. As shown in the figure, the most common bicycle crash type recorded is broadside (47%), followed by vehicle/pedestrian (21%). For the vehicle/pedestrian crash type, SWITRS classifies bicyclists as pedestrians based on the responding officer report; therefore, there may be a lack of clarity on the specific vehicular movements that precede a bicycle crash that is categorized as a vehicle/pedestrian crash.

Figure 13: Bicycle Crashes by Crash Type (2015-2019)
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 14 shows primary crash factor for bicycle crashes by severity. As shown in the figure:
 The three most common primary crash factors for bicycle crashes are wrong side of the road (32%), automobile right of way (20%), and traffic signals and signs (12%).
 The most common primary bicycle crash factors that align with fatal and severe injuries consist of wrong side of the road (43% of fatal/severe injury bicycle crashes) and automobile right of way (43% of fatal/severe injury bicycle crashes). Another notable factors is unsafe speed.

Figure 14: Primary Crash Factor for Bicycle Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Broadside
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Sideswipe
Other
Rear End
Hit Object
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Crash Type
Crash Count
Wrong Side of Road
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
Unknown
Unsafe Speed
Other Hazardous Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian Violation
Other Improper Driving
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Primary Crash Factor
Crash Count
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

14 MOTORCYCLE CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 15 shows the breakdown of crash types for motorcycle crashes. As shown in the figure, the most common motorcycle crash type recorded is broadside (55%), followed by rear end (18%).

Figure 15: Motorcycle Crashes by Crash Type (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 16 shows primary crash factor for motorcycle crashes by severity. As shown in the figure:
 The three most common primary crash factors for motorcycle crashes are automobile right of way (45%), unsafe speed (15%), and improper turning (13%).
 The most common primary motorcycle crash factor that aligns with fatal and severe injuries is automobile right of way (44% of fatal/severe injury motorcycle crashes).
 Other notable primary crash factors for motorcyle crashes include driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug, wrong side of road, improper turning, and unsafe speed.

Figure 16: Primary Crash Factor for Motorcycle Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Broadside
Rear End
Head-On
Sideswipe
Other
Overturned
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Crash Type
Crash Count
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Unknown
Wrong Side of Road
Other Hazardous Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Improper Passing
Unsafe Lane Change
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Primary Crash Factor
Crash Count
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

15 COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE TRENDS
This section discusses how Montebello crash patterns compare to statewide crash patterns as documented in the California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP identified 16 challenge areas that represent the biggest contributors to traffic issues in California. Of the 16 challenge areas, 6 have been identified as High Priority Areas.

Of the remaining 10 identified as Focus Areas, 6 are not able to be correlated with data due to the lack of available data.

Below is a summary of the SHSP Challenge Areas:
 High Priority Areas: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Impaired Driving, Intersections, Lane Departures, Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
 Focus Areas: Aging Drivers, Commercial Vehicles, Motorcyclists, Young Drivers, Distracted Driving*, Driver Licensing*, Emergency Response*, Emerging Technologies*, Occupant Protection*, Work Zones*1 Figure 17 shows a comparison between the City’s crash statistics and the statewide data.

Figure 17. Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Shares by Challenge Area Compared to Statewide Statistics Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
 Montebello has statistically significant higher shares of fatal/severe injury crashes that take place at intersections, involve pedestrians, or involve aging drivers.
 Although not statistically significant, there is strong evidence that commercial vehicles are overrepresented when compared to statewide statistics.
 Montebello has statistically significant lower shares of fatal/severe injury crashes with lane departures.  There is some evidence that Montebello is underrepresented in crashes involving young drivers, aggressive drivers, and impaired drivers when compared to statewide statistics.

The top three SHSP challenge areas that can inform the development of countermeasures in Montebello are pedestrians, aging drivers, and intersections.
* These areas cannot be compared with the data available at this time 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50% Crash Share
Challenge Area
Montebello Statewide

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

16 NETWORK SCREENING ANALYSIS
This section describes the network screening and systemic evaluation of Montebello’s roadway network. In addition to the network screening, Kittelson also reviewed risk factors and physical characteristics at the priority intersections.

Data and Network Screening Approach
Kittelson identified the intersections and segments with the highest crash severity using the Equivalent Property Data Only (EPDO) network screening performance measure from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The EPDO calculation was performed for all public intersections and roadway segments. Private roads and grade-separated highways were excluded from the analysis. The EPDO performance measure is described below. Moving forward throughout this document, the EPDO performance measure is referred to as a crash severity score.

The crash severity score assigns weight to individual crashes based on the crash severity and location of the crash (Table 3).

Weights, provided by the 2020 Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual, are based on the cost of property-damage-only (PDO) crashes, assigning each crash with a score relative to a PDO crash.

Table 3: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
Location Type
Crash Weight by Severity
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only
Signalized Intersection 119.55 119.55 10.70 6.08 1.00
Unsignalized Intersection 190.23 190.23 10.70 6.08 1.00 Roadway 164.66 164.66 10.70 6.08 1.00
Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5), 2020.

The weights prioritize fatal and severe injury crashes equally to recognize that a death versus a severe injury is often a function of the individual involved or of emergency response time. Therefore, both outcomes represent locations where the City may want to prioritize improvements. Crash weights vary by location due to the relative costs associated with the crash severity at the location types. Specifically, unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe crashes because fatal and severe crashes at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average.

Intersection Methodology
Kittelson first identified signalized and unsignalized intersections in the City road network and then defined crashes as intersection or segment crashes. An intersection crash is defined as a crash that occurs within 250 feet of the intersection.

These crashes were spatially joined and summarized in ArcGIS to show the total number of crashes by severity at each intersection. Where intersections were less than 500 feet from each other, crashes were assigned to the nearest of the two intersections. Crashes occurring more than 250 feet from any intersection were separated to be used in the segment analysis discussed below.

The crash severity score for the intersections was calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by the associated weight (by intersection type) and summing the results using the following formula:

Crash Severity Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal crashes + severe injury weight * # of severe injury crashes + other visible injury weight * # of other visible injury crashes + complaint of pain injury weight * # of complaint of pain injury weight crashes + PDO crashes

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

17 Kittelson annualized the crash severity score by dividing the score by the years (five) of crash data analyzed.

Roadway Segment Methodology
After completing the intersection analysis, Kittelson used the crashes reported more than 250 feet from the nearest intersection to conduct a separate segment analysis. A Python script in ArcGIS allowed for splitting the Montebello street network into overlapping half-mile segments, incrementing the segments by one quarter (0.25) of a mile. This methodology helps to identify portions of roadway with the greatest potential for safety improvements.

After splitting the network, the Python script spatially joined non-intersection crashes to each segment. Similar to the intersection methodology above, crashes were summarized by severity, and the totals were multiplied by the crash severity weights for roadway segments. The weighted crash severity scores of the crashes were totaled and annualized by the number of years of crash data (five) to generate an annualized crash severity score.

Findings
Kittelson identified priority intersections using the annualized crash severity scores; the results are presented below. Crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the 5 years) to 114.11.

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

18 Figure 18A subset of priority roadway segments was not developed. Roadway segments generally had lower crash severity scores compared to intersections. In addition, the segments with the highest severity scores were located near intersections already identified as priority intersections and would likely be addressed with intersection improvements.

Figure 18 shows the results of the crash severity scoring by percentiles for intersection locations. Intersections shown as not falling within one of the quartiles indicates that there were no reported crashes at that location.

!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\Intersection Screening - Crash Severity Scores (2015-2019).mxd Date: 2/23/2022 Figure 18
Intersection Crash Severity Score
Screening by Percentile
Montebello, CA
[ Crash Severity Scoring 0 3,600Feet
! 95 - 100th Percentile (45.94 - 114.11)
! 85 - 94th Percentile (25.74 - 45.93)
! 75 - 84th Percentile (10.02 - 25.73)
! 60 - 74th Percentile (4.57 - 10.01)
! 0 - 59th Percentile (0.20 - 4.56)

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

20 Priority Intersections
Kittelson identified priority intersections using the annualized crash severity score. The top scoring intersections were reviewed to determine priority locations. Establishing natural break points in the crash severity score, the top 20 intersections were identified. The resulting list of priority locations is provided in Table 4 as priority locations for roadway safety improvements.

Note, priority roadway segments were not identified since roadway segments generally had lower crash severity scores compared to intersections. The following segments with the highest severity scores are located near intersections already identified as priority intersections: Via Campo (from 2727 Via Campo driveway to Vail Avenue), Telegraph Road (from Maple Avenue to Bluff Road), Greenwood Avenue (from Washington Boulevard to Sycamore Connector Road), Whittier Boulevard (from 1st Street/Buff Road to Van Norman Road).

Table 4: Priority Intersections by Crash Severity Score Intersection Traffic Control Annualized Crash Severity Score Garfield Avenue & Whittier Boulevard Signalized 114.11
Beverly Boulevard & Garfield Avenue Signalized 85.76
Greenwood Avenue & Washington Boulevard Signalized 68.56 Findlay Avenue & Via Campo Signalized 60.17
Montebello Boulevard & Washington Boulevard Signalized 58.13 Maple Avenue & Washington Boulevard Signalized 56.41
Wilcox Avenue & Via Campo Signalized 53.90
Beverly Boulevard & 21st Street Unsignalized 49.21
4th Street & Washington Boulevard Unsignalized 48.68
Vail Avenue & Washington Boulevard Signalized 48.07
Montebello Boulevard & Victoria Avenue Signalized 47.34 Maple Avenue & Whittier Boulevard Signalized 47.16
Bluff Road & 1st Street & Whittier Boulevard Signalized 47.11 Beverly Boulevard & Maple Avenue Signalized 46.73
I-5 Fwy Off Ramp & Telegraph Road Unsignalized 46.17
Madison Avenue & 5th Street Unsignalized 44.23
Garfield Avenue & Repetto Avenue Unsignalized 43.91
4th Street & Whittier Boulevard Signalized 42.68
Via Vista & Whittier Boulevard Unsignalized 42.62
Beverly Boulevard & Bradshawe Street Signalized 42.48
Operational and physical attributes of these priority intersections include the following:
 14 of the 20 priority intersections (70%) are signalized intersections.  18 of the 20 priority intersections (90%) are located on either a major or secondary road in the City. These roads include: Washington Boulevard (5), Whittier Boulevard (5), Beverly Boulevard (4), Garfield Avenue (3), Montebello Boulevard (2), Telegraph Road (1), Greenwood Avenue (1), and Wilcox Avenue (1).  3 priority intersections (15%) have at least 2 major or secondary roads intersecting, 14 (70%) have a major or secondary road intersecting with a collector or residential street, 2 (10%) has at least 2 collectors intersecting, and 1 (5%) intersects with a freeway ramp (I-5).

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

21 CITY-FOCUSED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Montebello previously identified a set of priority intersections from a prior safety analysis (2018). The top 10 intersections prioritized by the city in 2018 and their respective annualized crash severity scores from this analysis of 2015- 2019 crashes are listed in Table 5 below. The City’s staff report detailing these intersections is in Attachment B.

Table 5: City-Focused Priority Intersections by Crash Severity Score Intersection Traffic Control Annualized Crash Severity Score Greenwood Avenue & Washington Boulevard Signalized 68.56 Wilcox Avenue & Via Campo Signalized 53.90
Beverly Boulevard & 21st Street Unsignalized 49.21
4th Street & Washington Boulevard Unsignalized 48.68
Bluff Road & 1st Street & Whittier Boulevard Signalized 47.11 I-5 Fwy Off Ramp & Telegraph Road Unsignalized 46.17
Washington Boulevard & 5th Street Unsignalized 39.46
Poplar Avenue & Eula Drive Unsignalized 38.05
Montebello Boulevard & Avenida de La Merced Signalized 34.87 Howard Avenue & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 9.13
Bold entries indicate intersections that overlap with Kittelson identified priority intersections  6 of the 10 intersections (60%) the City specifically wanted to focus on are also intersections Kittelson had identified as priority intersections.
 5 of the 10 intersections (50%) the City specifically wanted to focus on are signalized.  9 of the 10 intersections (90%) the City specifically wanted to focus on are located on either a major or secondary road in the City. These roads include: Washington Boulevard (3), Whittier Boulevard (1), Beverly Boulevard (1), Montebello Boulevard (1), Telegraph Road (1), Wilcox Avenue (1), Greenwood Avenue (1), and Lincoln Avenue (1).  1 intersection (10%) has at least 2 major or secondary roads intersecting, 7 (70%) have a major or secondary road intersecting with a collector or residential street, 1 (10%) has at least 2 collectors intersecting, and 1 (10%) intersects with a freeway ramp (I-5).

NEXT STEPS
The findings presented above will be discussed, reviewed, and confirmed with City of Montebello staff and the Project Management Team. The findings will be used to develop countermeasure profiles for the most relevant safety treatments for the City based on identified crash risk and common crash patterns and trends. This analysis will also be used to determine the locations and projects most likely to provide the greatest potential crash reduction. Project scopes, concept designs, and planning-level cost estimates will be developed for the locations and projects considered to be most competitive for funding and most likely to improve roadway safety within the City of Montebello.

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

22 Attachment A: Other Crash Data Visuals
The charts in this attachment summarize additional crash data completed but not found to provide definitive information for informing next steps of the SSAR. These data summaries can potentially be helpful when looking to apply countermeasures that may target specific crash factors or for responding to inquiries on the data.

Data provided in this attachment include the following:
 Pedestrian Crashes by Hour of Day
 Crashes by Day of Week
 Crashes by Month
 Reported Race/Ethnicity of Parties Involved in Crashes  Broadside Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
 Rear End Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
 Sideswipe Crashes by Primary Crash Factor

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

23 Figure 19: Pedestrian Crashes by Hour of Day
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 20: Crashes by Day of Week
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12% Percent of Total Reported Pedestrian Crashes
Hour
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Crash Share Weekday

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

24 Figure 21: Crashes by Month
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.

Figure 22: Reported Race/Ethnicity of Parties Involved in Crashes Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12% Crash Share
Month
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated Crash Share Race/Ethnicity
Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Drivers

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

25 Figure 23: Broadside Crashes by Primary Crash Factor Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Improper Turning
Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Other Improper Driving
Hazardous Parking
Pedestrian Right of Way
Crash Share Primary Crsh Factor

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

26 Figure 24: Rear End Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Improper Turning
Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Other Improper Driving
Hazardous Parking
Pedestrian Right of Way
Crash Share Primary Crash Factor

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

27 Figure 25: Sideswipe Crashes by Primary Crash Factor Source: SWITRS, TIMS, compiled by Kittelson, 2022.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Improper Turning
Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Other Improper Driving
Hazardous Parking
Pedestrian Right of Way
Crash Share Primary Crash Factor

City of Montebello
Systemic Safety Analysis Report

28 Attachment B: City of Montebello Staff Report (Sept 2018)

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX C: Collision Maps

APPENDIX C

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-6 Crashes ! 7-16 Crashes ! 17-34 Crashes ! 35+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200Feet Crash Severity
! Fatal Crashes
! Severe Injury Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
bel
Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200Feet Party Involved
! Pedestrian Involved
! Bicycle Involved

! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
e
Total Crashes by Collision Type
Broadside
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-5 Crashes ! 6-14 Crashes ! 15+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes by Collision Type
Rear End
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-3 Crashes ! 4-10 Crashes ! 11+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
e
Total Crashes by Collision Type
Sideswipe
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-6 Crashes ! 7+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes by PCF
Improper Turning
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-5 Crashes ! 6-13 Crashes ! 14+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes by PCF
Automobile Right of Way
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-5 Crashes ! 6-11 Crashes ! 12+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes by PCF
Unsafe Speed
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-5 Crashes ! 6-10 Crashes ! 11+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes by Party Condition
Impaired
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-5 Crashes ! 6+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
e
Total Crashes Involving
Commercial Vehicles
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-5 Crashes ! 6+ Crashes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! e
Total Crashes Involving
Aging Drivers (65+)
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200 Feet Legend
! 1-2 Crashes ! 3-6 Crashes ! 7+ Crashes

! ! !!
! !!
! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! !!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!!! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
All Crashes
within 1/8 mile from a Bus Stop
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet Legend
Ridership
!( 1 - 438
!( 439 - 1143
!( 1144 - 2529
!( 2530 - 4135
!( 4136 - 8891
Crashes
! 2 - 19
! 20 - 36
! 37 - 51
! 52 - 69
! 70 - 95

! ! !!
! !!
! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!!! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sideswipe Crashes
within 1/8 mile from a Bus Stop
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet Legend
Ridership
!( 1 - 466
!( 467 - 1142
!( 1143 - 2528
!( 2529 - 4134
!( 4135 - 8891
Crashes
! 1 - 3
! 4 - 6
! 7 - 10
! 11 - 14
! 15 - 18

! ! !! ! !! ! !!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !! !!
! !
! !
!!
!
! ! !!!
!
!!
!
! !! ! !! ! !! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Pedestrian Crashes
within 1/8 mile from a Bus Stop
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet Legend
Ridership
!( 5 - 466
!( 467 - 1142
!( 1143 - 2528
!( 2529 - 4134
!( 4135 - 8891
Crashes
! 1 - 2
! 3 - 4
! 5 - 6
! 7 - 8
! 9 - 10

! ! !!
! !!
! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Bicycle Crashes
within 1/8 mile from a Bus Stop
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet Legend
Ridership
!( 1 - 510
!( 511 - 1142
!( 1143 - 2234
!( 2235 - 4134
!( 4135 - 8891
Crashes
! 1 - 2
! 3 - 5
! 6 - 9

!
!
! !!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
Bus Crashes
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet Legend
Ridership
!( 1 - 510
!( 511 - 1139
!( 1140 - 2528
!( 2529 - 5715
!( 5716 - 8891
Crashes
! 1
! 2

e
Emergency Vehicle-Involved Crashes
Montebello, CA
[ 0 4,200Feet Legend
Crash Involving One or More Emergency Vehicles

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX D: Crash Severity Calculations

APPENDIX D

Amount Weight Score Amount Weight Score Amount Weight Score Amount Weight Score Amount Weight Score Garfield Ave. & Whittier Blvd. Signalized Intersection 0 0.00 3 358.65 8 85.60 16 97.28 29 29.00 570.53 114.11 Beverly Blvd. & Garfield Ave. Signalized Intersection 0 0.00 2 239.10 6 64.20 18 109.44 16 16.00 428.74 85.75 Beverly Blvd. & 21st St. Unsignalized Intersection 0 0.00 1 190.23 2 21.40 5 30.40 4 4.00 246.03 49.21 I-5 Fwy. Off Ramp & Telegraph Rd. Unsignalized Intersection 1 190.23 0 0.00 2 21.40 3 18.24 1 1.00 230.87 46.17 Via Campo (Vale Ave. to 400 ft. west of Wilcox Ave.) Roadway Segment 1 164.66 0 0.00 2 21.40 6 36.48 1 1.00 223.54 44.71 Flotilla St. (Vail Ave. to Yates Ave.) Roadway Segment 0 0.00 1 164.66 0 0.00 2 12.16 0 0.00 176.82 35.36 Annualized
Severity
Score

10.70 6.08 1.00 5
Location Type Years
199.55
190.23
Property Damage Only
Other Visible Injury Crashes Complaint of Pain Crashes Crashes Total
Score
164.66
119.55
190.23
164.66
Fatal Crashes Severe Injury Crashes

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX E: Crash Severity

APPENDIX E

Intersection Name
Fatal
Crashes
Severe Injury
Crashes ModCr MinCr
PDO
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Crash Severity Score
(Equivalent PDO
Score)
Garfield Avenue & Whittier Boulevard 0 3 8 16 29 56 114.11 Beverly Boulevard & Garfield Avenue 0 2 6 18 16 42 85.76 Greenwood Avenue & Washington Boulevard 1 0 10 15 25 51 68.56 Findlay Ave & Via Campo 0 0 9 31 16 56 60.17
Montebello Blvd & Washington Blvd 0 1 9 10 14 34 58.13
Maple Ave & Washington Blvd 1 0 8 11 10 30 56.41
Wilcox Ave & Via Campo 1 0 4 14 22 41 53.90
Beverly Blvd & 21st St 0 1 2 5 4 12 49.21
4th St & Washington Blvd 1 0 1 6 6 14 48.68
Vail Ave & Washington Blvd 0 1 4 12 5 22 48.07
Montebello Blvd & Victoria Ave 0 1 3 13 6 23 47.34
Maple Ave & Whittier Blvd 0 1 5 9 8 23 47.16
Bluff Rd & 1st St & Whittier Blvd 1 0 3 11 17 32 47.11
Beverly Blvd & Maple Ave 0 1 3 12 9 25 46.73
I-5 Off Ramp & Telegraph Rd 1 0 2 3 1 7 46.17
Madison Ave & 5th St 0 1 1 3 2 7 44.23
Garfield Ave & Repetto Ave 0 1 0 4 5 10 43.91
4th St & Whittier Blvd 0 1 3 9 7 20 42.68
Via Vista & Whittier Blvd 0 1 1 2 0 4 42.62
Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe St 0 1 3 9 6 19 42.48
Washington Boulevard & 5th Street 1 0 0 1 1 3 39.46
E Eula Dr & Poplar Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1 38.05
Montebello Blvd & Ave de La Merced 0 1 2 5 3 11 34.87
Howard Ave & Lincoln Ave 0 0 2 3 6 11 9.13

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX F: Disadvantaged Communities Maps

APPENDIX F

S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
E Washington Blvd
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Mines Ave
Bluff Rd
W Lincoln Ave
N Montebello Blvd
S Vail Ave
N Findlay Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D1 Med Household Income.mxd Date: 7/12/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
Median Household Income
Montebello, CA
[ 0 3,600Feet
Less than 80% of Statewide Median Household Income
Greater than or Equal to 80% of Statewide Median Household Income Source: US Census American Household Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B19013.

Note: The statewide median household income is $78,672.

S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield
Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
E Washington Blvd
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Mines Ave
Bluff Rd
W Lincoln Ave
N Montebello Blvd
S Vail Ave
N Findlay
Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D2 Cal Enviro Screen_v2.mxd Date: 7/13/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update)
Montebello, CA
[
0 3,900 Feet
Disadvantaged Census Tracts
Source: California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) 4.0, available at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535

3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Bluff Rd
S Vail Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D3 National School Lunch Program_v2.mxd Date: 7/13/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
75% of Students Qualifying for
Free or Reduced-Price Meals
Montebello, CA
[
0 5,700 Feet
3 Qualifying Schools
3 Non-Qualifying Schools
2-Mile Buffer Around Qualifying Schools
Source: Free or Reduced-Price Meal (Student Poverty) Data; CA Department of Education

S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield
Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
E Washington Blvd
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Mines Ave
Bluff Rd
W Lincoln Ave
N Montebello Blvd
S Vail Ave
N Findlay
Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D4 CA Healthy Places Index.mxd Date: 7/11/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
CA Healthy Places Index
Montebello, CA
[
0 3,900 Feet
Disadvantaged Community (25th Percentile Ranking)
Source: California Healthy Places Index
HPI 3.0 Map available at https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false

S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield
Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
E Washington Blvd
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Mines Ave
Bluff Rd
W Lincoln Ave
N Montebello Blvd
S Vail Ave
N Findlay
Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D5 Federal Criteria.mxd Date: 7/13/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
Areas of Persistent Poverty
Montebello, CA
[
0 3,900Feet
Areas of Persistent Poverty
Source: RAISE Persistent Poverty Tool
Tool available at https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij

S Greenwood Ave
N Garfield
Ave
N
Wilcox
Ave
E Washington Blvd
Telegraph Rd
E Lincoln Ave
Whittier Blvd
W Beverly Blvd
Mines Ave
Bluff Rd
W Lincoln Ave
N Montebello Blvd
S Vail Ave
N Findlay
Ave
H:\27\27001 - Montebello SSAR\gis\D6 Historically Disadvantaged Communities.mxd Date: 7/13/2022 Disadvantaged Communities
Historically Disadvantaged Communities
Montebello, CA
[
0 3,900Feet
Historically Disadvantaged Communities
Source: RAISE Persistent Poverty Tool
Tool available at https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX G: Priority A/B Locations

APPENDIX G

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX H: Priority Intersection Crash History

APPENDIX H

PRIORITY INTERSECTION A1
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7206734 20160218 637 E BEVERLY BL S GARFIELD AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 7206786 20160214 2027 WEST BEVERLY BL VIA SAN CLEMENTE 30 East Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y 8003566 20160206 2307 NORTH GARFIELD AV WEST BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8065199 20160501 2019 WEST BEVERLY BL N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8085322 20160630 2103 WEST BEVERLY BL NORTH GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8139369 20161109 1212 BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 50 East Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8151344 20160930 1750 NORTH GARFIELD AV VIA SAN CARLO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8171928 20161003 900 GARFIELD DR BEVERLY BL 200 North Other Visible Injury Improper Turning Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8173702 20161006 2011 WEST BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 42 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8371263 20170411 2120 NORTH GARFIELD AV BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8397054 20170520 1344 NORTH GARFIELD AV GARFIELD AV 239 North Other Visible Injury Unsafe Speed Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8397058 20170521 2216 BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8431247 20170713 1147 NORTH GARFIELD AV WEST BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8431580 20170630 2500 WEST BEVERLY BL NORTH GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8466067 20190826 1140 E BEVERLY BL N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8525860 20171130 200 NORTH GARFIELD AV BEVERLY BL 200 North Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8525872 20171124 1932 WEST BEVERLY BL VIA SAN CLEMENTE 55 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Head-On Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8552494 20180101 1705 WEST BEVERLY BL N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8597623 20180321 1922 NORTH GARFIELD AV W BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8616277 20180425 1126 WEST BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8683473 20180721 1633 WEST BEVERLY BL N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8698444 20180707 37 NORTH GARFIELD AV W BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8707166 20180810 1244 NORTH GARFIELD AV BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8716917 20180901 137 WEST BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8742943 20181003 1547 NORTH GARFIELD AV W BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Starting or Backing Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8769068 20181216 826 WEST BEVERLY BL N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8840392 20181024 1640 NORTH GARFIELD AV WEST BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Severe Injury Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8842644 20190301 1750 W BEVERLY N GARFIELD AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8900484 20190606 1614 WEST BEVERLY BL GARFIELD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8994338 20191101 207 GARFIELD AV BEVERLY BL 30 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 9005921 20191226 710 NORTH GARFIELD AV BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y Beverly Blvd
Garfield Ave
Crash Count
13 18
0 31
Injury
Fatal
TOTAL
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only

PRIORITY INTERSECTION A2
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7182715 20160204 1052 W WHITTIER S MAPLE AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8003530 20160210 1340 WEST WHITTIER BL SOUTH MAPLE AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8085285 20160603 1528 MAPLE AV WHITTIER BL 50 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8151378 20160906 2134 MAPLE AV MAPLE AV 333 0 North Severe Injury - Other Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Y 8171936 20161013 1851 WHITTIER BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Wrong Side of Road Head-On Bicycle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8319271 20170114 2500 W WHITTIER BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - No Street Lights 8336303 20170309 1258 N MAPLE AV W WHITTIER BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8336385 20170313 1415 W WHITTIER BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Sideswipe Bicycle Daylight Y 8415860 20171004 1010 WHITTIER BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8518988 20171115 1711 W WHITTIER BL MAPLE AV 20 East Complaint of Pain Wrong Side of Road Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8587074 20180222 1545 W WHITTIER AV S MAPLE DR S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8621109 20180414 1509 W WHITTIER BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Unsafe Speed Rear End Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8639144 20180501 1654 W WHITTIER BL N MAPLE AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8688796 20180709 1431 SOUTH MAPLE AV WEST WHITTIER BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877706 20190511 1858 W WHITTIER BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated 8924522 20190702 1229 WHITTIER BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8985989 20191126 939 W WHITTIER BL S MAPLE AVE 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9034108 20191204 929 W WHITTIER BL N MAPLE AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Pedestrian Daylight 9034111 20191204 830 W WHITTIER BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 9071720 20200211 1413 W WHITTIER BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y Whittier Blvd
Maple Ave
Crash Count
6 14
0 TOTAL 20
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION A3
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7188028 20160117 1452 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAW AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8028626 20160401 1721 E BEVERLY BL W N BRADSHAW AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8085053 20160622 2119 E BEVERLY BL N BRADSHAWE ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Head-On Bicycle Not Stated Y Y 8085081 20160606 1554 BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE ST 70 East Other Visible Injury Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8124419 20160809 1208 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE AV 75 East Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 8167875 20190818 1740 WEST BEVERLY BL S BRADSHAWE ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8328753 20170219 1331 BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unknown Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8418114 20170614 611 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAW ST 36 East Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Head-On Fixed Object Daylight Y 8456759 20170802 1633 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE AV 230 East Severe Injury Pedestrian Violation Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8456775 20170824 1332 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8544754 20171208 1627 WEST BEVERLY BL N BRADSHAWE AV NORT 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8742903 20181023 1421 WEST BEVERLY BL N BRADSHAWE AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8842139 20190325 1535 BEVERLY BL N BRADSHAWE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8892122 20190604 743 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE AV 200 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8900488 20190530 931 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8984050 20191008 1544 WEST BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE ST 90 East Complaint of Pain Following Too Closely Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9046893 20200113 2221 BEVERLY BL BRADSHAWE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Unknown Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y Beverly Blvd
Bradshawe St
Crash Count
3 14
0 TOTAL 17
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION A4
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8018297 20160317 1601 VIA CAMPO AV WILCOX AV 35 North Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8065120 20160502 40 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 80 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8065140 20160520 934 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 100 South Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8102681 20160715 1323 W VIA CAMPO N WILCOX AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8139381 20161110 1520 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8193923 20161121 652 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8371210 20170411 1840 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Starting or Backing Sideswipe Motor Vehicle on Other RoDaylight Y 8404875 20170501 801 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Fatal Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Y 8472271 20170929 1132 N WILCOX AV W VIA CAMPO AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8474410 20170914 1213 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO AV 117 South Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8521776 20171116 1808 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 300 South Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8570230 20180205 1441 S WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 75 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8597648 20180314 2110 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8635714 20180512 1415 N VIA CAMPO N VAIL AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8644027 20180518 2500 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8644334 20180521 724 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 80 West Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Sideswipe Fixed Object Daylight 8683370 20180709 1356 WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 100 North Other Visible Injury Wrong Side of Road Broadside Motor Vehicle on Other RoDaylight Y Y 8702120 20180831 1200 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8702156 20180831 1202 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8743232 20181029 623 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 141 South Property Damage Only Unsafe Lane Change Other Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8774424 20181225 130 N WILCOX AV W VIA CAMPO W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8779903 20181219 1446 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 200 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8792589 20190114 1725 W VIA CAMPO N WILCOX AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Overturned Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8820146 20190208 1859 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 150 South Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8840399 20181011 1437 VIA CAMPO N WILCOX AVE 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8840839 20190320 740 VIA CAMPO WILCOX AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8892130 20190610 1741 N WILCOX AV VIA CAMPO 200 South Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8904292 20190629 1510 N WILCOX AVE VIA CAMPO 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Via Campo
Wilcox Ave
Crash Count
15 12
1 TOTAL 28
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION A5
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8018357 20160310 1839 N MAPLE AV BEVERLY BL 12 North Severe Injury Wrong Side of Road Head-On Pedestrian Dusk - Dawn Y Y 8047699 20160415 1435 WEST BEVERLY BL MAPLE AV 30 West Property Damage Only Unsafe Lane Change Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8102502 20160706 1823 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8167871 20190801 916 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8171983 20161002 2500 N TOWNE AV WEST BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8173394 20161022 1220 NORTH MAPLE AV WEST BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8348677 20170313 635 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Pedestrian Violation Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dusk - Dawn Y 8371238 20170412 1447 N MAPLE AV BEVERLY BL 115 South Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8552296 20180108 1424 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AVE N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8552510 20180125 1506 N MAPLE AV BEVERLY BL 10 North Property Damage Only Unsafe Starting or Backing Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8587046 20180211 2106 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8701928 20180818 1915 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8716281 20180908 1833 N MAPLE AV W BEVERLY AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Lane Change Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8716900 20180913 1043 MAPLE AV BEVERLY BL 6 South Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8758410 20181116 1500 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8758481 20181115 1717 WEST BEVERLY BL MAPLE AV 21 West Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 8769192 20181208 1718 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV NORTH 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dusk - Dawn Y Y 8779916 20181231 1213 WEST BEVERLY BL MAPLE AV 174 West Other Visible Injury Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 8856286 20190426 1008 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Y 8924494 20190701 1458 MAPLE AV BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Wrong Side of Road Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 9051647 20200121 642 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AVE N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 9071854 20200217 1913 WEST BEVERLY BL N MAPLE AVE N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Beverly Blvd
Maple Ave
Crash Count
9 13
0 TOTAL 22
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B1
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8308084 20170216 1429 WEST BEVERLY BL 21ST ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Y 8397050 20170526 745 S 21ST ST BEVERLY BL 7 West Other Visible Injury Improper Passing Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8450390 20170821 1722 BEVERLY BL W BEVERLY BL 2421 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Lane Change Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated 8504224 20171120 1314 WEST BEVERLY BL 21ST ST 40 East Severe Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8552304 20180130 753 W BEVERLY 21ST ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8552325 20180131 1215 WEST BEVERLY BL N 21ST ST N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8842652 20190326 713 WEST BEVERLY BL N 21ST ST N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8847896 20190326 2220 WEST BEVERLY BL 18TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8948361 20190827 1836 WEST BEVERLY BL N 21ST ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8948365 20190827 1616 N 21ST ST W BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8964289 20190828 635 N 21ST ST WEST BEVERLY BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9059524 20200225 815 N 21ST ST W BEVERLY BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y Beverly Blvd
21st St
Crash Count
3 9
0 TOTAL 12
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B2
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8028625 20160412 1853 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8047694 20160403 2333 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 234 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8054665 20160510 1330 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8083837 20160610 1327 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 48 South Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8102685 20160722 1417 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8396736 20170527 1705 WEST AVENIDA DE LA M MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Improper Turning Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8513592 20171224 1730 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA LA MERCED 40 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8809094 20190218 1514 W AVENIDA DE LA MERC MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877009 20190519 911 W AVENIDA DE LA MERCN MONTEBELLO BL N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Severe Injury Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 9012266 20191230 2059 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 9059540 20200213 1518 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain - Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Montebello Blvd
Ave de la Merced
Crash Count
3 8
0 TOTAL 11
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B3
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8028625 20160412 1853 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8047694 20160403 2333 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 234 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8054665 20160510 1330 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8065119 20160528 330 TELEGRAPH RD GAGE RD 150 West Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8083837 20160610 1327 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 48 South Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8102685 20160722 1417 N MONTEBELLO BL W AVENIDA DE LA MERC 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8143207 20160903 910 W TELEGRAPH RD GAGE RD 450 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8319137 20170118 2500 TELEGRAPH AV SLAUSON AV 600 West Other Visible Injury Pedestrian Violation Vehicle/Pedestrian Non-Collision Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8396736 20170527 1705 WEST AVENIDA DE LA M MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Improper Turning Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8513592 20171224 1730 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA LA MERCED 40 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8541272 20171216 934 TELEGRAPH RD GAGE AV 150 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8644362 20180514 1238 TELEGRAPH RD SLAUSON AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8702039 20180808 1836 TELEGRAPH RD GAGE RD 250 West Complaint of Pain - Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8809094 20190218 1514 W AVENIDA DE LA MERC MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877009 20190519 911 W AVENIDA DE LA MERCN MONTEBELLO BL N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Severe Injury Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 8910802 20180920 2307 TELEGRAPH RD GAGE AV 299 West Fatal Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 9012266 20191230 2059 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 9059540 20200213 1518 N MONTEBELLO BL AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain - Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Telegraph Rd
I-5 Off Ramp
Crash Count
4 13
1 TOTAL 18
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B4
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8065137 20160502 155 E WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 66 East Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8085342 20160623 2050 N BLUFF RD W WHITTIER BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - No Street Lights 8173382 20161020 1516 BLUFF RD WHITTIER BL 76 South Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8328765 20170217 1312 E WHITTIER BL 1ST ST 120 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8329221 20170219 103 E WHITTIER BL NATASHA LN 120 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Other Object Dark - Street Lights 8397082 20170523 1921 E WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8616536 20180420 1916 E WHITTIER BL S BLUFF RD 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8616544 20180418 835 S BLUFF RD WHITTIER BL 5 South Complaint of Pain Wrong Side of Road Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8667207 20180609 2020 WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 200 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Starting or Backing Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8672653 20180602 2230 E GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 50 South Property Damage Only Unknown Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8698497 20180715 505 WHITTIER BL W BLUFF RD 124 East Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y 8702031 20180816 1555 WHITTIER ALLEY BL BLUFF 2ND ALLEY RD 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Other Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8702087 20180809 725 E WHITTIER BL N 2ND ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8716936 20180916 2500 WHITTIER BL 1ST ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Head-On Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8765139 20181114 1538 WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 5 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8784948 20190115 444 E WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 25 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Starting or Backing Other Other Object Dusk - Dawn 8836870 20190320 1327 E WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 50 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8896039 20190524 928 E WHITTIER BL BLUFF RD 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8964937 20190910 1634 E WHITTIER BL NATASHA LN 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8976333 20191005 1010 E WHITTIER BL S BLUFF RD S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 9010211 20191101 1616 BLUFF RD WHITTIER BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Whittier Blvd
Bluff Rd
Crash Count
12 9
0 TOTAL 21
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B5
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8065079 20160502 724 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8085346 20160606 1715 N HOWARD AV W LINCOLN AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8127005 20160802 1850 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 8143360 20160909 2053 W LINCOLN AV TAYLOR AV 108 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8513833 20171223 346 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 40 South Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8569973 20180205 2149 LINCOLN AV HOWARD ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - No Street Lights 8669988 20180629 907 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8674030 20180618 2029 W LINCOLN AV LINCOLN AV 1001 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8742895 20181031 1710 W LINCOLN AV HOWARD AV 75 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8762742 20181024 1815 LINCOLN AV N HOWARD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y Lincoln Ave
Howard Ave
Crash Count
5 5
0 TOTAL 10
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY LOCATION B5/D1
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In which direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8018385 20160329 1755 N MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8028614 20160419 2024 W LINCOLN AV TAYLOR AV 85 East Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alc Broadside Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8028622 20160415 1437 LINCOLN AV MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8065079 20160502 724 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8083826 20160606 640 LINCOLN AV MAPLE AV 75 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Starting or Backing Other Parked Motor Vehicle Daylight 8085346 20160606 1715 N HOWARD AV W LINCOLN AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8127005 20160802 1850 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 8143211 20160919 1809 W LINCOLN AV LINCOLN AV 900 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8143360 20160909 2053 W LINCOLN AV TAYLOR AV 108 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8173374 20161029 1532 NORTH MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 150 South Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8173639 20161026 1842 N MAPLE AV LINCOLN AV 9 North Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8341320 20170306 1719 WEST LINCOLN AV MONTEBELLO BL 150 West Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8371279 20170411 1948 N MAPLE AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8418090 20170613 724 W LINCOLN AV N MONTEBELLO BL N 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8429948 20170727 847 W LINCOLN AV VAIL ST 25 East Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8431596 20170624 1849 N MONTEBELLO BL E LINCOLN AV E 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8509326 20171015 1329 W LINCOLN AV MONTEBELLO BL 200 West Other Visible Injury Wrong Side of Road Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8513833 20171223 346 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 40 South Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alc Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8544499 20171217 2335 MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN BL 100 North Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alc RearEnd Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8569973 20180205 2149 LINCOLN AV HOWARD ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - No Street Lights 8570218 20180206 1646 N MONTEBELLO LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Starting or Backing Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8597676 20180310 1819 N MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Lane Change Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8616281 20180427 1243 W LINCOLN AV N 18TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8616624 20180424 2027 N MONTEBELLO AVENIDA DE LA MERCED 60 South Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8640519 20180515 755 W LINCOLN AV MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8669980 20180601 2311 MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 166 North Complaint of Pain Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alc RearEnd Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8669988 20180629 907 HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8674030 20180618 2029 W LINCOLN AV LINCOLN AV 1001 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alc RearEnd Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8676044 20180725 1351 TAYLOR AV LINCOLN AV 228 South Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8742895 20181031 1710 W LINCOLN AV HOWARD AV 75 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8762742 20181024 1815 LINCOLN AV N HOWARD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8843270 20190112 204 N MONTEBELLO MICHAEL COLLINS CIR 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Head-On Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8847544 20190319 1300 N MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 40 South Complaint of Pain Following Too Closely Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8856291 20190409 2109 N MONTEBELLO BL W LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - No Street Lights Y 8900504 20190607 1706 N MONTEBELLO BL W LINCOLN AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8917761 20190729 2328 N MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 50 South Property Damage Only - Sideswipe Other Object Dark - Street Lights 8969804 20191015 1852 W LINCOLN AV HOWARD AV 300 West Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8975433 20191010 1251 N MONTEBELLO BL W LINCOLN AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 9034112 20191218 404 N MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 12 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 6849601 20150210 1511 MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 15 South Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 6890947 20150327 1332 TAYLOR AV LINCOLN AV 30 North Property Damage Only Unknown Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 6998583 20150622 752 N HOWARD AV LINCOLN AV 100 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 7005249 20150618 1852 W LINCOLN AV 18TH ST 60 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Not Stated 7041133 20150323 1721 MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7140986 20151120 2323 W LINCOLN AV EDISON POLE 15 East Severe Injury Improper Turning Overturned Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y 7141002 20151121 1543 W LINCOLN AV TAYLOR AV 410 West Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Hit Object Parked Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7170262 20151230 1721 MONTEBELLO BL LINCOLN AV 95 North Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y Lincoln Ave
18th St to Montebello Blvd
Crash Count
0 29
0 Total 29
Segment
Extents
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION B6
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7170241 20151212 116 POPLAR AV EULA DR 20 North Severe Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y Eula Dr
Poplar Ave
Crash Count
0 1
0 TOTAL 1
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C1
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 6718562 20171013 806 WEST WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Fatal Unknown Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 7181233 20160127 1519 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 75 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 7206705 20160209 1422 WEST WASHINGTON BL SOUTH GREENWOOD AV 146 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7206956 20160213 1001 WEST WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8047697 20160416 1733 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8102615 20160703 2015 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 30 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 8126884 20160824 1027 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 6 North Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y 8144180 20161012 2027 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 636 North Property Damage Only Hazardous Parking Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8151425 20160925 757 S GREENWOOD AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8173390 20161010 800 SOUTH GREENWOOD AVWEST WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Sideswipe Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8173643 20161024 434 N GREENWOOD AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8319189 20170108 2222 WEST WASHINGTON BL N GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8371218 20170405 2035 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8371234 20170424 1403 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 114 North Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8415963 20171024 1049 WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 100 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8472472 20170923 212 W WASHINGTON AV GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8472475 20170907 748 SOUTH GREENWOOD AVWEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8473278 20170915 1035 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 6 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8473945 20170921 1407 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 100 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Starting or Backing Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 8509353 20171015 2 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 200 North Property Damage Only - Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8520873 20171124 1213 WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8597382 20180329 1617 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 200 West Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8658432 20180630 2110 W WASHINGTON GREENWOOD AV 6 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8683378 20180724 1103 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8683457 20180726 1357 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8701988 20180828 1110 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8715890 20180905 1745 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 54 North Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8716949 20180925 1620 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8758402 20181105 1036 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 10 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8764957 20181109 1855 S GREENWOOD AV EAST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8774412 20181221 1731 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 39 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8783921 20181220 1356 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8824591 20190202 2500 WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 50 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights 8836874 20190317 2101 WEST WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8853240 20181012 32 S GREENWOOD WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8877435 20190506 1118 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 200 West Other Visible Injury Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8900500 20190617 1352 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 200 West Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8917856 20190730 1042 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 50 West Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8959244 20190928 2004 S GREENWOOD AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8962710 20190915 1411 WEST WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Daylight 8969784 20191030 829 WEST WASHINGTON BL S GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8969861 20191018 211 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 60 South Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Bicycle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8976337 20191028 1230 W GREENWOOD AV S WASHINGTON BL S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8980231 20191028 1241 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9010381 20191130 1838 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 50 East Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 6852919 20150213 1831 WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 720 West Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 6876226 20150311 104 WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 100 West Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 7025347 20150723 1751 WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7046017 20150731 907 S GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 100 South Property Damage Only Improper Turning Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 7140877 20151110 1320 GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 7158619 20151214 1400 GREENWOOD AV WASHINGTON BL 300 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle Not Stated Washington Blvd
Greenwood Ave
Crash Count
25 25
1 TOTAL 51
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C2
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7206940 20160206 1448 S MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 132 North Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8018324 20160317 1820 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8028593 20160414 1800 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Unsafe Speed Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8085297 20160603 1438 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8102673 20160715 1659 S MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 24 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight Y 8173635 20161028 1123 WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8319228 20170107 1825 EAST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 100 East Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8334943 20170202 2500 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8336287 20170304 1143 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8371275 20170328 723 S MONTEBELLO BL W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Pedestrian Right of Way Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8415979 20171025 932 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 90 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8456656 20170821 800 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8551904 20180102 742 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 135 East Severe Injury Unsafe Speed Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8569925 20180202 1707 W WASHINGTON AV S GREENWOOD BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8569945 20180220 733 WEST WASHINGTON BL S 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8570261 20180113 1850 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury - Hit Object Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8667255 20180626 935 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 175 East Property Damage Only Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) Hit Object Other Object Daylight 8683453 20180712 1517 WEST WASHINGTON BL GREENWOOD AV 73 East Property Damage Only Unsafe Lane Change Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8716913 20180907 1442 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877693 20190501 1628 W WASHINGTON AV MONTEBELLO BL 200 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877710 20190503 948 MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 50 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Head-On Fixed Object Daylight 8917860 20190705 1549 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 66 North Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8959295 20190902 2012 EAST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Following Too Closely Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8974090 20190802 1125 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8977094 20191029 2500 WEST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8982005 20191024 1208 S MONTEBELLO BL W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8984062 20191016 1107 S MONTEBELLO WASHINGTON BL 150 North Other Visible Injury Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9005929 20191227 2000 WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 9005933 20191226 733 WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 30 East Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 9006037 20191229 1228 EAST WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 9 West Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 9030722 20191022 855 MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 6876908 20150326 606 WASHINGTON BL MONTEBELLO BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7116466 20151024 807 MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7140909 20151102 1727 MONTEBELLO BL WASHINGTON BL 20 North Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Washington Blvd
Montebello Blvd
Crash Count
14 20
0 TOTAL 34
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C3
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8008701 20170215 840 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Unsafe Lane Change Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8028591 20160421 1635 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8150967 20160913 1538 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 182 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8314209 20170123 908 W WASHINGTON ST N MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8396744 20170508 543 WEST WASHINGTON BL SOUTH MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8396752 20170524 1707 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 9 West Other Visible Injury Wrong Side of Road Broadside Bicycle Daylight Y Y 8415864 20171020 1520 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8432445 20170717 615 S MAPLE AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8465380 20180505 1623 S MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Fatal Unsafe Lane Change Overturned Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8569647 20180210 900 S MAPLE AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8569969 20180212 2011 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 300 East Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8587112 20180202 2345 S MAPLE AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8611437 20180319 2122 S MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8616556 20180407 1900 N MAPLE AV EAST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 8616628 20180415 2038 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8665689 20180608 1920 S MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 15 West Property Damage Only Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Head-On Parked Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8676032 20180707 351 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8742756 20181012 635 MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn 8742911 20181009 2200 WEST WASHINGTON BL S MAPLE AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8758967 20181107 1306 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8820087 20190203 1802 S MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 90 South Other Visible Injury - Hit Object Fixed Object Dark - Street Lights Y 8842083 20190315 1320 S MAPLE AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8856178 20190419 1754 MAPLE AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dusk - Dawn Y 6822427 20150122 2044 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 6927107 20150417 1903 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 6962591 20150526 553 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 7025255 20150724 829 WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 156 West Property Damage Only - Other Other Object Not Stated 7025304 20150723 2056 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 7066299 20150811 828 MAPLE AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7140853 20151125 1434 WEST WASHINGTON BL MAPLE AV 138 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Washington Blvd
Maple Ave
Crash Count
10 19
1 TOTAL 30
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C4
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 7188040 20160128 2500 WEST WASHINGTON BL S VAIL AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8126417 20160826 757 WEST WASHINGTON BL SOUTH VAIL AV S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only - Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8173427 20161019 1239 WEST WASHINGTON BL S VAIL AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8456648 20170816 1649 WEST WASHINGTON BL VAIL AV 57 West Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8456652 20170804 1130 W WASHINGTON VAIL AV 159 East Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y 8472467 20170904 1130 W WASHINGTON VAIL AV 180 West Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8473293 20170929 1321 WEST WASHINGTON BL VAIL AV SOUTH 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8518992 20171124 649 W WASHINGTON S VAIL AVE S 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8519220 20171122 1749 VAIL AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 8597632 20180311 1019 W WASHINGTON VAIL AV 72 West Complaint of Pain Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Y 8666072 20180628 2023 S VAIL AV W WASHINGTON AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Unsafe Speed Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8683513 20180705 1829 VAIL AV WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8701952 20180822 1901 S VAIL AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8742728 20181015 1420 S VAIL AV WEST WASHINGTON BL 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8792577 20190111 729 S VAIL AV W WASHINGTON AV W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8938635 20190826 720 W WASHINGTON VAIL ST 225 East Severe Injury - Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Daylight Y Y 8948373 20190820 2102 WEST WASHINGTON BL S VAIL AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Unknown Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8959618 20190830 1702 S VAIL AV W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8994397 20191125 1518 WEST WASHINGTON BL VAIL ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 6876238 20150311 103 WASHINGTON BL VAIL AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y Y 7066213 20150821 700 WEST WASHINGTON BL VAIL AV 60 East Complaint of Pain Unsafe Speed Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 7171032 20151203 1906 WEST WASHINGTON BL VAIL AV 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Washington Blvd
Vail Ave
Crash Count
5 17
0 TOTAL 22
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C5
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8102490 20160727 1120 WEST WASHINGTON BL 4TH ST 81 West Complaint of Pain Improper Turning Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8167149 20180115 1740 WEST WASHINGTON BL S 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Fatal Pedestrian Violation Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Dark - Street Lights Y Y 8327790 20170216 750 WASHINGTON AV 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8373994 20170415 2329 WEST WASHINGTON 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Not Stated Y Y 8450486 20170805 2203 WEST WASHINGTON BL 4TH ST 40 West Property Damage Only Improper Turning Rear End Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights 8597374 20180309 930 WEST WASHINGTON BL S 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8616269 20180416 1455 WEST WASHINGTON BL S 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8616632 20180403 1554 SOUTH 4TH ST SOUTH 4TH ST 1017 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Property Damage Only Improper Turning Hit Object Fixed Object Daylight 8649386 20180603 1514 S 4TH ST WASHINGTON BL 42 South Property Damage Only Unsafe Starting or Backing Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 8743221 20180929 1106 S 4TH ST WASHINGTON BL 200 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Broadside Parked Motor Vehicle Daylight 8769289 20181218 1545 S 4TH ST W WASHINGTON BL W 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8948341 20190822 2135 WEST WASHINGTON BL S 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Other Visible Injury Traffic Signals and Signs Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Dark - Street Lights Y 6876222 20150314 1504 4TH ST WASHINGTON BL 8 North Property Damage Only Improper Turning Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight 7141005 20151124 1235 WASHINGTON BL 4TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y Washington Blvd
4th St
Crash Count
6 7
1 TOTAL 14
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

PRIORITY INTERSECTION C6
Crash ID Crash Date Crash Time Primary Road Secondary Road Distance from Center of Intersection In Which Direction? Crash Severity Primary Collision Factor Crash Type Type of Object Hit Lighting Condition Ped Involved Bike Involved Fatality Injury DUI 8429936 20170629 1329 WEST WASHINGTON BL 5TH ST 100 West Complaint of Pain Automobile Right of Way Head-On Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8465506 20170603 1325 EAST WASHINGTON BL S 5TH ST 0 Not Stated, in Intersection Fatal Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Y 8877689 20190511 908 WEST WASHINGTON BL 5TH ST 6 East Property Damage Only Automobile Right of Way Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Daylight Washington Blvd
5th St
Crash Count
1 1
1 TOTAL 3
Horizontal Street
Vertical Street
Crash Type
Property Damage Only
Injury
Fatal

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX I: Countermeasure Identification

APPENDIX I

CRF Life FE A1: Beverly Blvd & Garfield Ave A2: Whittier Blvd & Maple Ave A3: Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe St A4: Via Campo & Wilcox Ave A5: Beverly Blvd & Maple Ave B2: Montebello Blvd & Avenida de la Merced B4: Whittier Blvd & Bluff Rd B5: Lincoln Ave & Howard Ave Combination of B5 and D1 SI-1 Add intersection lighting (S.I.) 0.4 20 90% ••
SI-2 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number

0.15 10 90%
• • • • • • •••
SI-3 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases,
red, yellow, or operation)

0.15 10 50%
• ••• •••
SI-7 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane
already exists)

0.3 20 90%
• •• ••
SI-8 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestalmounted) 0.3 20 90% ••SI-10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)

0.3 10 90%
• •
SI-17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads 0.25 20 90% •• •SI-21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)

0.6 10 90%
••••• •••

22.88 6.37 9.30 6.03 24.15 9.81 5.40 2.82 10.14
Selected countermeasures for HSIP application
Countermeasures
BCR

CRF Life FE B3-A: Telegraph Rd & I-5 Off Ramp B3-B: Telegraph Rd & I-5 Off Ramp NS-3 Install signals 0.3 20 90% ••
NS-14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) 0.25 20 90% ••NS-18 Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists)

0.35 20 90%
••
NS-20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only)

0.25 10 90%

21.57 12.63
Selected countermeasures for HSIP application
Countermeasures
BCR

CRF Life FE Combination of B5 and D1
R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two
way left-turn and bike lanes)

0.35 20 90%
•
R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes 0.45 20 90% •

10.14 Selected countermeasures for HSIP application
Countermeasures
BCR

Countermeasure (Caltrans LRSM ID) C1 - Washington Blvd. & Greenwood Ave.

C2 - Washington Blvd. &
Montebello Blvd.

C3 - Washington Blvd. &
Maple Ave.

C4 - Washington Blvd. &
Vail Ave.

C5 - Washington Blvd. &
4th St.

C6 - Washington Blvd. &
5th St.

Overhead mast arms (S08) ●
Northbound/
Southbound
●
Northbound/
Southbound
●
Northbound/
Southbound
●
Northbound/
Southbound
Install retroreflective back plates (S02) ● ● ● ●
Advanced warning signage/Advanced
warning flashing beacons (S10) ● ●
Along Montebello Blvd.
●
Along Maple Ave.
●
Along Vail Ave.
●
Along Washington Blvd.

High-visibility crosswalks (NS21PB) ● ● ● ● ● ●
Advanced stop bars (S20PB / NS21PB) ● ● ● ● ● ●
Countdown pedestrian timers (S17PB) ● ● ● ●
Directional curb ramps with truncated
domes ● ● ● ● ● ●
Pedestrian-scale lighting ● ● ● ● ● ●
Update yellow/red interval clearance
times (S03) ● ● ● ●
Lead Pedestrian Intervals (S21PB) ● ● ● ●
Corridor-level speed management ● ● ● ● ● ●
Access control for future redevelopment ● ● ● ● ● ●
Other countermeasures • No right-turn on red
restrictions
• Add raised median to
restrict offset north and
south leg accces to rightin/right-out only (S14)
Intersection Countermeasuress to Consider in Washington Boulevard Improvement Designs

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX J: Countermeasure Concept Plans

APPENDIX J

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - A1 Beverly Blvd & Garfield Ave

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - A2 Whittier Blvd & Maple Ave

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - A3 Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe St

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - A4 Via Campo & Wilcox Ave

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - A5 Beverly Blvd & Maple Ave

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - B1 Beverly Blvd & 21st St

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - B2 Montebello Blvd & Avenida de la Merced

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - B3 Telegraph Rd & I-5 Off Ramp

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works N 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - B4 Whittier Blvd & Bluff Rd

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF City of Montebello Department of Public Works 1":40' Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits - B5 Lincoln Ave & Howard Ave

SCALE PLAN NO. SHEET OF
City of Montebello
Department of Public Works
N
1":40'
Montebello SSAR Concept Exhibits -
B6 Eula Dr & Poplar Ave Opt 2

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX K: Project Estimates

APPENDIX K

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $22,000 $22,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW MEDIAN CURB LF 800 $55 $44,000
3 CONSTRUCT NEW RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN SF 1130 $20 $22,600 4 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $15,000 $15,000
5 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $85,000 $85,000
6 RECONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP LS 1 $12,000 $12,000
7 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $12,000 $12,000
8 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 $217,600
$44,000
$66,000
$327,600

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
A1 BEVERLY BLVD & GARFIELD AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =
DESIGN (20%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $21,000 $21,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW MEDIAN CURB LF 130 $55 $7,150
3 RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN STAMPED CONCRETE SF 260 $15 $3,900 4 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $6,000 $6,000
5 RECONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 4 $12,000 $48,000
6 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $90,000 $90,000
7 MINOR ITEMS - (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $17,000 $17,000 8 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $9,000 $9,000 $202,050
$21,000
$61,000
GRAND TOTAL = $284,050

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
A2 WHITTIER BLVD & MAPLE AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $44,000 $44,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW CURB & GUTTER LF 500 $60 $30,000
3 CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 3200 $25 $80,000
4 CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SF 600 $35 $21,000
5 CONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 4 $5,000 $20,000
6 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $8,200 $8,200
7 MODIFY EXISTING MEDIAN NOSE EA 2 $800 $1,600
8 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $110,000 $110,000 9 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 2 $15,000 $30,000
10 RELOCATE BUS STOP EA 2 $10,000 $20,000
11 DRAINAGE ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $28,000 $28,000 12 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $28,000 $28,000
13 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $14,000 $14,000 $434,800
$66,000
$131,000
GRAND TOTAL = $631,800

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
A3 BEVERLY BLVD AND BRADSHAWE STREET
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (15%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 2 CONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 1 $12,000 $12,000
3 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
4 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $110,000 $110,000 5 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $12,000 $12,000
6 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 $148,000
$30,000
$45,000
GRAND TOTAL = $223,000

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
A4 VIA CAMPO AND WILCOX AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $17,000 $17,000 2 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
3 MODIFY EXISTING MEDIAN NOSE EA 2 $800 $1,600
4 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $120,000 $120,000 5 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $13,000 $13,000
6 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $7,000 $7,000 $163,600
$33,000
$50,000
GRAND TOTAL = $246,600

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
A5 BEVERLY BLVD AND MAPLE AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 2 RECONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 4 $12,000 $48,000
3 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $3,000 $3,000
4 INSTALL PED BARRICADE EA 2 $500 $1,000
5 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $1,000 $1,000
6 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 $55,000
$11,000
$17,000
GRAND TOTAL = $83,000

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B1 BEVERLY BLVD AND 21ST STREET
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW CURB & GUTTER LF 380 $50 $19,000
3 CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 2050 $25 $51,250
4 CONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 4 $5,000 $20,000
5 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
6 INSTALL NEW SIGN AND FLASHING BEACON EA 1 $20,000 $20,000 7 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $125,000 $125,000 8 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $15,000 $15,000
9 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $8,000 $8,000 $283,250
$57,000
$85,000
GRAND TOTAL = $425,250

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B2 MONTEBELLO BLVD AND AVENIDA DE LA MERCED
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW MEDIAN CURB LF 700 $55 $38,500
3 CONSTRUCT NEW RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN SF 2400 $20 $48,000 4 RECONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 4 $12,000 $48,000
5 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $6,000 $6,000
6 INSTALL NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL @ TELEGRAPH ROAD @ I-5 OFF-RAMP LS 1 $200,000 $200,000 7 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $9,000 $9,000
8 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 $394,500
$60,000
$119,000
GRAND TOTAL = $573,500

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B3 TELEGRAPH ROAD & I-5 OFF RAMP
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (15%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $22,000 $22,000 2 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $4,500 $4,500
3 INSTALL FLASHING BEACON EA 1 $20,000 $20,000
4 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $140,000 $140,000 5 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $17,000 $17,000
6 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $9,000 $9,000 $212,500
$43,000
$64,000
GRAND TOTAL = $319,500

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B4 WHITTIER BLVD AND BLUFF ROAD
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 2 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $30,000 $30,000
3 MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LS 1 $120,000 $120,000 4 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $15,000 $15,000
5 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $8,000 $8,000 $193,000
$39,000
$58,000
GRAND TOTAL = $290,000

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B5 LINCOLN AVE AND HOWARD AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
11/22/2022

1 MOBILIZATION (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST) LS 1 $24,000 $24,000 2 CONSTRUCT NEW CURB & GUTTER LF 170 $60 $10,200
3 CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1070 $25 $26,750
4 CONSTRUCT NEW MEDIAN CURB LF 180 $55 $9,900
5 INSTALL NEW RRFB EA 2 $50,000 $100,000
6 STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS LS 1 $5,220 $5,220
7 RECONSTRUCT SPEED TABLE LS 1 $8,000 $8,000
8 CONSTRUCT ADA CURB RAMP EA 3 $6,000 $18,000
9 DRAINAGE ITEMS (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $9,000 $9,000
10 MINOR ITEMS (10% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $18,000 $18,000
11 TRAFFIC HANDLING (5% OF BID ITEMS) LS 1 $9,000 $9,000 $238,070
$48,000
$72,000
GRAND TOTAL = $358,070

MONTEBELLO SSAR CONCEPT ESTIMATE
B6 EULA DRIVE AND POPLAR AVE
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
DESIGN (20%) =
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
4/4/2023

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
APPENDIX L: BCR Calculation for HSIP Application

APPENDIX L

A1 Beverly Boulevard and Garfield Avenue

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Print Form
HSIP ANALYZER (for BCR Applications)
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation
for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in the HSIP Analyzer Manual. Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

This is a dynamic form (i.e. later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages appear, please fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" +Application ID asthe file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-01.pdf"). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form.

Section I: General Information
Application ID, Project Location and Project Description (copy from the HSIP Application Form):

Application ID:

Project Location: Beverly Boulevard and Garfield Avenue intersection in Montebello, California (limited to 250 characters)
Project Description:
(limited to 250 characters)
Number of Signalized Intersections: 1 Number of Non-signalized Intersections:
*Do not include the length of the intersections that have been Miles of Roadways*: accounted for in the number of intersections above.

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Functional Classification (FC):

Urban / Rural Area:

What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible? For California Road System (CRS)
maps to check the FC, click here.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph):

Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily? Multiple Challenge Areas may be checked. For example, if this project is for pedestrian safety at intersections, both "Intersections" and "Pedestrians" should be checked. For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.

Intersections Lane Departures Pedestrians Bicyclists
Emergency Response Emerging Technologies Work Zones Speed Management/ Aggressive Driving
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? Is the project focused primarily on “spot location(s)” or “systemic” improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project)? Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section II: Project Schedule
The local agency is expected to deliver the project per the HSIP Program Delivery requirements. Assuming the HSIP Cycle 11 projects selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2023, please enter your best estimated datesfor the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected forfunding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

Final PS&E Date:

CON Authorization Date:

Construction Contract Award Date:

Construction Completion Date:

Project Close-Out Date:

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section III. Safety Countermeasures, Crash Data and Project Benefit Calculation The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): "All" , "Night" , Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All" dataset.) Note: If a RoundaboutCM(S16 or NS04 or NS05) is selected, additional information (such asroundabout configuration andADT) is required.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.

SWITRS, TIMS

2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 1: Select safety countermeasures
Does this application include Signalized Intersections (SI)? Yes Does this application include Non-signalized Intersections (NS)? No Does this application include Roadway Segments (R)? No
* Normally a BCR application only includeslocations of one of the above 3 categories(SI, NS or R). Multiple categoriesmay be selected if the application proposes corridor safety improvements or uses a systemic approach, or the applicant chooses to bundle multiple locations in the same vicinity together.

Signalized Intersections (SI):

Click the check box in the 1st column to select up to 3 countermeasures.

Hide unselected countermeasures View all countermeasures Select No. Countermeasure Name
1 S01: Add intersection lighting (S.I.) (CRF=0.4 for Night crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 2 S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)
3 S03: Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=50%) 4 S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems (CRF=0.7 for Emergency vehicle crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 5 S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 6 S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 7 S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 8 S09: Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) (CRF=0.1 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 9 S10: Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 10 S11: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 11 S12: Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 12 S13PB: Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches (CRF=0.35 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 13 S14: Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 14 S15: Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 15 S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) (CRF varies for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 16 S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 17 S18PB: Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 18 S19PB: Pedestrian Scramble (CRF=0.4 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 19 S20PB: Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) (CRF=0.15 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 20 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (CRF=0.6 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 2: Click to generate table for project locations, enter the project locations and select countermeasures for each location. If any of the selections have been changed, you must re-click the below button to refresh.

Click to Generate Table for Project Locations Entry
CMs have been selected. Ok to proceed.
1 +/- Line Location
No.

Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description) Click to select
Countermeasures
Error Messages
(must resolve)
(Signalized Intersections)
S07 S12 S21PB
+
- SI_1 Beverly Blvd & Garfield Ave ● ● ●

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 3: Click to generate tables for crash data and provide crash data. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Generate Tables for Crash Data Entry
Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (MM/DD/YYYY): 01/01/2015 To (MM/DD/YYYY): 12/31/2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 5 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step 2.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 2 , the crash data types to be provided are:

Crash Data Table for Crash Type: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved (P&B) No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(P&B)
Severe Injury
(P&B)
OtherVisible
Injury (P&B)
Complaint
of Pain
(P&B)
PDO
(P&B) Total ID
1 SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Garfield
Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 0 1 0 0 0 1
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(ALL)
Severe
Injury (ALL)
OtherVisible
Injury (ALL)
Complaint
of Pain
(ALL)
PDO
(ALL) Total ID
1 SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Garfield
Ave 0 1 4 13 13 31
Total 0 1 4 13 13 31

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 4: Click to Calculate the project benefit. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Perform Benefit Calculation
Benefit Summary:

Benefit by Locations
Location No : Description [CM1] Benefit [CM2] Benefit [CM3] Benefit Total Benefit SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Garfield Ave $3,940,255 $3,283,546 $1,125,810 $8,349,611 Sum $3,940,255 $3,283,546 $1,125,810 $8,349,611
Benefit by Countermeasures
No. Countermeasure Benefit
1 S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) $3,940,255 2 S12: Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) $3,283,546 3 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $1,125,810
4 NA $0
5 NA $0
6 NA $0
7 NA $0
8 NA $0
9 NA $0
TOTAL $8,349,611

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section IV. Construction Cost Estimate and Cost Breakdown The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide a detailed engineer's estimate for construction items. The costs for other phases i.e. Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of Way (ROW), and Construction Engineering (CE) will be accounted for in the next section. o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR).

IV.1 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cost breakdown:

For each item, enter cost percentages for this project's safety countermeasures (CMs) and "Other Safety (OS)" respectively ( e.g. enter 10 for 10%). The percentage for "Non-safety (NS)" is then calculated. If an item is a general one (such as traffic control, mobilization, etc.), check the "General item" box and the cost breakdown is not needed. A general item will NOT be used in determining the project's overall percentages of countermeasures, other safety and non-safety costs.

No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
General Item?
(Click center
to check)
%
for CMs
% for
OS
% for
NS
+
- 1 Mobilization LS 1 $22000.00 22,000 0 % 0 % 0 %
+
- 2 Construct new Median Curb LF 800 $55.00 44,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 3 Construct New Raised Concrete
Median SF 1,130 $20.00 22,600 100 % % 0 %
+
- 4 Striping Improvements LS 1 $15000.00 15,000 0 % 100 % 0 % +
- 5 Modify Existing Traffic Signal LS 1 $85000.00 85,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 6 Reconstruct ADA Curb Ramp LS 1 $12000.00 12,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 7 Minor Items LS 1 $12000.00 12,000 0 % 100 % 0 %
+
- 8 Traffic Handling LS 1 $5000.00 5,000 0 % 0 % 0 %
Weighted Average (%)
Total ($) $217,600
86% 14%
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items:
(e.g. enter 10 for 10%)
Total Construction Cost(Con Items & Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
IV.2 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
Project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio = 90.0%
The project'sMaximumFunding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated fromtheleast of the FEs of the project's countermeasures and reduced if the non-safety cost percentage is in excess of 10%. See the HSIP Analyzer Manual for details. This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in "HSIP/Total(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate).
30 % $65,280
$282,900

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section V. Project Cost Estimate
All project costs, for all phases and by all funding sources, must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total (%)": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptionsshould be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.

Project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
(from Section I, rounded up to integer)
To set all "HSIP/Total(%)" in the below table
to the above maximum FRR, click "Set":

Set
Description Total Cost HISP/Total
(%) HSIP Funds Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $16,300 90 % $14,670 $1,630
PS&E $44,000 90 % $39,600 $4,400
Subtotal - PE $60,300 90 % $54,270 $6,030
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 90 % $0 $0
Appraisals,Acquisitions &
Utilities $0 90 % $0 $0
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $21,800 90 % $19,620 $2,180 Construction Items $282,900
(Read only - from Section I)
90 % $254,610 $28,290
Subtotal - Construction $304,700 90 % $274,230 $30,470
PROJECT TOTAL $365,000 90 % $328,500 $36,500
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0).

Interactive Warning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptionsin narrative question No 3 in the HSIP application form.
90 %

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

$365,000 $328,500 90%
$8,349,611 22.88
Section VI. Summary
Transfer the "Total Project Cost" , "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.

Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:

Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

A2 Maple Avenue and Whittier Boulevard

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Print Form
HSIP ANALYZER (for BCR Applications)
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation
for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in the HSIP Analyzer Manual. Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

This is a dynamic form (i.e. later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages appear, please fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" +Application ID asthe file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-01.pdf"). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form.

Section I: General Information
Application ID, Project Location and Project Description (copy from the HSIP Application Form):

Application ID:

Project Location: Whittier Boulevard and Maple Avenue intersection in Montebello, California (limited to 250 characters)
Project Description:
(limited to 250 characters)
Number of Signalized Intersections: 1 Number of Non-signalized Intersections:
*Do not include the length of the intersections that have been Miles of Roadways*: accounted for in the number of intersections above.

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Functional Classification (FC):

Urban / Rural Area:

What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible? For California Road System (CRS)
maps to check the FC, click here.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph):

Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily? Multiple Challenge Areas may be checked. For example, if this project is for pedestrian safety at intersections, both "Intersections" and "Pedestrians" should be checked. For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.

Intersections Lane Departures Pedestrians Bicyclists
Emergency Response Emerging Technologies Work Zones Speed Management/ Aggressive Driving
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? Is the project focused primarily on “spot location(s)” or “systemic” improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project)? Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section II: Project Schedule
The local agency is expected to deliver the project per the HSIP Program Delivery requirements. Assuming the HSIP Cycle 11 projects selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2023, please enter your best estimated datesfor the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected forfunding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

Final PS&E Date:

CON Authorization Date:

Construction Contract Award Date:

Construction Completion Date:

Project Close-Out Date:

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section III. Safety Countermeasures, Crash Data and Project Benefit Calculation The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): "All" , "Night" , Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All" dataset.) Note:If a RoundaboutCM(S16 orNS04 orNS05)isselected, additional information (such asroundaboutconfiguration andADT)isrequired.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.

SWITRS, TIMS

2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 1: Select safety countermeasures
Does this application include Signalized Intersections (SI)? Yes Does this application include Non-signalized Intersections (NS)? No Does this application include Roadway Segments (R)? No
* Normally a BCR application only includeslocations of one of the above 3 categories(SI, NS or R). Multiple categoriesmay be selected if the application proposes corridor safety improvements or uses a systemic approach, or the applicant chooses to bundle multiple locations in the same vicinity together.

Signalized Intersections (SI):

Click the check box in the 1st column to select up to 3 countermeasures.

Hide unselected countermeasures View all countermeasures Select No. Countermeasure Name
1 S01: Add intersection lighting (S.I.) (CRF=0.4 for Night crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 2 S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)
3 S03: Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=50%) 4 S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems (CRF=0.7 for Emergency vehicle crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 5 S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 6 S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 7 S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 8 S09: Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) (CRF=0.1 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 9 S10: Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 10 S11: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 11 S12: Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 12 S13PB: Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches (CRF=0.35 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 13 S14: Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 14 S15: Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 15 S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) (CRF varies for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 16 S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 17 S18PB: Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 18 S19PB: Pedestrian Scramble (CRF=0.4 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 19 S20PB: Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) (CRF=0.15 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 20 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (CRF=0.6 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 2: Click to generate table for project locations, enter the project locations and select countermeasures for each location. If any of the selections have been changed, you must re-click the below button to refresh.

Click to Generate Table for Project Locations Entry
CMs have been selected. Ok to proceed.
1 +/- Line Location
No.

Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description) Click to select
Countermeasures
Error Messages
(must resolve)
(Signalized Intersections)
S02 S17PB S21PB
+
- SI_1 Whittier Blvd & Maple Ave ● ● ●

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 3: Click to generate tables for crash data and provide crash data. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Generate Tables for Crash Data Entry
Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (MM/DD/YYYY): 01/01/2015 To (MM/DD/YYYY): 12/31/2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 5 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step 2.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 2 , the crash data types to be provided are:

Crash Data Table for Crash Type: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved (P&B) No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(P&B)
Severe Injury
(P&B)
OtherVisible
Injury (P&B)
Complaint
of Pain
(P&B)
PDO
(P&B) Total ID
1 SI_1:Whittier Blvd & Maple
Ave 0 0 2 3 1 6
Total 0 0 2 3 1 6
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(ALL)
Severe
Injury (ALL)
OtherVisible
Injury (ALL)
Complaint
of Pain
(ALL)
PDO
(ALL) Total ID
1 SI_1:Whittier Blvd & Maple
Ave 0 1 4 9 6 20
Total 0 1 4 9 6 20

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 4: Click to Calculate the project benefit. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Perform Benefit Calculation
Benefit Summary:

Benefit by Locations
Location No : Description [CM1] Benefit [CM2] Benefit [CM3] Benefit Total Benefit SI_1: Whittier Blvd & Maple Ave $1,000,231 $516,290 $510,217 $2,026,738 Sum $1,000,231 $516,290 $510,217 $2,026,738
Benefit by Countermeasures
No. Countermeasure Benefit
1 S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number $1,000,231 2 S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads $516,290 3 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $510,217
4 NA $0
5 NA $0
6 NA $0
7 NA $0
8 NA $0
9 NA $0
TOTAL $2,026,738

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section IV. Construction Cost Estimate and Cost Breakdown The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide a detailed engineer's estimate for construction items. The costs for other phases i.e. Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of Way (ROW), and Construction Engineering (CE) will be accounted for in the next section. o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR).

IV.1 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cost breakdown:

For each item, enter cost percentages for this project's safety countermeasures (CMs) and "Other Safety (OS)" respectively ( e.g. enter 10 for 10%). The percentage for "Non-safety (NS)" is then calculated. If an item is a general one (such as traffic control, mobilization, etc.), check the "General item" box and the cost breakdown is not needed. A general item will NOT be used in determining the project's overall percentages of countermeasures, other safety and non-safety costs.

No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
General Item?
(Click center
to check)
%
for CMs
% for
OS
% for
NS
+
- 1 Mobilization LS 1 $21000.00 21,000 0 % 0 % 0 %
+
- 2 Construct new Median Curb LF 130 $55.00 7,150 100 % % 0 % +
- 3 Reconstruct Median Stamped
Concrete SF 260 $15.00 3,900 100 % % 0 %
+
- 4 Striping Improvements LS 1 $6000.00 6,000 % 100 % 0 % +
- 5 Reconstruct ADA Curb Ramp EA 4 $12000.00 48,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 6 Modify Existing Traffic Signal LS 1 $90000.00 90,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 7 Minor Items LS 1 $17000.00 17,000 % 100 % 0 %
+
- 8 Traffic Handling LS 1 $9000.00 9,000 0 % 0 % 0 %
Weighted Average (%)
Total ($) $202,050
87% 13%
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items:
(e.g. enter 10 for 10%)
Total Construction Cost(Con Items & Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
IV.2 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
Project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio = 90.0%
The project'sMaximumFunding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated fromtheleast of the FEs of the project's countermeasures and reduced if the non-safety cost percentage is in excess of 10%. See the HSIP Analyzer Manual for details. This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in "HSIP/Total(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate).
30 % $60,615
$262,700

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section V. Project Cost Estimate
All project costs, for all phases and by all funding sources, must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total (%)": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptionsshould be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.

Project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
(from Section I, rounded up to integer)
To set all "HSIP/Total(%)" in the below table
to the above maximum FRR, click "Set":

Set
Description Total Cost HISP/Total
(%) HSIP Funds Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $14,300 90 % $12,870 $1,430
PS&E $21,000 90 % $18,900 $2,100
Subtotal - PE $35,300 90 % $31,770 $3,530
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 90 % $0 $0
Appraisals,Acquisitions &
Utilities $0 90 % $0 $0
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $20,300 90 % $18,270 $2,030 Construction Items $262,700
(Read only - from Section I)
90 % $236,430 $26,270
Subtotal - Construction $283,000 90 % $254,700 $28,300
PROJECT TOTAL $318,300 90 % $286,470 $31,830
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0).

Interactive Warning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptionsin narrative question No 3 in the HSIP application form.
90 %

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

$318,300 $286,470 90%
$2,026,738 6.37
Section VI. Summary
Transfer the "Total Project Cost" , "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.

Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:

Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

A3 Beverly Boulevard and Bradshawe Street

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Print Form
HSIP ANALYZER (for BCR Applications)
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation
for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in the HSIP Analyzer Manual. Completing the HSIP Analyzer without referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.

This is a dynamic form (i.e. later steps vary depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages appear, please fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.

Save this file using "HA" +Application ID asthe file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-01.pdf"). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last page of the HSIP Application Form.

Section I: General Information
Application ID, Project Location and Project Description (copy from the HSIP Application Form):

Application ID:

Project Location: Beverly Boulevard and Bradshawe Street intersection in Montebello, California (limited to 250 characters)
Project Description:
(limited to 250 characters)
Number of Signalized Intersections: 1 Number of Non-signalized Intersections:
*Do not include the length of the intersections that have been Miles of Roadways*: accounted for in the number of intersections above.

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Functional Classification (FC):

Urban / Rural Area:

What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible? For California Road System (CRS)
maps to check the FC, click here.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):

AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph):

Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily? Multiple Challenge Areas may be checked. For example, if this project is for pedestrian safety at intersections, both "Intersections" and "Pedestrians" should be checked. For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.

Intersections Lane Departures Pedestrians Bicyclists
Emergency Response Emerging Technologies Work Zones Speed Management/ Aggressive Driving
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified? California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? Is the project focused primarily on “spot location(s)” or “systemic” improvements? If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:

What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project)? Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section II: Project Schedule
The local agency is expected to deliver the project per the HSIP Program Delivery requirements. Assuming the HSIP Cycle 11 projects selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2023, please enter your best estimated datesfor the following implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.

Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase? Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected forfunding) will be displayed here.

PE Authorization Date:

Environmental Clearance Date:

Right of Way Clearance Date:

Final PS&E Date:

CON Authorization Date:

Construction Contract Award Date:

Construction Completion Date:

Project Close-Out Date:

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section III. Safety Countermeasures, Crash Data and Project Benefit Calculation The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures (CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.

Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): "All" , "Night" , Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All" dataset.) Note:If a RoundaboutCM(S16 orNS04 orNS05)isselected, additional information (such asroundaboutconfiguration andADT)isrequired.

For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.

1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.

SWITRS, TIMS

2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of these CMs are being proposed.

Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".

Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 1: Select safety countermeasures
Does this application include Signalized Intersections (SI)? Yes Does this application include Non-signalized Intersections (NS)? No Does this application include Roadway Segments (R)? No
* Normally a BCR application only includeslocations of one of the above 3 categories(SI, NS or R). Multiple categoriesmay be selected if the application proposes corridor safety improvements or uses a systemic approach, or the applicant chooses to bundle multiple locations in the same vicinity together.

Signalized Intersections (SI):

Click the check box in the 1st column to select up to 3 countermeasures.

Hide unselected countermeasures View all countermeasures Select No. Countermeasure Name
1 S01: Add intersection lighting (S.I.) (CRF=0.4 for Night crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 2 S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)
3 S03: Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) (CRF=0.15 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=50%) 4 S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems (CRF=0.7 for Emergency vehicle crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 5 S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 6 S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 7 S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 8 S09: Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) (CRF=0.1 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 9 S10: Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) (CRF=0.3 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 10 S11: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) (CRF=0.55 for All crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) 11 S12: Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 12 S13PB: Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches (CRF=0.35 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 13 S14: Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 14 S15: Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) (CRF=0.5 for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 15 S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) (CRF varies for All crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 16 S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 17 S18PB: Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) (CRF=0.25 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 18 S19PB: Pedestrian Scramble (CRF=0.4 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=20 yrs; FE=90%) 19 S20PB: Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) (CRF=0.15 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%) ✔ 20 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (CRF=0.6 for Ped & Bike crashes; Life=10 yrs; FE=90%)

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 2: Click to generate table for project locations, enter the project locations and select countermeasures for each location. If any of the selections have been changed, you must re-click the below button to refresh.

Click to Generate Table for Project Locations Entry
CMs have been selected. Ok to proceed.
1 +/- Line Location
No.

Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description) Click to select
Countermeasures
Error Messages
(must resolve)
(Signalized Intersections)
S08 S17PB S21PB
+
- SI_1 Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe St ● ● ●

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 3: Click to generate tables for crash data and provide crash data. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Generate Tables for Crash Data Entry
Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (MM/DD/YYYY): 01/01/2015 To (MM/DD/YYYY): 12/31/2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 5 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step 2.

Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 2 , the crash data types to be provided are:

Crash Data Table for Crash Type: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved (P&B) No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(P&B)
Severe Injury
(P&B)
OtherVisible
Injury (P&B)
Complaint
of Pain
(P&B)
PDO
(P&B) Total ID
1 SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe
St 0 1 2 1 0 4
Total 0 1 2 1 0 4
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
No. Location No : Description
(from Step 2)
Fatal
(ALL)
Severe
Injury (ALL)
OtherVisible
Injury (ALL)
Complaint
of Pain
(ALL)
PDO
(ALL) Total ID
1 SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe
St 0 1 4 9 3 17
Total 0 1 4 9 3 17

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Step 4: Click to Calculate the project benefit. If any changes have been made in the previous two steps, you must re-click to refresh.

Click to Perform Benefit Calculation
Benefit Summary:

Benefit by Locations
Location No : Description [CM1] Benefit [CM2] Benefit [CM3] Benefit Total Benefit SI_1: Beverly Blvd & Bradshawe St $3,947,281 $1,402,650 $1,520,292 $6,870,223 Sum $3,947,281 $1,402,650 $1,520,292 $6,870,223
Benefit by Countermeasures
No. Countermeasure Benefit
1 S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) $3,947,281 2 S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads $1,402,650 3 S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $1,520,292
4 NA $0
5 NA $0
6 NA $0
7 NA $0
8 NA $0
9 NA $0
TOTAL $6,870,223

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section IV. Construction Cost Estimate and Cost Breakdown The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide a detailed engineer's estimate for construction items. The costs for other phases i.e. Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of Way (ROW), and Construction Engineering (CE) will be accounted for in the next section. o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR).

IV.1 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:

Cost breakdown:

For each item, enter cost percentages for this project's safety countermeasures (CMs) and "Other Safety (OS)" respectively ( e.g. enter 10 for 10%). The percentage for "Non-safety (NS)" is then calculated. If an item is a general one (such as traffic control, mobilization, etc.), check the "General item" box and the cost breakdown is not needed. A general item will NOT be used in determining the project's overall percentages of countermeasures, other safety and non-safety costs.

No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
General Item?
(Click center
to check)
%
for CMs
% for
OS
% for
NS
+
- 1 Mobilization LS 1 $44000.00 44,000 0 % 0 % 0 %
+
- 2 Construct New Curb and Gutter LF 500 $60.00 30,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 3 Construct New Concrete Sidewalk SF 3,200 $25.00 80,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 4 Construct New Concrete Driveway SF 600 $35.00 21,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 5 Construct ADA Curb Ramp EA 4 $5000.00 20,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 6 Striping Improvements LS 1 $8200.00 8,200 % 100 % 0 % +
- 7 Modify Existing Median Nose EA 2 $800.00 1,600 100 % % 0 % +
- 8 Modify Existing Traffic Signal LS 1 110,000 110,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 9 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA 2 $15000.00 30,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 10 Relocate Bus Stop EA 2 $10000.00 20,000 100 % % 0 % +
- 11 Drainage Items LS 1 $28000.00 28,000 % 100 % 0 %
+
- 12 Minor Items LS 1 $28000.00 28,000 % 100 % 0 %
+
- 13 Traffic Handling LS 1 $14000.00 14,000 0 % 0 % 0 % Weighted Average (%)
Total ($) $434,800
83% 17%
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items:
(e.g. enter 10 for 10%)
Total Construction Cost(Con Items & Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
IV.2 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
Project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio = 90.0%
The project'sMaximumFunding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated fromtheleast of the FEs of the project's countermeasures and reduced if the non-safety cost percentage is in excess of 10%. See the HSIP Analyzer Manual for details. This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in "HSIP/Total(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate).
30 % $130,440
$565,300

Version Date:April HSIP Analyzer 2022

Section V. Project Cost Estimate
All project costs, for all phases and by all funding sources, must be accounted for on this form. i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. ii. "HSIP/Total (%)": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum. iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.

Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptionsshould be justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.

Project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
(from Section I, rounded up to integer)
To set all "HSIP/Total(%)" in the below table
to the above maximum FRR, click "Set":

Set
Description Total Cost HISP/Total
(%) HSIP Funds Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $63,900 90 % $57,510 $6,390
PS&E $66,000 90 % $59,400 $6,600
Subtotal - PE $129,900 90 % $116,910 $12,990
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 90 % $0 $0
Appraisals,Acquisitions &
Utilities $0 90 % $0 $0
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $43,500 90 % $39,150 $4,350 Construction Items $565,300
(Read only - from Section I)
90 % $508,770 $56,530
Subtotal - Construction $608,800 90 % $547,920 $60,880
PROJECT TOTAL $738,700 90 % $664,830 $73,870
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0).

Interactive Warning/Error Messages:

If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptionsin narrative question No 3 in the HSIP application form.
90 %